Funko, BrandShield speak out about itch.io takedown
Funko, BrandShield speak out about itch.io takedown
Statement is from https://xcancel.com/OriginalFunko/status/1866255848366039468#m
From: https://xcancel.com/BrandShieldltd/status/1866161489528180988#m
Edit, bonus panel! What scum.
I'm just going to post this comment to this thread as well, since this is newer. Classic shifting of blame and no one taking responsibility for scummy actions.
Fun fact: Funko's current CEO is the ex-president of Wizards of the Coast!
Why is this relevant? Well, under her leadership, WotC sent pinkerton agents to someone's home to threaten them because they got some Magic the Gathering cards early. She said things like Dungeons & Dragons players were under-monetised, pushing to make the Table Top game more like a microtransaction-filled video game, and helped with the OGL scandal.
The OGL, for anyone unfamiliar, was an Open Gaming License WotC had for years with D&D 3rd party creators. It allowed certain things to be created using D&D mechanics and lore by anyone that followed its guidelines and allowances. A couple years ago, WotC tried to change that so they would make more money off of people trying to create things for D&D - to profit off of indie creators passionate about the game. There was a huge backlash, and they eventually went back on this decision.
All this to say, you can see what kind of leader the current Funko CEO is, and what's happening with itch isn't surprising to me.
That's quite telling, thanks for sharing.
Name the CEO. Image too, or wiki link.
Let's stop letting scummy people hide behind brands and companies.
Might as well add those details to your comment.
Cynthia Williams
We need to compile a list of shitty executives for boycotting purposes. No more "this company did a bad thing". No. We need exactly this, with "this is David Davidson, who led the enshittification of ABC, Inc"
It needs to be a document, a wiki, of exactly the shitty things those people did so that businesses will have monetary reasons to want to avoid shitty executives.
Let's help those poor, poor companies from being victimized by those awful greedy people. The poor things.
Peter Molyneux is going to require an entire volume bound in leather at this right
They requested a takedown before talking to the website owners? That's such a hostile move
DMCA used to be used very very rarely because it carries(carried?) significant penalties for using it like a club. Now it's just being used like a club and it's quite obvious there's no penalty.
So Funko issued a non-apology blaming Brandshield.
Brandshield issued a non-apology blaming the registrar (Iwantmyname), and saying their AI tool definitely had nothing to do with it
And Iwantmyname hasn't even put out a statement.
Fucked all around, yet it seems nobody will be facing consequence for this except Itch.io who got their website nuked out of nowhere.
Though if I were Itch, I'd get a new registrar ASAP.
I'd do a new registrar either way.
I've worked at hosting companies in the past. I don't know the timeline, but I've never encountered a situation where one folded this fast and just take down a client's site over a copyright claim.
And our clients, because of the nature of the internet being the internet, a small percentage were real scumbag folks, who while the content was objectionable and disgusting, it wasn't illegal. Which means it stayed up.
-
If there was something highly illegal like csam or dark web stuff and it came from a federal agency, we'd take down the site immediately.
-
If it was a strong letter from a legal entity that we trusted, we would pass that to the client and recommend remediation. No takedown unless there was a court order.
-
If it was a weak letter from a random legal entity, we lol'ed and wait for the threat of a lawsuit/court order. This was surprisingly extremely common.
So wtf is this registrar doing to shit on their clients so fast without a court order?
Yeah, if Iwantmyname are so neglectful as to pull the entire plug on your website over a singlular copyright claim, then I'd move right the fuck along too. They're clearly not a trustworthy registrar.
To make things worse, Itch.io isn't exactly a small company either. If this happened to someone smaller, with less outreach to fight back with than Itch, I can only imagine they'd have no recourse against this neglectful behaviour.
-
Well it's obvious that the registrar is to blame. Anyone can send emails requesting the takedown. The registrar shouldn't do it. Are Funko and Brandshield scummy? Yes, but they are not who took down itch, it was the registrar. Also Funko calling anyone's mother is fucked up.
The West and the US in particular keep inching closer to the ISPs having legal responsibility for not shutting stuff down in copyright cases.(link)
ISPs increasingly do not have a choice. They can nuke a customer or risk going to court and losing money.
tbf if all of this is true the registrar did do the most harm
The DNS provider (who is not necessarily also a registrar, but it's common that the registrar is also a provider) doesn't have any option to disable individual pages. They can only disable a whole subdomain or domain.
The server provider technically could, but it's much harder because the site is served on https, so they would most likely have to disable the whole server as well.
Not that the server provider was asked, it's just to illustrate that no one but the service owner (itch.io) can meaningfully block a single page. Asking the infrastructure providers is a dick move.
Edit: So the server provider was asked as well, but they're not as incompetent it seems. Also, instead of a copyright abuse, BrandShield falsely sent this as a fraud and phishing, which is another dick move.
So yeah, the DNS provider is incompetent, but BrandShield is the malicious actor here.
Don't be fair to them either.
Iwantmyname acted incompetently, but so did Brandshield, who decided to go straight to the nuclear option of a registrar takedown, rather than issuing a takedown request to Itch themselves
What I find really weird is I have a website, or had a website years ago, that someone issued a DMCA takedown to it, but it was totally fraudulent. The registrar sent me an email to say they had received the takedown request, had reviewed it, found it to be invalid, and we're taking no further action.
They didn't send me this email until after they'd already decided to ignore the report. Start to finish the whole thing took about 3 days. That was for some tiny irrelevant website that no one except me and a few users would have even cared if it had been taken down. Why didn't they do the same for a massive internationally well-known website?
You make a good point. Even disregarding how well known Itch is, their registrar acted woefully incompetently by not even attempting to contact Itch.io about the takedown request (which is what Brandshield should have done in the first place)
When no actual people are named no one has to take any responsibility.
Just keep saying nebulous ideas like a company be the problem and then everyone walks away.
Start blaming the people involved
There are lots of finger-pointing here. Funko said the takedown was done by their partner, BrandShield. BrandShield said it was a URL-specific (or is it subdomain?) takedown, not the whole domain. The registrar, Iwantmyname, responded said takedown by taking down the WHOLE domain.
I think Funko shouldn't have trusted AI to do legal-related stuff. BrandShield is a stupid idea born from the AI-hype. It's stupid and shouldn't have existed. Iwantmyname is just as incompetent if not more--they haven't even released any public statement about this. Their customer support are also slow to response apparently.
Itch.io should move domain registrar. Funko should stop using BrandShield, it only damages their brand more.
Also what's up with Funko calling someone's mom lol. that's stupid
I also think that this is why AI won't replace our jobs. I've seen many instances where technologies replaces jobs, but this ain't it
Also: brand shield says they only wanted the url gone but you don't get that when talking to the registrar. Registrar are all or nothing, so clearly they knew they were doing this
I think Iwantmyname may be the worst player in this story.
Everyone else kind of did what they were expected to do:
- Itch provides a platform for user generated content and took down some questionable content when asked.
- Funko is an IP based toy company and asked a tech company to protect their IP online
- BrandShield is a fucking cancer of a service that acted aggressively to protect its client's interests
But:
- Iwantmyname is meant to provide a domain name registration service,, it's a cutthroat industry where often times customer service is viewed as an unnecessary cost, but itch was their client and they should have been helping itch respond to the notice in a manner that allowed it to continue to exist. Instead they were willing to shut it down without any real dialog.
The rest might be decent business partners if you are looking for their kind of service but Iwantmyname isn't to be trusted.
While the registrar should have made more to understand the situation before acting, it's important to keep in mind that according to itch.io, the request was not a DMCA takedown but an accusation of "fraud and fishing". There's probably a very large legal exposure for a registrar to let criminal website use their service if they are made aware of it, so reducing their liability is probably their highest priority.
BrandShield is inexcusable for using such a claim as a first step.
Agree, though I would not use the word "decent" about BrandShield or Funko. Being harmfully lazy and immoral legally and according to contract is still harmfully lazy and immoral.
URL-specific and they go to the registrar? What can they do, they don't manage the hosting
The Idea to use AI to detect possible copyright infringements isnt even that bad. Its gets bad when you trust the AI to be able to tell things apart. If the alerts from the AI aren't reviewed by humans it is doomed to fail.
Well put, they can't just palm it off on the third party. You hired them and green lit the action.
I notice it doesn't include the word "sorry".
It's really just "this thing happened" and nothing else, as if they're reporting on events where they're just innocent bystanders. Instead of saying what they did, it's "hey, we didn't do [detail]".
Is it a legal liability thing to avoid using specific words? It's hard to imagine it being bad PR to "properly" apologize (at least compared to releasing a non-apology apology statement).
Yes, theoretically Itch could sue them for lost revenue. Brandshield should be very afraid of Funko getting sued since getting your client sued can't look good
I would imagine that admitting fault is a bad look when it comes to fighting the lawsuit that inevitably comes after. Hard to claim you're not liable when you've made a statement saying it's your fault.
In USA yes. In Canada we made a law about exempting "sorry" specifically, not even joking lol.
Why is it so hard just to say "this was not out intention, we recognize it was bad, and we are sorry."
There's a lot of words here for a non-apology.
Lawsuit liability.
Why do a decent thing when you have money on your side
Fuck Funko and fuck their shitty CEO.
Not worth thinking about any further. I wish itch.io the best in their lawsuit.
Fuck Funko Pops.
Fuck BrandShield.
I accuse them both of causing itch.io to go down and it is their fault.
Fuck all the corpo fucks involved here with their plausible deniability attempt. If you truly felt any remorse, you'd talk about how you'll disengage this AI chum service, or demand that requests are extremely precise or hyper targeted at specific direct issues. This story of blanket action helps the big company with monkey and always hurts the little guy that gets swept up in their ravenous wake.
Also, educate the next month of your online presence you boosting the brand you wronged with your reach. But you won't do shit, you aren't remorseful.
Personally I want to see the criminal shield removed for corporations. All C-Level executives become personally liable for any illegal actions, malfeasance, slander/liable, or injurious action perpetrated or instigated by the company with the ONLY defense being proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt (not just reasonable doubt) that an actor within or without the company caused the action with the express intent of harming the C-Level executives, either specific or generally.
Fuck corporate personhood. Fuck people making a LLC and doing whatever the fuck they want under the guise of the company then the company declares bankruptcy while they run off like a cartoon character with bags of money. Leadership liability and culpability should be the norm, not the exception.
"Funko did not request a takedown of the @itchio platform."
Man, I fucking hate corpo-speak like this.
Yes, you didn't personally make the request against itchio.... But you hired this company to enforce "brand protection" and that's what they did. So you did actually request the takedown, but you just did so by authorizing another party to make such requests on your behalf.
This is like a military General saying "hey I didn't commit any warcrimes, I just gave the orders to my men to commit warcrimes!"
Translation: "we didn't think this predatory behavior would affect our bottom line, and we deeply regret that it has."
It so so pisses me off when these companies say shit like "thank you for sharing in our passion for creativity"
It's basically saying "thank you for agreeing with us", which I don't.
At this point you just know that any company saying something like that is abusive, doesn't give a shit and just want to pretend to be respectable.
Corpo-speak in general is absolutely frustrating to read.
The best thing about rising up in the corporate world is the increased salary. But the worst thing is the fact that these idiots start talking to you like that in person.
We know we've caused itch and the game developers financial losses, but be assured that we have contacted them to offer our biggest, most sincere apologies.
Fuck them. Time to sue.
We HoLd A dEeP ReSpEcT...
Yeah hiring AI slop to take down websites with zero humanity oversight screams "respect."
It wouldn't be so bad if the AI engaged with a human at some point to confirm the action was both warranted and proportionate. Nope, apparently it's allowed to just do whatever the hell it wants, with literally zero oversight.
Corporations are trying to set the precedent that they can not be held responsible for what their AI does. If it required an employee action to follow through then there's a point of liability. Zero oversight isn't a bug of AI, it's a feature. It puts more distance between the people at the top and any liability or consequences they might face.
'Why I could not have known this software was wrong 90% of the time, I'm not a computer scientist. It's beside the point that all those mistakes AI from the company we contracted were in our favor. Regardless that's in the past, the new generation of Artificial Intelligence will correct those mistakes and will detect 10% more fraud. It's wonderful that we finally have a tool to combat the rampant fraud and bad actors that has taken over this country.'
A corpo bully pointing fingers at some AI slop they use, how convenient
Funko: We would like to apologise for being caught in the act, we will strive to better hide our asshole tactics next time, the person responsible for us getting caught has been reprimanded with 2 weeks paid time off.
$100 says they wouldn't have said shit even if this was a smaller platform than itch and people didn't basically put them on blast. Funko is just trying damage control now that their customers are calling foul. I seriously hope people stop buying these things as a punishment to this company using shitty AI and not actually apologizing, but I know thats wishful thinking.
I for one promise to never buy another Funko product. I never have, but I never will either.
Corporate doing corporate shit. And then asking why people hate corporations and their CEOs.
People used to think so highly of CEOs, that they must be doing something right if they got to where they are. They must be smarter and have all the answers.
Now people are realizing CEOs are just rich scumbags.
Yep, I'm sure most of them just bought their positions there to have power over society.
All the support to Itch.io's mom
AI to determine people's livelihoods, huh?
By the way, who's the Brandshield CEO? Asking for a friend.
Why do people buy those hunks of plastic shit anyway
2025: the REAL year of Luigi.
Translation
OhShitOhShitOhShitOhShitOhShitOhShitTheAIReallyFuckedUpPleaseDontSueUsOhShitOhShitOhShitOhShit
Notice there's no "sorry" in the translation
Where exactly was corporate council in all of this. Who on earth signed off on, "automatically taking potentially ligacious actions"?
Sorry, we fired the entire legal department and replaced them with the latest IBM AI model, Hal 9000.
Brand protection partners is a much friendlier way to say bloodsucking lawyers.
Some are useful. It's not uncommon for scammers to throw up copies of legitimate sites, but hosting malware etc. Having tried to deal with Google, GoDaddy-et-al I can attest that their fucks given about such things is minimal but one of these companies can get offending sites taken down pretty quick.
The problem is when they don't do due-diligence (and don't face reasonable consequences for failing in said diligence) and then shit like this happens
It would be a real shame if [email protected] (the domain registrar of brandshield.com) were to get a bunch of reports about scams and illegal activity found on the website. Bonus points for copying [email protected].
Oh, I'm here for it.
I’m very interested in what the offending page looked like. itch.io in the first reports seemed to suggest it was a false positive, without outright saying so. Both Funko and BrandShield are quiet about it, but between the lines you can infer they think the AI tool’s report was legitimate.
It looks like this is the one:
https://funkofusion.itch.io/funko-fusion
- It closely copies the branding of Funko Fusion by 10:10 Games.
- The title and account have been pulled.
Both match leafo's description:
[...] some person made a fan page for an existing Funko Pop video game (Funko Fusion), with links to the official site and screenshots of the game.
[...] I had removed the page and disabled the account.
Hey, so if BrandShield is being honest, what's Itch's registrar? What do they have to say? 🍿 This keeps getting deeper.
Why ask the registrar to take down a subdomain of a website?
Those subdomains are not managed or controlled by the registrar, so all the registrar can do is either take down the entire domain or ask their client to take down the subdomain. In this case they asked their client, who took down the subdomain, after which the registrar took down the domain anyhow :D
For a single isolated offence, Brandshield's first action should have been to report the copyright infringement to itch.io and ask for a takedown of that content, instead they went directly to the registrar and falsely claimed that itch.io was a fraud & phishing site. I suspect that they falsely claim that it's about phishing and fraud, because otherwise registrars will not take down the site unless there is systematic copyright infringement (like a torrent site). And I suspect that brandshield goes directly to the registrar with their complaint, since that is easier to automate than finding the right contact info on a website.
So my take is that: The registrar was in the wrong for taking down the domain after itch.io removed the problematic subdomain. Brandshield is scum. And Funko is in the wrong for using brandshield.
No real need for further answers from itch.io, nothing new has come to light.
Edit: while under the shower I realized that Brandshield's posts do contain some kind of news: Brandshield does not deny having used fraud & phishing as reason for the takedown request, thereby confirming that they did. Before we just had itch.io's retelling of the events, which might have been a misrepresentation by itch.io or due to a cock-up by the registrar, but because of the lack of denial by brandshield, we now have confirmation that it did happen like itch.io said.
Those subdomains are not managed or controlled by the registrar
I might be getting the terminology wrong, I've not had to work too closely with the specifics of subdomains in my career, lol. But you can definitely have
blah.itch.iopoints to a different IP thanitch.ioand that's done through DNS. So if they suspectedblah.itch.ioto be a phishing site imitating Funko's site, it makes sense that they'd report it to the people controlling that.And yeah, it looks like Itch does use sub domains for user pages instead of URL paths. https://xk.itch.io/ So if some user's page was trying to imitate Funk's site then I could see this line of thought. I'd need to see the page that was supposedly imitating and what it was imitating to really make a judgement call though.
The problem here is that's a weird response for them to go straight to the registrar.
If somebody posts copyrighted content on YouTube the offended party goes to YouTube don't ask the registrar to do anything. Contacting the registrar is the last resort not the first step.
If only we had a few more Luigi, these corpo-shit would think twice
They really like to show off how much power they have and how self defense is, indeed, justified.
They do and undo like there's no consequences whatsoever.
They always talk about how giving coverage leads to copycats. Typically that has meant me getting pissed at the over coverage of mass shootings, but now I'm sitting here waiting like... Okay? Any day now? Maybe not.
You just know that their "AI driven platform" is a call to google for the brand names they're "protecting" followed by takedown requests issued to the registered email followed by one to the registrar for every domain found.
We need a new internet because this one is fucked.
Where's Rache Bartmoss when you need em?
The fact that a legit website could be taken down just by a big corporation claim, without any further third party or gubernamental investigation. Is indeed frightening.
Nintendo people: First time?
Didn't they contacted the owners mom about this? Fucking disgusting practices.
Ive had companies call my mom over stuff because the last known contact information they found for me was from when I was still living with my parents. Literally years after I moved out.
The "A.I" excuse stuff reads like bullshit. The mom call might just be old information.
That buck just keeps on passing around, huh?
How much you want to bet that response was AI generated?
Seriously, the way it explains things and the repetition reek of ChatGPT