Isn't it hard for Funny Junk to automatically give attribution if users upload images (say from their hard disk)? I'm wondering what would be ideal solution for proper attribution.

There is attribution in the images themselves, but someone is cropping them out. Someone is going out of their way to make sure he is not attributed.

let's take a guess who and why.. follow the money

Are you suggesting that FJ itself is doing the work of clipping out attribution from content their users upload? Huh.

I haven't visited FunnyJunk before, but from what I read the users gain reputation/karma or something similar (but not money) by posting original content that gets lots of upvotes/views.

So honest users are motivated to create something high-quality to upload. Dishonest users are motivated to remove attribution from someone else's high-quality work.

I don't think you can pin this part of the problem directly onto FJ (though that's where the site revenue goes).

"Follow the money" assumes there aren't other motivating factors.

actually 'follow the money' is a strategy based on finding the one who gained the most from the certain action, it doesn't have to be 'money' literally.

but yes, I was suggesting that FJ could also generate content by himself, because: 1) why not? 2) he didn't remove all oatmeal material 3) he got all agressive about the idea, I mean, what's the problem, if it was his user's work he could just remove it, take down the karma and that's it.

On one level, FJ doesn't need any 'technical' means for enforcing attribution. But they do need to expend the manpower to investigate reports of misattributed content, and to actually correct them (either changing the attribution or removal). I mean, this mechanism should exist anyways for dealing with 'internal' attribution disputes (some user reuploads another user's actual original content from FJ). Other user generated content sites (like deviantArt) have proecsses and mechanisms set up for this.

Maybe they could use Tineye, somehow?

hadn't thought of that.

Although, seeing as they are able to delete/ban all his content, you think they have a way of identifying it.

They deleted all content attributed to him - which is as simple as just searching for "The Oatmeal" - and then threw in a word filter to replace "The Oatmeal" with "The Fag". Not really the same thing as deleting or banning all his content, especially as he gave them a list of content which was still present (without attribution) which they did nothing about.

Perhaps there's a legal snag with giving attribution, being that, by giving attribution, they're also admitting they don't have any right to show the content and question, and shooting themselves in the foot legally down the road.