OK, there’s one or two things going on today lol. In-between me trying to keep the Gawker post updated while fixing lunch, William Usher broke a huge story on Anita Sarkeesian. I’d heard this was coming through the pipeline, but it’s even better than I thought. Let’s get down to business and explain it a little bit. 

Actually, maybe it’s best if I let Usher himself do the explaining:

Things kicked off originally when freelance artist Tammy Smith was notified by a female gamer designer who runs a blog that one of Tammy’s images was used without permission in a Tropes vs Women In Games video – the same videos that are written and produced by Jonathan McIntosh, who is a transmedia journalist and is a known advisor for the Silverstring Media firm.

Feminist Frequency responded to Tammy, sending an e-mail on March 6th, 2014, just two days after Tammy had sent them an e-mail back on March 4th. Their reply to Tammy stated…

“Our remixed collage is transformative in nature and as such constitutes a fair use of any copyrighted material as provided for under section 107 of the US Copyright law. The fair use doctrine allows for re-use and transformation for purposes of commentary, criticism and education without the permission of the copyright holder.

“Furthermore all Feminist Frequency projects are non-profit and made available for free to everyone online. No advertising ever appears on the Feminist Frequency website or videos.“

Tammy was not satisfied with this result and further requested for Feminist Frequency to prove that they were a charity organization.

However, interestingly enough instead of proving that Feminist Frequency is a charity organization, the topic of lawyers entered the discussion. On March 7th, 2014 a message was sent to Tammy that you can read in full below:R3rsPiuThe article goes on to show that Feminist Frequency is in fact setup as a non-profit, but they decided to drag this woman along for a ride nonetheless. Instead of actually proving their status, they simply removed the work and put up a misleading blog post. This is par for the course. I wouldn’t have expected anything less from these cretinous scammers. The State of California may consider you a non-profit, but I know better. This whole operation is just around so you two loser will be able to siphon money off SJW idiots for decades to come.

I can’t say I feel sorry for the idiots who donate to you, though. A fool and his money will soon be parted anyway. I do think this should be looked into even more, though, since according to some, they were required by law to prove that non-profit status to the woman who inquired:


We’ll see what happens.

  1. Don’t mean to be a spoilsport but this has been known since the start of GO. I’m certain I read this in the ED thread or was at least directed to this from it.

    1. It’s been known about since before GamerGate, but Oliver & Usher tracked down sources, confirmed what happened, and put together exactly how illegal it is.

  2. Uh… Ralph, sorry to be the “naysayer” guy, but so far, as shitty and long winded as the answers were, it only shows the documents were right.

    For good or ill, on this one they’re clean. (Loads and loads of dirt in other areas, i never said otherwise)

    1. I just read the article, going through the trove seems like a lot of effort to spend on this issue.

      Reading Sark’s thesis was enough effort to determine she was an ideologue and academically lazy. That’s all I needed.

      If she’s breaking the law, the IRS is gonna get her eventually, tax lawyers are not typically SJWs.

      1. Exactly.

        Even if she’s doing something greasy (possible), she is less likely to be audited because she has professionals on the job.

        I don’t think she is stupid, just academically lazy and disingenuous.

      2. She’s in no way stupid. In fact she ingeniously used an idiotic notion that “Games cause X” and made herself a ton of money with nothing more than Jack Thompson tactics coupled with false promises and a Patreon.

        She’s quite cunning, but quite an awful person.

    2. Tammy Smith demanded the documents proving FemFreq’s charity status, FemFreq didn’t show them.

      That’s a violation of the rules for charities, penalty is $10,000 plus $20/day until they show the docs.

      They never did, and this was back in March 2014.

      So that fine is currently headed directly to the $20,000 mark.

        1. She doesn’t need a lawyer, she just needs to report them to the IRS.

          Because it’s the IRS’s rules FemFreq violated.

    3. My thoughts exactly, Sarkeesian should not have delayed or used the fan art in the first place, but the whole thing feels like she did it deliberately just to lead her opponents on a merry chase. Officially you can be fined, but enforcement is another thing. Also, The IRS has seen it’s budget cut in the last few years, so….

    1. From the financials that I’ve seen (reported by FemFreak themselves if I recall corectly) they gave themselves a hefty pay raise this year as well.

      Makes you wonder how much $ a non-profit can legally pay it’s “administrative” staff.

    1. The Joker said it best: “I’m crazy enough to take on Batman, but the IRS? No thank you!”

    2. At this point an almost $20,000 fine ($10k for not proving, plus $20/day until they do).

  3. “Ambassador, someone from the community has found that you’ve used their creation without their permission. Do we ask permission or do we take it down and offer an apology?”

    “No, get the lawyers…”

  4. Hmm… I don’t live in CA. but dosn’t the IRS handle stuff like this? Should we get them to breathe down the two con artists necks?

  5. I’m on a tablet right now, so I can’t navigate GuideStar, but if FemFreq is a properly registered nonprofit, there damn well better be Form 990s in that database showing all their financials, including line items of how the money is spent, and the salaries of anyone employed by the nonprofit, which would include Sarkeesian. If those numbers don’t match the donation numbers, all it takes is a complaint to the IRS to prompt them to look at how the “charity” is managed. Filing Form 990s and making them publicly available is not optional, it is mandatory.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *