First a load of poop. Now this. Mineo better watch for the banana in the tailpipe trick next
Flo Karen getting aggressive
- Thread starter Chickenman Testa
- Start date
Can an itty bitty empire be an evil empire? Flo is trying to find out.
Mineo is a slimy piece of crap, IMO, well beyond his three strikes, as far as legitimate, correct, timely "newsbreaking" goes. Let Karen shut him down. He won't be missed.
Would be so 2020, that the poop, was sent by mineo to himself
He says he was able to call the poop-sending company with his lawyer, and learn the sender is in Austin, TX. I honestly thought it possible he sent it to himself as well.
Mineo's credibility is always suspect, so whether Flo actually reported him for the thing he claims resulted in the takedown or something else isn't something I automatically assume.
But assuming that he merely shared on FB a USA Wrestling tweet containing Flo's copyrighted work, it could easily be the case that USAW and Flo have an agreement that permits USAW to publish certain Flo-derived clips. In fact, since it's a USAW event, I'd be surprised if it wasn't explicit in their broadcast deal with Flo that USAW kept that right for themselves, since both parties benefit. Mineo obviously isn't party to that agreement.
That said, when USAW shares a clip on social media, it does seem implicit that re-sharing that clip is permitted, at least so long as the source is kept intact. That is, you couldn't download the clip itself and re-share it under your own name with your own caption. USAW's caption, their handle, etc., would need to be included. Perhaps that's the ball Mineo is hiding? No idea, he didn't provide a screenshot of exactly what he did post that got taken down.
But let's say it played out exactly as Mineo said. Isn't there an implied license to display content that can be retweeted by any user? Twitter's architecture would seem to suggest so, otherwise it's effectively enabling millions of infringements and infringers all the time. I believe Twitter's TOS account for this, or at least put users on notice to the degree that suing over a retweet would be laughable.
But Twitter's TOS can't necessarily account for what happens when it's content is shared outside its architecture, such as what (may have) happened here. There's a case in the Second Circuit right now questioning whether an infringing tweet can render a user liable even if the user is only embedding (i.e., the infringement is on a remote source).
Many platforms, including Rivals, adopt Twitter's API to allow tweets to display precisely as they do on Twitter. Notably, Facebook and Twitter don't get along in this way--if you paste a link of a video from Twitter onto Facebook, it won't play on Facebook, it just renders as a link that sends users to the source (Twitter).
So I'm left to wonder what exactly Mineo posted, because it seems like the sort of thing that wouldn't raise any red flags, if it was only a link with a photo still of the clip, as displayed on FB.
Of course, instead of whining, Mineo could just challenge the takedown, as FB explicitly allows, even as evidenced by the screenshot he provided. If it's bullshit and you successfully argue as much, FB will restore it and then it'd be up to Flo to challenge it. I've successfully challenged bad-faith takedowns before myself (not with FB but elsewhere), but I wouldn't offer Mineo such help given his lengthy history of bad faith.
Of course, Flo also has a history of bad faith and overly aggressive takedowns. Most users can't compete with a corporation, even a minor one like Flo, because the risk far outweighs the benefit of a single post. But if the scenario is precisely as Mineo describes, I can't imagine how Flo could litigate the case and not wind up sanctioned. I think they're just bullying him, but I also think Mineo may not be straight up in his description of events.
Last edited:
The thing that stands out to me: the pic in the Facebook notice is stand-alone, does not include the Twitter header or tweet text.
This implies that Mineo posted the pic without attribution -- which may or may not be legal, but passing off someone else's work as your own insider info is dishonest. (Mineo's Facebook page is member-only, not public, which means the default position is that it contains non-public info unless otherwise indicated.)
If that's what happened, then I don't have much sympathy.
This also reeks of a Flo third-party takedown.
In which case, to borrow Kissinger's quote about the Iran-Iraq War, it's a shame they can't both lose.
I noticed that too but it's tough to know precisely how much of the original post Facebook renders as its accompanying thumbnail in such a notice, perhaps they crop in. But I also noticed that the progression is further along than the first frame of the video. I test posted the Twitter link to Facebook to see exactly what FB would show, and it's the first frame. So I think Mineo likely extracted the video (which would leave Flo 100% in the right) but I don't say that with absolute certainty.
“Regardless of details, Mineo is guilty of PWM. Posting While Mineo.” — Flo Karen👩💼
Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking along the lines of paragraph #3 but you bring up great points about attribution and of course, Mineo's past history.
Similar threads
