A writer was recently surprised to find that a piece she’d written about apple pies for a website in 2005 had been picked up wholesale by a small cooking magazine without anyone telling her. She was even more surprised by the reaction she received from one of the mag’s editors.
The woman says she contacted the magazine, where an editor asked her what she wanted from them. She asked for an apology on Facebook, a printed apology in the magazine and $130 donation to the Columbia School of Journalism.
Instead, the writer says she got this e-mail in response:
Yes Monica, I have been doing this for 3 decades, having been an editor at The Voice, Housitonic Home and Connecticut Woman Magazine. I do know about copyright laws. It was “my bad” indeed, and, as the magazine is put together in long sessions, tired eyes and minds somethings forget to do these things.
But honestly Monica, the web is considered “public domain” and you should be happy we just didn’t “lift” your whole article and put someone else’s name on it! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally. Now it will work well for your portfolio. For that reason, I have a bit of a difficult time with your requests for monetary gain, albeit for such a fine (and very wealthy!) institution. We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me! I never charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written pieces, and have many who write for me… ALWAYS for free!
Here is a link to the original story and here is a scan of the story as it appeared in the magazine so you can judge as to who — if anyone — should be paying whom.
Copyright Infringement and Me [Livejournal]
Thanks to Eric for the tip!
More From Consumerist
-
US Postal Service Ships Cover, Forgets My Magazine
-
Redbook Ticks Off Internet After Copying Blogger’s Idea
-
Netflix: Actually, We Mailed Reader Three Different DVDs, And They All Broke
-
I Used To Work At GameStop, Now I'm Never Shopping There Again
-
Print & E-Book Copies Of Bestseller Pulled After Author Admits To Making Up Bob Dylan Quotes
I feel a song coming on:
We’re having a hatewave
An Internet hatewave….
…the bile is rising,
it isn’t surprising,
the editor can’t write right…
She catches them redhanded and offers to let them off the hook for $130 and they decline? Smart …
I’m really not seeing any substantial editing improvements. Certainly nothing I would pay for.
I once caught one of my (former) writers lifting content from other sites. I assure you that I did not consider the material to be “public domain”.
Respond by telling her you are saddened by their response and have forwarded it to counsil. Ask who would be representing them so your lawyers will know who to get in touch with. That should get a different response.
Heck, even send her a link to this web site.
People seem to confuse domains that happen to be accessible to the public with, you know, “public domain.” I suggest this editor retain the services of competent legal counsel to learn the difference.
Perhaps that’s where she’s been today while the internets have been exploding all over her Facebook page.
Speaking of poorly edited, have you SEEN the “design” of this magazine. I don’t know why they hate my eyes so much but they’re making them bleed. It’s put together by amateurs possibly using microsoft publisher, a mish-mash of ugly fonts and colors not seen since the 80′s.
“put together in long sessions, tired eyes and minds somethings forget to do these things”
They forgot to request permission? Or they forgot to create an article and instead went to the web and stole one. I wonder how many other “articles” in this magazine come from sources on the web.
That is an incredibly obnoxious response.
I have written a letter for a client similar to Monica’s tone. The response that I received was cordial and apologetic. The situation was resolved amicably and almost immediately.
Apparently, the plagierist is not familiar with the copyright law, at least not this part:
“In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.”
Sounds like they are accustomed to stealing other people’s works, and they are dismissing this person for discovering it. I wonder how many others sat by quietly, without a public voice, as their works were profited on by this magazine.
Holy… shit. This editor and her magazine are in severe need of an Internet wedgie.
Well, that was fun at first but now, esp. on Facebook, is bordering on cyber-bullying. I hope it doesn’t push Judith over the edge.
I agree…looks like someone posted the editor’s home address on the magazine’s Facebook discussion page. It’s been removed, but still, that’s never appropriate.
IANAL, but I’m pretty sure that if she didn’t register the article with the copyright office within three months of writing it, she’d only be able to sue for actual (as opposed to statutory) damages.
IANAL, but I’m pretty sure that if she didn’t register the article with the copyright office within three months of writing it, she’d only be able to sue for actual (as opposed to statutory) damages.
good call: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#412
You don’t need to officially register your copyright to protect it, IIRC.
Her newest update:
Hi Folks!
Well, here I am with egg on my face! I did apologise to Monica via email, but aparently it wasnt enough for her, so she can go to hell. To all of you, thank you for your interest in Cooks Source and Again, to Monica, you’re a poor writer and I did you a favor! You did find a way to get your “pound of flesh…” we used to have 3 “friends,” we now have 50… wow!
Best to all, Judith
What’s the first rule when you find yourself in a hole??
Stop digging?
Clearly this creature has confused ‘friends’ with ‘frenemies’.
It would be interesting to go through all their recipes to see if you can find prior versions of them on the web. Cluster a bunch of annoyed writers together for more financial impact. Go for class action status. Hopefully, a few homes, cars, etc. will end up on the auction block to pay for damages.
/end dream
Oh, Judith, you really need more than an “egg on your face”, how about a fist or two? I hope Monica sues Judith’s mom- jean pants off and her writing is picked up and compensated by a more reputable source. The attitude of this editor is appalling- I have this vision of her being a washed up, ex- cheerleading overprotective mom. God, I hope I’m right.
It’s a copyright issue.
She should sue the bastards, and then donate the proceeds to said school.
hmmm… I would sue now, they admitted using her story and even admitted its a mess up they did not get permission, what she asking for is very small compare to what she would win in court.
Does Cooks Source have a website? I’d say it’s time for a DMCA takedown notice…
The internet is certainly not public domain. But I think the editor Judith there is getting a fast lesson on what the internet is certainly capable of.
Damn…I just blasted the RIAA for excessive damages in another story; now I read this.
Even if the author is able to prove it was plagerized and posted by this douchebag (unlike the RIAA Nazis), the laws of reality state:
* It’s doubtful any attorney will take this on a contingency fee. The author will likely have to cough up at least a few thousand bucks for the initial legal fees alone.
* The plagerist is a hack – not a major corporation. Even if a lawsuit verdict generates a million dollar judgement, it is unlikely she’ll actually collect any – whatever she does collect will be held by her attorney until the legal fees are paid off.
When I was in high school around 1980, I wrote a humor piece in the school newspaper. Mommie Dearest, without my knowledge or permission, sent a copy to a columnist at the newspaper. He reprinted it (I got credit for writing his colum that day but not a dime in payment). To top it all off, three months later TV Guide did a thinly-veiled rewrite with the same title. I know how it feels to take it up the ass on a copyright issue.
Alas, you’re correct. No attorney is going to bother with this unless it can be established that Ms. Griggs is “collectable” (i.e., that she has assets to seize) and that the copyright was registered. While the infringement is dispicable, it’s going to be hard to show actual damages. However, I’d be surprised if Griggs didn’t get quite a few cease and desist orders from various sites she’s stolen from.
If she wants revenge, her best bet (hypothetically, of course
) would be to find a neighborhood teen hacker. In exchange for a copy of the latest, hottest kill-em-off online PC game, the kid could “accidentally” enter (hack) the plagerist’s site using a disguied IP address.
Like they say in the Mafia, things happen: DDNS attacks can occur that shut the site down. Viruses and malware get into servers every day. X-Rated and racist comments sometimes seem to appear from nowhere.
You get the idea. (g)
Looks like she is getting more notice:
http://www.edrants.com/the-cooks-source-scandal-how-a-magazine-profits-on-theft/
For that kind of attitude, that editor deserves a court date opposite the RIAA’s lawyers, aka Defenders of Copyright.
The trolling of the Facebook page is hilarious! And juvenile! And hilarious!
It’s official. She’s lost her mind. From her personal facebook page:
“Why are all these people so mad at me? I was just helping that silly girl, and I get treated like this?!?”
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001776440141&v=wall
Wow. Talk about being without a clue…
Actually that looks to be a rtoll page. If so kudos, getting a lot of bites.
Note how that Facebook profile only came into existence today… it’s a fake one that someone set up to troll the Cooks Source FB page.
But is the apple pie recipe any good?
Maybe if somebody takes the time to identify all of the plagiarized content (easy to do by Googling a small phrase of each article) and sends the info to all the people stolen from, along with a pre-filled-in DMCA notice that all they have to do is send to the site’s ISP, they can get the entire site taken down.
Oh, and maybe someone should also contact all of the advertisers and tell them that they are supporting a site with stolen content that is under legal review and it’s probably best not to be associated with such scum
Judith reminds me of a certian family member who was a whole lot easier to take once medicated…
There is now a news article in the local paper of the woman who stole that (and apparently many other) articles.
http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/11/05/food-mag-use-has-blogger-boiling-mad
I posted in rage about this yesterday, but as the situation continued to grow poor for Cooks Source, I began to ponder some things.
There are lots of people ready and willing to explain the workings of copyright to this magazine editor. Everyone’s so knowledgeable it seems. I think that’s all well and good, but it really made me wonder, how many of these same people will talk about abolishing copyright and how it’s terrible in general.
When we see court cases where copyright holders are suing the living piss out consumers, we are on a very different side of this argument. With all of these posts and comments directed at Cooks Source, I think we’re doing an excellent job of filling those shoes, and acting as the RIAA in this scenario. The internet has the tendency to amass into this large snowball effect of posters harassing people and making a big fucking deal out of something that would never see that much publicity on it’s own. If we’re tarnishing this person’s name and making new routes in publications difficult for this person, then we aren’t doing anything different than suing them for some ungodly amount of money. That’s my two cents
Who has posted against this person but also went home and downloaded a CD or a movie last night? I sure didn’t, but I know that I have before, with the thought that copyright was about greed and not about the consumer. That would make it wrong for me to say anything to this lady about her understanding of copyright.
Was it wrong? YES. Have we shown the level of respect to copyright which you are asking of this woman? I don’t think so–not most of us at least.
There are a few things consider.
The magazine did do this for financial gain. The downloading of a song, while still copyright infringement, normally isn’t for financial gain.
Copyright isn’t inherently bad. Stupid application of copyright is bad. The fines are out of proportion of the crimes committed. (Insert obligatory reference to Libertarian thoughts on the drug war).
Copyright beyond for years and years (and years and years and years) and given to corporations or estates is a different beast to a 3 or 7 year copyright held by the creator of a work. Individuals should be able to profit from their works, but perpetual copyright (and I’m sorry, 90-120 years working towards that quickly) is insane. A running joke I’ve heard is copyright will be extended when Mikey could be lost to public domain.
There is a reason that patents run out, copyright should be no different.
I think there’s a lot of room for discussion on copyright. Some people may be calling for its complete abolishment but that’s a pretty small minority. There’s a large difference between downloading a CD and running a business that appears to make its living off plagiarizing other people’s work.
Ms. Griggs has hit a nerve with her unrepentant and condescending reply combined with her own cynical overreach on copyright (her outgoing email apparently gets one of those “you can’t copy me” notes attached to it). It’s the same kind of attitude that the RIAA shows with their abuse of artists on the one hand and their overreach on copyright protections on the other. Unfortunately for her she is small enough to actually get hurt by the backlash.
I just visited their FB site and I am amazed… the public outpouring against Judith for her fax pas on this.
I am not sure whether to feel bad for her or to say she is getting what she deserves.
Copyright’s right there at the bottom of the page. Take ‘em to court.
I see they have been stealing copy and photos for a long time, even from Food Network!
http://www.edrants.com/the-cooks-source-scandal-how-a-magazine-profits-on-theft/
Would you believe this editor actually posted this on Cooks Source Facebook page yesterday…
“Hi Folks!
Well, here I am with egg on my face! I did apologise to Monica via email, but aparently it wasnt enough for her. To all of you, thank you for your interest in Cooks Source and Again, to Monica, I am sorry — my bad!
You did find a way to get your “pound of flesh…” we used to have 110 “friends,” we now have 1,870… wow!
Best to all, Judith”
She seems to think “my bad” will stop the 50 copyright lawsuits from being filed.
I’m glad to see this story is going virual across the Internet. This may actually end up turning the Cook’s Source into the latest victim of an RIAA-size judgement.
The simmer of one plagerized article has boiled over into several. Hopefully the stench of this will draw one or more attorneys into the kitchen who are willing to file a class-action suit on behalf of all the victims, either on contingency or pro bono (no charge).
Even if douchebag Griggs lives in a mobile home that’s in foreclosure, it can be worth it for an up-and-coming attorney or law firm to take a high-profile case strictly for the publicity. If they win against Griggs (which looks like a slam-dunk at this point), their odds of picking up one or more clients with intellectual property issues and deep pockets increase greatly. The ultimate example of this is the late Johnnie Cochran. After the successful “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must aquit” defense of OJ Simpson, he spun his fame into The Cochran Law Firm, a nationwide franchise that has become the legal big-box equal of McDonald’s or Target.
Oh, and if I were the company hosting Ms. Griggs’ web site, I would be looking for a way to drop her like a hot rock as we speak. Even if I wasn’t liable for her actions, the cost of responding to subpoenas, depositions and other legal shit due to her behavior could easily cost thousands of dollars.
The arrogance shown by Ms. Griggs is amazing! However, given the fact that so much of the magazine appears stolen from other media, perhaps none of us should be surprised that she has finally been outed.
By spending less than 20 minutes doing some online research, I was able to identify at least five different instances in which Cooks Source lifted material from other sources. The magazine stole from both single contributers and other magazines such as Cooking Light and even the Food Network. They lifted images and narrative directly from both online and print media. BTW: this Judith Griggs is the magazine. She writes (or steals) narrative and then posts this under her own byline. She appears to be, not only the editor, but possibly the entire staff behind the throw-away Cooks Source.
The arrogance shown by Ms. Griggs is amazing! However, given the fact that so much of the magazine appears stolen from other media, perhaps none of us should be surprised that she has finally been outed.
By spending less than 20 minutes doing some online research, I was able to identify at least five different instances in which Cooks Source lifted material from other sources. The magazine stole from both single contributers and other magazines such as Cooking Light and even the Food Network. They lifted images and narrative directly from both online and print media. BTW: this Judith Griggs is the magazine. She writes (or steals) narrative and then posts this under her own byline. She appears to be, not only the editor, but possibly the entire staff behind the throw-away Cooks Source.
I’d get myself a lawyer, if I were her.
btw: “you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally,” is poorly constructed, poorly written and that editor needs to get a job at the quickie mart where someone might possibly understand whatever it is they’re attempting to say.
So now the web is public domain? Then that means the RIAA and MPAA should be paying ME for torrenting? There should be limits to human stupidity.