zlacker

>>haunte+(OP)
Funko's statement:

>At Funko, we hold a deep respect and appreciation for indie games, indie gamers, and indie developers. We’re fans of fans, and we love the creativity and passion that define the indie gaming community.

>Recently, one of our brand protection partners identified a page on http://itch.io imitating the Funko Fusion development website. A takedown request was issued to address this specific page. Funko did not request a takedown of the @itchio platform, and we’re happy the site was back up by this morning.

>We have reached out to @itchio to engage with them on this issue and we deeply appreciate the understanding of the gaming community as the details are determined. Thank you for sharing in our passion for creativity.

https://twitter.com/originalfunko/status/1866255848366039468

>>haunte+sb
So... why are they harassing the dude's mother?

>>loudan+xd
It's unlikely they are. It's probably brandshield AI-generated harassment calls saying they represent Funko.

>>hipade+5h
They, in fact, do represent Funko. If you give someone legal authorization to act as your agent, you can't pretend that they aren't your agent when they act like your agent.

Funko might have beef with their agent, but that is between them and the agent. They still have to deal with the fact that they gave someone permission to do legal things on their behalf, and the someone acting on behalf of Funko caused damage to itch.io.

If a McDonalds employee serves me coffee that scalds me, I go after McDonald's, not the guy who McDonald's hired.

>>dghlsa+ul
Funko says in the statement that they're dealing with it. They've reached out to itch.io to understand who's doing what, which isn't clear at this point. For example, the company itch.io previously identified as responsible for the domain being taken down has publicly stated - perhaps honestly, perhaps falsely - that they requested a takedown of only the one infringing URL. (https://x.com/BrandShieldltd/status/1866200019335794763)

>>SpicyL+Um
> For example, the company itch.io previously identified as responsible for the domain being taken down has publicly stated - perhaps honestly, perhaps falsely - that they requested a takedown of only the one infringing URL. (https://x.com/BrandShieldltd/status/1866200019335794763)

They submitted a takedown to the domain registrar. That means they requested a takedown of the whole domain, because the registrar has absolutely zero ability to operate on a URL level of granularity. They can only take down the entire domain.

There are three possibilities here:

1. BrandShield submitted a takedown to the domain registrar knowing exactly what that meant, and is now lying about it, demonstrating that they should not be put in a position of power.

2. BrandShield submitted a takedown to the domain registrar not understanding what that meant, demonstrating a total lack of knowledge and/or level of incompetence that means they should not be put in a position of power.

3. BrandShield did not submit the takedown to the domain registrar at all, some other vendor did, and somehow no one has pointed that out yet.

Obviously #3 is unlikely given their public statements, so let's just say at this point there is absolutely no reason to give BrandShield any benefit of the doubt and their clients should be encouraged to find a vendor that isn't either lying or incompetent.