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
-
Redbook Ticks Off Internet After Copying Blogger’s Idea
-
I Used To Work At GameStop, Now I'm Never Shopping There Again
-
Newsweek To Stop Printing Magazines And Be Reborn As Digital-Only Newsweek Global
-
Chase Sends Customer’s Entire Payment History & Personal Info To Complete Stranger
-
Neither L.A. Fitness Nor American Express Care That Customer Was Overcharged Hundreds Of Dollars
The web is most assuredly *not* public domain.
It is if you’re from the eBaum’s World school of Journalism.
Not really worth it…what would be the damages? In fact, the website that originally commissioned the article may hold the rights anyway.
$250,000+. You forgot statutory damages.
I think the magazine is trying to apply the following:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
102. Subject matter of copyright: In general28
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
It might be the editor is referring to the (b) paragraph above. While badly stated in her reply (ie, works of authorship on the internet are not public domain), she might actually be referring to the paragraph described in (b). Recipes are not copyrightable. The real question is to what degree the articles they grab are only recipes. Given some of the other examples being found, the magazine is not sticking with the legally defensible, but ethically questionable action of stealing this girl’s article, but they have also grabbed full articles which clearly represent the legal definition of works of authorship. (Legally defensible is just that they would need a legal ruling as to how to classify this specific article. The article about fats they also snagged is clearly a work of authorship. Given a pattern of abuse, they really should lose a lawsuit).
Yes, you’re right – recipes can’t be copywritten. But there’s more to the stolen piece than a recipe, and as I read other stories about this (and as you mention) the magazine has ripped off a number of other non-recipe items.
If this editor really is thinking about the recipe angle and in so doing has let that concept morph into “everything that has to do with food”, she’s a) wrong, b) a terrible editor and c) not very smart at all.
Well, the fact of the matter is that she stated that web published articles are public domain and has published articles that are strictly informational with no recipes… She clearly believes what she stated.
(I also agree this girl’s article is covered by copyright, but I will also concede that that is a judgement call and someone else might make a different call. If it were just this single article, I would think it was a basic misunderstanding or not a pattern.)
While an actual recipe (i.e. the ingredients, proportions, and technique) is not copyright-able, the specific verbiage is. In this case, not only was the recipe lifted from the original author, but her entire article including the text before the recipes. This editor is toast…
/agree, sue this punk
“The real question is to what degree the articles they grab are only recipes.”
The links above sporadically go in and out, but Cooks Source took the blog post almost word-for-word. Not just the recipe, but 3 paragraphs of exposition about the history of pie.
The web is public domain? SWEET!
*scurries off to download music*
+1
CooksSource is a bad apple.
I see what you did there…
Nice, I’m going to steal that…and not give you any credit.
lowers glasses…YEEEAHHHHH!
“the web is considered “public domain”?
Free movies, music, books, articles, etc for everyone! I love the web!
It made front page of reddit a few hours ago. Check out their facebook page : http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Cooks-Source-Magazine/196994196748
Wow, there is some serious hate going on there. Some were decent… others were clearly 18 year old internet trolls doing what they do best but who clearly have no stake in the matter.
I wonder what the follow-up to this will be.
Oh man, that’s crazy. They’re still going at it.
the More I read Reddit, the more I notice consumerist is just posting the things they already have.
Looks like rather than deal with the internet rage, they just created a new Facebook page. I only noticed when a friend “liked” them genuinely.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cooks-Source-Magazine/130323077022302
30 years experience doesn’t fix dumb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gxKStPXyn8
Oh my god, check this out
“Addy Partment
Thanks to all you haters out there! Your visits to this page and the Web site the have allowed advertising rates to triple!
Hahahaha. Also, don’t forget to order your Cooks Source 2011 Wall Calendar before it’s too late.”
Someone needs to go to hell
Is that from Twitter? Because the Cooks Source Twitter page is a fake.
FB
It looks like Addy has no connection to Cooks Source, though. It’s not like one of the editors is responding, just some random troll. I’m not trying to defend Cooks Source or anything, I just think there’s more than enough of their own shit to bury them with without trolls trying to add more.
But I’m a boy who loves trolls. Please moar trollin’.
Really?
Addy Partment might have been fake?
What was your first clue? Because mine was the name.
Protip: You should also ignore anything written by Hugh G. Rection.
Wooooooooosh. Addy’s account was opened about 45 min ago.
I think they might be in for a denial-of-service attack, if you ask me.
Apparently you got your wish: http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20021862-245.html
“Intuit’s Web-hosting service for small businesses remained inaccessible for several hours today–possibly due to a denial-of-service attack, a customer service representative told CNET… In an interesting side note, one of the sites hosted by Intuit that remained inaccessible, Cooks Source, had been embroiled in a public dispute…”
Anonymous to the rescue, please?
HEY 4CHAN!!!!
4Chan is not your personal army.
Why do people do this? It’s dumb.
Post something on a ficticious blog.
Copy your own blog article into your real magazine
Send your self polite letter calling yourself on your baggery
Send your polite self an impolite response
Send Consumerist the dialog.
Let Consumerist incite outrage, driving page hits, driving advertising rates.
Profit!!!
Wow, just wow.
I guess I can cancel my $2500-a-year subscription to Thinkstock and just start downloading imagery I need from google. What a deal.
Sue. That email will make a fine exhibit.
I know. If I were the OP’s lawyer I would be doing an embarassing happy dance in full view of the entire office.
Well, that sounds like it could be construed as willful infringement of copyright. Here’s hoping to up to $150,000 per infringement. Heck, if its good enough for the RIAA, it should be good enough for joe shmoe!
Agreed. A good copyright lawyer would be absolutely ECSTATIC to see that sort of hubris from the offender.
The guy sounds like a phallus. I feel she is asking for very little in compensation and being very fair about the ordeal. I would take legal action if I were her.
From the tone and from the work history the editor sited. I have $50 that says it isn’t a guy.
I’m tired.
Yeah, I assumed it was a woman from how catty it was.
It’s times like these that make me wish I was a lawyer so I can bring about some pro-bono justice for the little guy [gal].
It turns out that Cooks Source may have lifted from lots of other people, many of whom who breed their own attack lawyers,), so justice is imminent.
Wowz. Yes, she should be happy to be edited by a publication that not only leaves out the apostrophe in their title, misspells “offence” in their “apology” letter and also misspells “they’re” in the advertisement in the scanned page. Good Job Cooks [sic] Source!
British people (and Canadians, I believe) spell it “offence” (likewise with “defence”) so it isn’t incorrect if that person is from a country that spells things in that manner.
Based on the phone number posted on the fb page, they are located in Western Mass. Last time I checked, they used American English there. And! don’t have funny accents.
Depends on your standard for funny accents, I’d imagine… =)
You are aware that people can immigrate, right? I was pointing out that the person could be from a different country. It doesn’t mean you can’t live in Massachusetts.
defend, defend, defend…you must be a lawyer, i can smell it. Especially, because you have no logic. There are spelling and grammatical errors throughout the editor’s reply and you think this misspelling (offence) is due to the writer’s country of origin? you’re an argumentative trolling lawyer..
I apologize for the “lawyer” insult…that was a little over the top.
oh yea, also ignore “as the magazine is put together in long sessions, tired eyes and minds somethings forget to do these things.” Or would you like to argue that only occurs when the “magazine is put together in long hours” and can be totally disregarded when applied to email responces?? (misspelling intentional).
I’m not defending the egregious errors, but was simply pointing out that “offence” can’t be considered an error if that person is from a country in which that spelling is commonplace and correct. It was an attempt at saying “not everyone living in the United States has to be from the United States.”
I was trying to be (very poorly, I see) silly. Actually, I met the Canadian SpaceHusband there.
Jerk ain’t no country I ever heard of! Do they speak English in Jerk?
/Sam Jackson voice
You’re right, stupid and belligerent is no way to go through life.
Yes true, but this is an EDITOR working for an American publication. You’d think she’d be aware of the difference.
Don’t forget this gem of a sentence:
“as the magazine is put together in long sessions, tired eyes and minds somethings forget to do these things.”
The editor needs more sleep.
Don’t forget this gem of a sentence:
“as the magazine is put together in long sessions, tired eyes and minds somethings forget to do these things.”
The editor needs more sleep.
1) The web is not “public domain”
2) If the magazine had lifted the whole article and put someone else’s name on it, that would be called plagiarism and there is not one legitimate news outlet in the entire universe that would condone that kind of action
Have you seen Fox News?
They said LEGITIMATE news source, not Fox News.
Well we’re not technically talking about plagairism here, since the original author was attributed. We’re talking about copyright violation. The magazine lifted the woman’s article word-for-word, without asking and with no compensation offered.
This “editor” makes me weep for all editors. What an idiot.
Lawsuit time! I STRONGLY suggest calling an attorney.
That editor is a total idiot and clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s lucky the original author just asked for an apology and a small donation. She could (and probably should, now) be suing the pants off of him.
Considering he’s admitted his wrongdoing in writing, I say GO FOR IT.
“Your article was so terrible you should thank us for publishing it.” What? Is she really justifying stealing by saying that it was garbage to begin with? Why did she steal it in the first place, then?
maybe terrible article fits terrible magazine well?
LAWSUIT!
Wow. That takes some balls. The web isn’t public domain, even if abusing copyright is prolithic.
I don’t understand how copyright is favorably related to rocks.
+1
HA!!!
I had to read the biker’s post three times before i caught it…
Maybe because copyrighting stuff is characterized by abundant production of something. Damn! I was trying to get the real word’s meaning in there to better effect. I like your answer better.
Lawyer up, Monica, if only because this dude is a grade A douchebag. Whatever you win can be donated to Columbia, even though they don’t really need it.
$130 is an odd amount to donate anyway.
It was ten cents a word for the article IIRC.
Oh, Didn’t read that. That makes sense.
Isn’t it? I don’t get that part.
I hope the original author sues.
Check out my new website, http://www.Schmonsumerist.com. It will feature all of the same content and stories as here except blaming the submitter will be mandatory.
It isn’t mandatory?? I thought it was judging by all the pieces on here.
When 50% of the submitters cause their own problem or could have resolve the problem much faster by a common sense method… one much speak up.
I thought it was a privilege of membership!
yeah I sold you that blog when it was part of my site Schmawker.com, & it couldn’t turn a profit
If it’s worth publishing it’s worth paying for. The ‘editor’ sounds like a tool.
Sue em. Then say, “How do you like them apples.” What an asshat.
Well that letter pretty much makes it willful infringement, and is an obvious admission of guilt.
This would be an easy case to make in court, which is where she should take it.
I am having a blast reading their Facebook page. Justice (almost) served?
Ala mode, please.
Same here. I have popcorn and a front row seat.
Popcorn and DDoS time! Ok internet, we have work to do!
Was that Mark Zuckerberg being quoted there? Sounds like him…
Apparently their other articles have plagiarized NPR, Disney, Paula Deen and quite a few others.
Paula Deen’s people are already looking into it.
This just gets better, they have lifted stuff from NPR, foodnetwork, etc too!
http://community.livejournal.com/sf_drama/3096780.html?nc=101&page=2#comments
They’ve stolen from Oprah, NPR and Disney. Seriously, stealing from Disney? Why don’t you just lather yourself with BBQ sauce and step into a bear enclosure at the Zoo? At least that wont be quite as painful and messy!
That’s it, you owe me a new keyboard!
Agreed, that Disney reference is one of the better things I have read today.
Absolutely wonderful!
+1. Excellent. Would read again.
Epic win!
At this point, lawyer up and go for the jugular.
Facebook quotes below are from this video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/16/fired-up-dad-threatens-to_n_649469.html
You have been backtraced. We are the cyberpolice.
15 minutes ago · Comment · Like
consequences will never be the same
WOOT, on Washington post!
“Cooks Source magazine masters new recipe: How to annoy the Internet”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2010/11/cooks_source_masters_new_recip.html
Um…that magazine editor’s email is in desperate need of editing. I wonder if all this attention will get her fired.. but probably not. Their facebook page is pretty entertaining right now though.
Agreed. I stopped reading after this monstrosity of a sentence:
“It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace.”
Who is the editor? William Shatner?
For an editor, his skills are certainly lax.
Why do you think they steal articles from more competent sources? ;P
Send them a letter threatening to sue in your local small claims court (make sure the court has jurisdiction first). Repeat exactly the demand you just made and give them a deadline.
If they don’t come through then just sue them. Copyright exists on the web and people who breach it get sued.
You could also consider making a DMCA request to have the offending article taken down from their website.
Small claims courts certainly won’t have any jurisdiction over a federal copyright case.
The feds have pre-empted the states since 1978: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/301.html#a
lol,,,the magazine’s editor is delusional and quite ignorant for her to expect compensation for something that she never asked the orginal writer to do in the first place. I believe in my Contracts I law class it is called “Past Consideration”. You cannot get paid for something that you never agreed upon in the first place for work that you volunteered to do in the first place (something like that – I don’t practice law, I just study it). In other words, you’re SOL unless both parties agreed to a contractual agreement in the first place.
Lastly, this mag editor is a bitch for even thinking that 1. they could lift an article without permission and 2. asking for compensation in such a rude manner. lol.
I love this site and the fun never ends.
This dolt has been doing this for 30 years and he thinks the web is public domain? How are so many educated people unemployed at this time, yet this moron has a job? I hope the writer lawyers up and that guy finds himself on the unemployment line.
Don’t they have classes in J-School about terms like ‘copyright’ and ‘public domain’?
Somehow I doubt the “editor” who doesn’t know how “quotes” work should be “compensated” for their “editing” work.
It’s funny how the “editor” tries to justify his/her blatant plagerism. I feel like flaming “The Voice” on the original author’s behalf.
This happened to me about 12 years back. I had a site up on retrogaming and Fox News lifted images and descriptions were lifted from there and placed on their relatively new website in an article.
I wrote to complain and they (The editor) wrote back, telling me that I instead stole the images from them (having the images on line a full year before the article was published was meaningless to them) and the fact I had the original images was also irrelevant.
They then went through and deleted any comments I had ever made on the website and black holed or ignored any other emails from my domain.
I did a piece on Carlos Delgado(Former MLB player) for a smaller local NYC paper, the NY TIMES!!!! lifted pieces of my work. Did not complain. I was actually proud. But then I found Consumerist and started to hate corporate agenda and how the big guys profit off the little guys. Well with the Newspaper industry on deaths door and me jobless I guess….I have no idea where I am going with this.
This was a recent post on their facebook wall:
Laura Puchalski As
an advertiser, we are disappointed in Cook’s Source and we are pulling
our ads from this publication. Many of us (as is the case with our
business) paid several months in advance for advertising and are
unlikely to get any compensation back.We ask that you please stop emailing our business, we agree that the publication made a grave… error, but the blame should be placed with them. Please do not make small businesses like mine pay for their error in judgment.
-Laura Puchalski(2nd Street Baking Co.)
Aaaaand their web site is down. Success.
Quoted from FB, not sure if true or not.
Mmmm, thank you so much for that wonderful article of yours on Food Frauds, written by a “Sarah Reinhardt” http://on.fb.me/cCTr5g
How bizarre that it is word-for-word identical to this other article written by Louise Chang, MD, on WebMD. http://bit.ly/9sQ0yn
Wow, I guess WebMD is Public Domain, and Louise Chang probably …doesn’t mind having her work taken and attributed to someone else!
Oh my, and that DELICIOUS recipe for Oatmeal cookies! http://bit.ly/cQByvr I’m sure the original blogger you stole it from (http://bit.ly/5572Q7) is SO HAPPY you published it without asking, without credit, and without payment, because now she can put it in her portfolio! Weee!!!
I looked it over. Yep, it’s a word-for-word lift from WebMD. Amazing. I’ve been writing for a living for 40 years, and run into some scumbag editors and publishers –any professional writer does– but rarely one with this much chutzpah. Usually, they just drag their feet and you never get paid.
The offending site has reported Triple advertising revenue from people checking out the stolen work. This sounds like a great place to start estimating damages
Remember back in the beginning of 2007 when consumerist did the exact same thing with images from flickr? Hopefully cookssource will do the same thing consumerist did, which was to apologize and correct their behavior.
http://digg.com/news/technology/Consumerist_com_Gawker_Media_using_Flickr_photos_without_attribution
Anyone else having flashbacks to the Lara Jade Coton case? Speaking of which, she was awarded damages a few weeks ago: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1321076/Lara-Jade-Coton-sues-porn-firm-uses-picture-aged-14-explicit-DVD.html
I always wondered what happened with that case. If I remember correctly she was 14 in the picture, and the porn company lifted it off her website when she was 17, I think. Thank you for posting the article. The girl is now 21, and has been awarded 82k pounds. I hope that bankrupts that company.
Wow. This lady’s business & ad revenue is destroyed.
I expect we’ll see a TV or print interview in a few days with a too-late mea culpa.