A Tale of Two Tarts
November 4, 2010 9:03 AM   Subscribe

Illadore was surprised to see her article about apple pie published in Cooks Source without her knowledge. After asking for an apology and a donation to the Columbia School of Journalism, Cooks Source editor Judith Griggs responded in an email that "I do know about copyright laws . . . 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!"
posted by Avenger50 (339 comments total) 56 users marked this as a favorite

 
... But honestly Monica, the web is considered 'public domain' ...

You keep using that word - I do not think it means what you think it means.
posted by Greg_Ace at 9:07 AM on November 4, 2010 [54 favorites]


What a wonderful recipe for thievery: rapaciousness, a baseless sense of entitlement, and an utter lack of remorse.
posted by bearwife at 9:08 AM on November 4, 2010 [7 favorites]


She thinks it means really easy to get without having to pay.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 9:08 AM on November 4, 2010


This is my favorite part of the response:

f 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!

Now that, kids, is Chutzpah.
posted by Tomorrowful at 9:09 AM on November 4, 2010 [86 favorites]


I have just prepared my special popcorn (MY copyright! MINE! MINE!), and will settle down to enjoy this thread knowing none of you hoodlums can take it from me.
posted by maudlin at 9:09 AM on November 4, 2010


And it would be awesome if someone mirrored the Cooks Source website for ad revenue. Just to see the cognitive dissonance grip Judith Griggs' brain.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 9:10 AM on November 4, 2010 [49 favorites]


I wonder how much she would've asked for if they'd come out and asked right off the bat.
posted by codacorolla at 9:11 AM on November 4, 2010


The whole thing is hilarious as well as infuriating. Look at the "magazine"--it's a completely amateurish pile of crap. I am sorry for the writer, but asking these clowns for $180 or whatever she asked for is as silly as asking them for $1,000,000; they're just as likely to have either one.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:11 AM on November 4, 2010


$180 is a reasonable sum for an article of that length. The thing is that the people creating this "magazine" don't have $180 or probably $18 to pay for features.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:12 AM on November 4, 2010 [3 favorites]


Once you stop being a student, plagiarism doesn't matter anymore?
posted by giraffe at 9:12 AM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


I have just prepared my special popcorn (MY copyright! MINE! MINE!), and will settle down to enjoy this thread knowing none of you hoodlums can take it from me.
posted by fleetmouse at 9:15 AM on November 4, 2010 [65 favorites]


Look at the "magazine"--it's a completely amateurish pile of crap.

You're speaking as if Diane Pickler's monthly "In a Pickle!" column isn't one of the finest sources of food-related puns and homespun advice in the English-speaking world.
posted by theodolite at 9:15 AM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


So, apart from bad publicity, there's really no chance of this ever being litigated? I'd have to assume that unless you're wealthy you're not shelling out lawyer fees for a ~200 dollar article.
posted by codacorolla at 9:15 AM on November 4, 2010


"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!"

holy shit
posted by Gandhi Knoxville at 9:16 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Tchoh! Cooks Source should have simply "redacted" this article, rather than stealing it.
posted by chavenet at 9:16 AM on November 4, 2010


So I guess whatever I find on the web from Cooks Source is in the public domain, right? The articles on their facebook page - I can just copy-paste to my own site and do whatever with them, right?
posted by rtha at 9:18 AM on November 4, 2010 [7 favorites]


Wow, that's... umm... that's pretty much the email that your lawyer looks at while explaining why we're going to be settling this one out of court, Judy.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:18 AM on November 4, 2010 [43 favorites]


It's being reported that Griggs tried to sell the magazine in '99 so she could switch careers and run a B&B.

Bet that smug idiot's gonna wish she had.
posted by zarq at 9:21 AM on November 4, 2010


apart from bad publicity, there's really no chance of this ever being litigated?

Sadly, us tsk-tsking is about as much remedy as the writer's likely to get. Copyright is free and automatic on publication, but only with a registered copyright (which costs money) do you qualify for statutory damages and getting your attorney fees from the infringer. Without that, you can sue for your lost profits and/or their gained profits from the infringement, but you foot the bill for the attorney. This is not likely to end well for you, least of all in a case in which the infringer is an ad-supported free paper.
posted by Zed at 9:22 AM on November 4, 2010 [4 favorites]


The next person who utters the construct "If you think/feel _______, then I'm sorry" shall be taken out and flogged. And if that bothers anyone, I'm sorry.
posted by scratch at 9:23 AM on November 4, 2010 [34 favorites]


@codacorolla - That's what the Small Claims Court is for.
posted by salmacis at 9:23 AM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


Judith Griggs is a plagiarizing asshat.
posted by crunchland at 9:24 AM on November 4, 2010 [3 favorites]


She should get a lawyer-friend to write a legalese letter threatening to sue, with a clear list of justifications, just to smack some sense in to this woman.
posted by gottabefunky at 9:25 AM on November 4, 2010


Which of the following is not stopping me from moving back into my parents basement, reducing my wardrobe to a half dozen pair of boxer's shorts, and start a magazine called The Quarterly Journal of Brain Surgery Techniques?

A) My parents.
B) Having some sense of personal dignity.
C) Fear of Rickets.
D) That fact that I know very little about brain surgery or editing.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 9:25 AM on November 4, 2010 [17 favorites]


As for bad publicity, I'll quote one of the negative comments on Facebook: "I'll be going out of my way to make sure your traffic goes down."

Good work so far!
posted by DU at 9:25 AM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


As bitchy as the response was, it's sort of sad how much of the internet is devoted to laughing at stupid people. I don't really see any value to it at all, and it's inherently kind of mean spirited.

With that said... I have mixed feelings about the unauthorized repost. I know that copyright does protect her legally, but who cares? It's not like there's really any money being made from the article, and she is being credited. It's just not that big of a deal.
posted by Stagger Lee at 9:25 AM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


but only with a registered copyright (which costs money) do you qualify for statutory damages and getting your attorney fees from the infringer. Without that, you can sue for your lost profits and/or their gained profits from the infringement, but you foot the bill for the attorney. This is not likely to end well for you, least of all in a case in which the infringer is an ad-supported free paper.


Registering for copyright costs about $35. But as you also noted, copyright has been inherent since the 1970's or so, and registration is majorly for burden of proof. Case in point, I'm a cartoonist, and it's very easy for me to prove I own copyright to a work in other means, mainly proof of publication times and, well, owning the originals.

But there's sort of an added element here in that Griggs has already confessed to copyright infringement. Combine that with the fact that you could probably find a lawyer willing to make a no-pay-unless-they-pay deal with the plaintiff and yeah, a lawsuit's highly possible. And worth it given that Griggs really needs to be taught a lesson here.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:26 AM on November 4, 2010 [12 favorites]


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.
Big talk from someone whose web page has this as the main blurb:
The Cooks Source mission is to educate our readers in sustainable sources of foods and products, farms, restaurants and businesses; and to assist in readers' understanding in the joy of simple basic cooking, and healthy, delicious eating… with an occasional decadent delight.

Cooks Source assists food businesses, restaurants and farms in Western New England to market. And you can read about them here within these pages, or look for our publications at food specialty businesses throughout Western New England.
posted by jtron at 9:26 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Looking at their website (see our facebook page, with no hyperlink), they clearly are not very web savvy. I don't disagree that what they did is wrong (and probably they can be sued), and they had a pretty ignorant response, but it's quite possible this is due to ignorance, rather than maliciousness. Hence I'd caution against too vigorous a pile-on (see the rapidly accumulating facebook comments) some of which are very nasty.

Now if they were a huge company turning a massive profit I would think this is justified. But it's hard to imagine they make much money at all, and I think the outrage should be somewhat proportional.
posted by a womble is an active kind of sloth at 9:27 AM on November 4, 2010


From the Facebook page responses:

You're all taking this entirely the wrong way.

He said that everything on the internet is public domain. Cooks Source is on the internet. He just generously gave "Cooks Source" to the public domain! We should be thanking him! (that, or the owners of Cooks Source should be firing him for giving away their property for... free).

Dumb Ass.


Hee.
posted by Gator at 9:28 AM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


it's sort of sad how much of the internet is devoted to laughing at stupid people

I disagree. If the Empire had proper snarky Internet, the whole kerfuffle with the invisible "clothes" the Emperor got suckered into could've been avoided. THAT WAS A METAPHOR
posted by jtron at 9:29 AM on November 4, 2010 [10 favorites]


Is that a US thing, Zed? Because I was always under the impression that registering just helps you to prove your copyright in the event of a dispute, but that it's not necessary to actually register or publish in order to claim copyright (that it just helps with your case)? I would imagine not only could she sue for damages, but also now that the article is printed, she cannot sell it to any other (legitimate) publication for more money, such as a major print magazine.
posted by 1000monkeys at 9:29 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Stagger Lee,

People care because Cooks Source is being so fucking arrogant about it.

For example, their twitter feed: https://twitter.com/cookssource
posted by thylacine at 9:30 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Wow. WOW. I'll be going out of my way to badmouth this publication. Griggs is the exact opposite of a professional.
posted by Kitteh at 9:30 AM on November 4, 2010


Judith Griggs is a plagiarizing asshat.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:30 AM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?! IS THIS NOT WHY YOU ARE HERE?!
posted by gottabefunky at 9:31 AM on November 4, 2010


I. . . think that twitter account is a fake, actually. Judging by the most recent activity on it, anyway.
posted by KathrynT at 9:32 AM on November 4, 2010 [6 favorites]


I know that copyright does protect her legally, but who cares?

Anyone who gives a shit about protecting the rights of intellectual property owners. And I don't mean giant corporations here, I mean exactly what we see here: independent creators who are constantly told that it's "not worth it" to protect their own rights. I'm not trying to derail or start another massive IP argument here, but other people don't have the right to decide what's best for your own property.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:32 AM on November 4, 2010 [23 favorites]


RECENT ACTIVITY
Cooks Source Magazine discussed Where's the best place to steal articles from? on the Cooks Source Magazine discussion board.
posted by gottabefunky at 9:32 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


1000monkeys, it is a US thing. You own your copyright from jump here, but if it's not registered you can't recoup any financial damages.


As for Judith Griggs, she appears to have the same magic touch in all of her professional activities.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:33 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


As much fun as it is to hate on the asshats at Cooks Source, I'd guess that Twitter account is as real as BPGlobalPR.
posted by kmz at 9:34 AM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


Goddamn Yankees eatin' pie for breakfast.
posted by klangklangston at 9:35 AM on November 4, 2010 [3 favorites]


I. . . think that twitter account is a fake, actually. Judging by the most recent activity on it, anyway.

Agreed. First tweet was from less than an hour ago. Though it is a little amusing.
posted by a womble is an active kind of sloth at 9:36 AM on November 4, 2010


The sad thing is a whole lot of people believe the idea "if it's on the Internet, it's public domain".
posted by Nelson at 9:37 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Funny thing. As much of a douche they may be, a recipe can't be copyrighted. Lists and recipes aren't covered by copyright. They're still being a douche, though.
posted by CarlRossi at 9:37 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


For example, their twitter feed: https://twitter.com/cookssource

Is that feed a joke? A spoof? If it's not, well, I don't even know what to say.
posted by rtha at 9:38 AM on November 4, 2010


Cooks Source should've just converted the article to a BitTorrent, 'cause that would've made it okay.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:38 AM on November 4, 2010 [6 favorites]


Kid Charlemagne: You don't seem the sort to cower at the prospect of mere rickets. I'll go "C."
posted by Naberius at 9:39 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


I think it's a spoof, rtha, the first posts to it were an hour ago.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:39 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


It's true that straight recipes (1 cup flour + 2 cups honey whatever) can't be copyrighted, but any sort of explanatory text *can* be. So unless the entire Cooks Source article was just a list of ingredients, it's probably copyrighted.
posted by the dief at 9:39 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Lotsa people are liking them on FB, but not for the reasons they probably wished. Will be interesting how long it takes them to pull the page.
posted by kthanksbai at 9:39 AM on November 4, 2010


Funny thing. As much of a douche they may be, a recipe can't be copyrighted. Lists and recipes aren't covered by copyright.

Not quite.

1. Cooks Source republished an article that included a recipe. Doing so without permission in this case (since the article is not in the public domain) is not okay.

2. The ingredients list in a recipe can't be copyrighted, but the description of how to put all those ingredients together can be.
posted by rtha at 9:41 AM on November 4, 2010 [4 favorites]


CarlRossi, while a recipe may not be copyrightable here, entire damn magazine articles sure as hell are. On preview, I see the dief already clued you in

I bet their business was named without ANY THOUGHT AT ALL being given to the much better known, much better run, and much better punctuated Cook's Illustrated
posted by jtron at 9:42 AM on November 4, 2010 [4 favorites]


It's being reported that Griggs tried to sell the magazine in '99 so she could switch careers

This was never her day job--see my links above. And I doubt she's made over $1,000 from it since she started it (I mean cumulatively here, not per-year).

There are a lot of people who start these little kitchen-table magazines just so they can hold onto their illusions of themselves as professionals.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:42 AM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


I doubt this is the first time Cook's Source has stolen an article, and it sounds likely (the editor doth protest too much!) they've done it without attribution as well. Anyone wanna do some quick checking of their back catalog?
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 9:44 AM on November 4, 2010


That Facebook page is generating about a page of comments every couple of minutes.

Poor Judith Griggs.
posted by fullerine at 9:44 AM on November 4, 2010



People care because Cooks Source is being so fucking arrogant about it
.


Yeah, I totally get that. It's kind of a confrontation about attitude, rather than issues. It's just unfortunate that the whole thing has happened at all.
posted by Stagger Lee at 9:45 AM on November 4, 2010


I'm pretty copy-left, but this is unmitigated bullshit. I've had publications contact me before to see if they could reprint what I wrote, even some that couldn't pay me. I've also had work-for-hire writing that I've done end up in multiple publications.

But Cooks Source (a source of cooks, right?) is both a commercial entity — even a failing one — and didn't bother to do the most cursory work toward treating this ethically.

It reminds me of an old coworker who, before she worked with me back in Ann Arbor, applied for a job at a paper in Midland. The editors had her write up three news stories on deadline, then didn't hire her but used the stories anyway and didn't want to pay her. She had to fight them pretty hard on that bullshit, but they ended up realizing that she could sue them and make them look pretty terrible in other papers, so they ended up paying more than their freelance rate (and offering her the job, to which she responded, "Fuck no").
posted by klangklangston at 9:46 AM on November 4, 2010 [13 favorites]


Heh, well this has already become the #3 Google search for "Judith Griggs".

I think she's getting more than one lesson today on how the internet actually works.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:48 AM on November 4, 2010 [6 favorites]


Combine that with the fact that you could probably find a lawyer willing to make a no-pay-unless-they-pay deal with the plaintiff and yeah, a lawsuit's highly possible. And worth it given that Griggs really needs to be taught a lesson here.

Without statutory damages, you're in the position of having to prove monetary harm, which is hard, and the max is going to be whatever profit you can claim Griggs makes from one page of her ad-supported free paper.

Is that a US thing, Zed?

I have at best a tenuous grasp of US rules, and not even that for how they differ from other countries. The registered copyright distinction surprised me when an IP attorney friend of mine told me about it a few weeks ago.

Stanford Library's Copyright and Fair Use page:
"Timely registration" -- that is, registration within three months of the work's publication date or before any copyright infringement actually begins -- makes it much easier to sue and recover money from an infringer. Specifically, timely registration creates a legal presumption that your copyright is valid, and allows you to recover up to $150,000 (and possibly lawyer's fees) without having to prove any actual monetary harm.
Copyright basics PDF from the US Copyright Office:
Before an infringment suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin. [...] If registration is made within three months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's frees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.
posted by Zed at 9:48 AM on November 4, 2010 [6 favorites]


You know, if you take a step back a bit, and realize how easy it is to decimate a person's character on just a some blogger's say so. I mean, everyone is assuming that this Griggs person actually did write that stupid email, and as a result, the mob is just completely trashing her character. This woman, rightly or wrongly, is going to be google-bombed into oblivion. It's cyber-bullying, really, and it's not a pleasant side of the net, and I wouldn't even want to contemplate how I'd feel being on the receiving end of it.
posted by crunchland at 9:48 AM on November 4, 2010 [9 favorites]


That Facebook page is generating about a page of comments every couple of minutes.

Poor Judith Griggs.


Yeah, I think the people assessing the viability of legal action are missing the point. It's possible to be sure, but pointless. Cooks Source doesn't seem to have any significant money. And I think the court of public opinion is schooling Ms. Griggs pretty well without recourse to attorneys or court costs.
posted by Naberius at 9:49 AM on November 4, 2010


it's sort of sad how much of the internet is devoted to laughing at stupid people

i'm no fan of online targeting of stupid people or regular people doing stupid things, but considering the real-world effects of aggressive and defiant stupidity (and the new political party thus formed), the internet justice being handed down here is justifiable.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 9:49 AM on November 4, 2010 [3 favorites]


I doubt this is the first time Cook's Source has stolen an article, and it sounds likely (the editor doth protest too much!) they've done it without attribution as well. Anyone wanna do some quick checking of their back catalog?

Someone already spotted this - cook's mag, NPR
(don't know how to link to the comment or I would)
posted by a womble is an active kind of sloth at 9:50 AM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me!

This is sort of like Virginia Thomas asking for an apology from Anita Hill, no?
posted by morganannie at 9:52 AM on November 4, 2010 [7 favorites]


I know this is a hot button issue, and this may raise some hackles, especially here on MetaFilter, but I'm just going to come out and say it: the original article gets the flour all wrong.

The recipe calls for whole wheat (for the 14th century recipe) and all purpose flour (for the 16th century recipe). What's worse, the whole wheat version if suggested for its high gluten content.

That's just crazy talk. Medieval flour was whole wheat all right, but it was low gluten flour made from soft, white wheat. If you want to be accurate, use something like Bob's Red Mill whole wheat pastry flour.
posted by jedicus at 9:52 AM on November 4, 2010 [33 favorites]


Looks like either they don't know the difference between "their" and "they're," or at least couldn't be bothered to proofread their advertisers' ads.

THAT WILL BE FIFTY DOLLARS MONEY

paypal to email in profile kthxbye
posted by jtron at 9:52 AM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


It may not be a big deal in the larger scheme of the internets, but I can identify having had my own work on social justice plagiarized several times over the last few years.

Mostly because somebody scraped my name off of my piece, and emailed it around as "anonymous" - so it pops up on various sites because people imagine it's one of those things that doesn't have an author who wants to claim ownership. Luckily, everyone I've contacted had no problem in meeting my request ("attribute and link to source").

But yeah, every time I come across some of my writing on someone else's site, I always wonder what I'd do if they decide to not respond.
posted by yeloson at 9:53 AM on November 4, 2010 [3 favorites]


Also, IANAL but a good comment from that link re: the people saying a "suit's not worth it."
In 1984, when I was 13, I wrote an article on revising the AD&D combat tables, sent it in to Dragon magazine, and it was published the following year. Before it hit print, I was given a contract to read and sign. The contract specified that I was selling “first serial rights” only, and retained all rights for republishing, putting in anthologies, etc.

I signed the contract, and got a $100 check.

20 years later, Dragon released a CD-ROM compendium of all content. My article was included, without my permission.

This was not “initial” serial rights – this was a republishing.

I sent an email saying “you owe me additional payment”.

They wrote back saying “no”.

I filled out a small claims court form in MA, submitted it along with a $40 processing fee, and waited.

A few weeks later I was given a court date.

I showed up. The Hasbro magazine rep (Dragon was published by TSR, which had been acquired by Wizards of the Coast, which had been acquired by Hasbro) did not show.

I won the case by default.

The court mailed the judgement to Hasbro.

A month later Hasbro mailed me a check for $2,000, in accordance with the judgement.
Griggs stole material. She has confessed to doing it. The plaintiff doesn't even need a lawyer; she needs a filing fee and I'll happily help donate to any fund to raise that if it means making Judith Griggs cry.

Seriously, why do people admit defeat before even trying to win on stuff like this? Any legal expert should be telling Griggs right now to suck up and offer an apology because she's opened herself up to lose far more than $130 on this.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:53 AM on November 4, 2010 [89 favorites]


Let us provide the author with enough money to register her work.
posted by boo_radley at 9:53 AM on November 4, 2010


1. the attention span of the Internet is about a nanosecond, so this is just GRAR-Of-The-Moment that won't hold a lot of heat as soon as something else shiny comes along....LOOK, OVER THERE, JUSTIN BIEBER EATING A BABY HUMMINGBIRD!!! ZOMG!!!

2. any publicity is good publicity

3. ???

4. PROFIT!

Moral: if she can take her lumps, Judith will come out ahead in the end.
posted by briank at 9:53 AM on November 4, 2010


These Premises Are Alarmed: "I doubt this is the first time Cook's Source has stolen an article, and it sounds likely (the editor doth protest too much!) they've done it without attribution as well. Anyone wanna do some quick checking of their back catalog?"

Just some quick skimming and googling:
Tandoori chicken (original, probably)
Ben & Jerry's (original)
Pack a Perfect Picnic (original)
posted by specialagentwebb at 9:57 AM on November 4, 2010 [11 favorites]


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.

I'd think the editing of the article might be the basis of the most substantial complaint against Cook's Source in the event of a lawsuit, simply because you could argue that clumsy editing by such an obviously stupid and incompetent person made the original article into something that seriously damaged your professional reputation when it was then published with your name on it.
posted by jamjam at 9:58 AM on November 4, 2010 [3 favorites]



You know, if you take a step back a bit, and realize how easy it is to decimate a person's character on just a some blogger's say so. I mean, everyone is assuming that this Griggs person actually did write that stupid email, and as a result, the mob is just completely trashing her character. This woman, rightly or wrongly, is going to be google-bombed into oblivion. It's cyber-bullying, really, and it's not a pleasant side of the net, and I wouldn't even want to contemplate how I'd feel being on the receiving end of it.


This is what troubles me as well. Mob justice is rarely fair or even handed.
posted by Stagger Lee at 9:58 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


1. Sez you.

2. Tell it to... what's her face... the British singer with the drug problem... you know who I mean

3. I agree on this part

4. but not this

The "lumps" include her name being shitsmeared on the Internet until the Sun goes red giant and eats the Earth, and all her advertisers being called by angry Internet peoples and told about What She Did. "Come out ahead" how? This all could've been avoided had she either come up with original content or contacted the author about republishing. Judith Griggs has exposed herself as greedy, naive, and hubristic; a winning combination when you're involved in politics and/or publishing as she seems to be.
posted by jtron at 9:58 AM on November 4, 2010 [4 favorites]


I mean, everyone is assuming that this Griggs person actually did write that stupid email

What a crazy assumption!
posted by ninebelow at 9:59 AM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


Moral: if she can take her lumps, Judith will come out ahead in the end.

well, unless she has something amazing up her sleeve that doesn't require the trust of anyone with internet access, this story will be the first thing that comes up on any internet search on her name.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 9:59 AM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


Oh, now, in that last one, Judith translated "chook" into "chicken"! I MEAN, SHE SHOULD GET PAID BY THE ENTIRE NATION OF AUSTRALIA FOR THAT!
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:00 AM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


everyone is assuming that this Griggs person actually did write that stupid email

And said all those stupid things on her Facebook page! My God, the real problem isn't wholesale plagiarism and uncompensated reprinting--it's someone impersonating Judith Griggs. (Obviously the Twitter isn't her, but it seems clear the Facebook is.)
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:03 AM on November 4, 2010


I don't like the attitude of Cook's Source, but the article is mostly recipes, and recipes can't be copyrighted. Her writings about the recipes can be copyrighted, though.
posted by Pants! at 10:04 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


I have just prepared my special popcorn (MY copyright! MINE! MINE!), and will settle down to enjoy this thread knowing none of you hoodlums can take it from me.
posted by fleetmouse at 9:15 AM

Very humorous, indeed!

I would be very interested in subscribing to your newsletter.
posted by timdicator at 10:05 AM on November 4, 2010


This is what troubles me as well. Mob justice is rarely fair or even handed.
posted by Stagger Lee at 9:58 AM on November 4 [+] [!]


dude, weren't you the one who just argued that violating copyright isn't a big deal if you don't make money off it? i guess, to be fair, we don't know it was you who typed that, just because your name was attached to it. but assuming it is, fairness might not be what is troubling you.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 10:07 AM on November 4, 2010 [3 favorites]


Hit Reddit for this story up and read the top comment:

I own a restaurant/bar in Avon, CT. On the CooksSource website they have a list of the local restaurants that give away their magazine. I am friends with the owners of every one of the restaurants listed. This afternoon, I will be stopping by each one to ask my friends to stopping giving out Cooks Source magazine, and to tell Cooks Source to go fuck themselves when they are next contacted.

She dun goofed up.
posted by Old'n'Busted at 10:08 AM on November 4, 2010 [14 favorites]


Her writings about the recipes can be copyrighted, though.

Yes. Instructions can also be copyrighted as to their wording; if you reword a recipe's instructions, you're cool, but the actual language of the instructions is intellectual property.

There is no gray area here, because they reproduced not only the recipes and the instructions word-for-word, but also the expository writing. And her byline.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:09 AM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]




dude, weren't you the one who just argued that violating copyright isn't a big deal if you don't make money off it? i guess, to be fair, we don't know it was you who typed that, just because your name was attached to it. but assuming it is, fairness might not be what is troubling you.

I don't see the relationship between these two things.
Point 1) The initial crime was small. The attitude exacerbated it.
Point 2) "The Mob" is perhaps not the best judge of the severity of the offense, and the magazine's reputation has been cast to the wolves.

Ideally the entire thing ties up nicely, lessons are learned, and everyone gets what they want. But the more this gets flung around, the less likely that seems.
posted by Stagger Lee at 10:11 AM on November 4, 2010


Er. The first part there should have been italicized as a quote. Woops.
posted by Stagger Lee at 10:11 AM on November 4, 2010


Yeah, I can't speak to the copyright-ability of recipes, but stealing an entire blog post from NPR? I'm guessing NPR might want to be informed about that. If only I knew someone.
posted by Linda_Holmes at 10:13 AM on November 4, 2010 [7 favorites]


Since they included her byline, I believe that this is copyright infringement, not plagiarism.

When the question of copyright infringement comes up with regard to book piracy, a lot of Mefites dismiss anti-piracy arguments for being out of touch with the new reality of content distribution.

I'd like to hear what those same people think of this case. It doesn't seem so much different to me. Same issue: copyright infringement. Cooks Source is a free magazine available at news stands, supported by ad revenue, just like most piracy sites.

I find the editor's behavior deplorable, but I guess I wonder how those who are OK with e-piracy feel about this, and why.
posted by artemisia at 10:14 AM on November 4, 2010 [5 favorites]


Since they included her byline, I believe that this is copyright infringement, not plagiarism.

Yes. Plagiarism has also been documented, as in the "Pack a Perfect Picnic" article above, which was lifted without attribution from Weight Watchers Australia's site, with the wording localized ("chook" --> "chicken", etc.).
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:16 AM on November 4, 2010


"This is what troubles me as well. Mob justice is rarely fair or even handed."

Yeah, but it's swift and popular!
posted by klangklangston at 10:18 AM on November 4, 2010 [5 favorites]


this is taken from here

i sure do hope that she had permission - because i don't think martha stewart's someone you can play around with
posted by pyramid termite at 10:19 AM on November 4, 2010 [8 favorites]


rabble rabble rabble!
posted by Theta States at 10:21 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Yeah, the "I told you where I got it after I copied and pasted it, so why are you upset?" is also the Oh No They Didn't defense, I think.
posted by Linda_Holmes at 10:21 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


jhc, I need glasses. Should read:

   Hit up Reddit for this story up and read the top comment

A tiny edit window, please.
posted by Old'n'Busted at 10:22 AM on November 4, 2010


as something else shiny comes along....LOOK, OVER THERE, JUSTIN BIEBER EATING A BABY HUMMINGBIRD!!!

Oh please please PLEASE make this a picture that I can look at with my seeing-holes. I desire it so much it is almost inexpressible, aside from all the expression that I am doing right now. Pleasenow.
posted by FatherDagon at 10:22 AM on November 4, 2010 [5 favorites]


This woman, rightly or wrongly, is going to be google-bombed into oblivion. It's cyber-bullying, really, and it's not a pleasant side of the net, and I wouldn't even want to contemplate how I'd feel being on the receiving end of it.

Regardless of the "fairness" or "mob rule" this woman is facing, I think the ultimate result out of this is the very quick and blatant discovery that she's in a large way profiting off of stealing a lot of other people's work and then claiming she has the right to. Five instances of copyright infringement have been found in the last hour or so.

It's a shame she will likely not learn much from it and instead mope about being a victim of the very idea you just presented, but I am hard-pressed to believe Cooks Source is going to be around a lot longer, and that's not the fault of any mob or individual blogger.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:23 AM on November 4, 2010 [3 favorites]


I also love that she misspelled "Housatonic" in her claim of having been an editor at Housatonic Home. Whatever that was; I've never heard of it, and there's no reference to it on Google or Bowker's. Probably another kitchen-table production of hers.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:25 AM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


LOOK, OVER THERE, JUSTIN BIEBER EATING A BABY HUMMINGBIRD!!!

that just goes to show you how uncreative and derivative he is - ozzy did it better, with a bat, and he did it first
posted by pyramid termite at 10:25 AM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


When two tarts go to war, one is all that you can........score.

Words of wisdom.
posted by spicynuts at 10:31 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Sadly, us tsk-tsking is about as much remedy as the writer's likely to get.

Well, OK, us tsk-tsking and the whole paper going down in flames. Seems like Griggs has been a sufficiently prolific and indiscriminate infringer that at least one of those articles will prove to be owned by someone who does register their copyrights and has lawyers on staff.
posted by Zed at 10:31 AM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


If they had no qualms about stealing an article, they should have stolen an apostrophe, too.
posted by snofoam at 10:32 AM on November 4, 2010 [5 favorites]


When the question of copyright infringement comes up with regard to book piracy, a lot of Mefites dismiss anti-piracy arguments for being out of touch with the new reality of content distribution.

I'd like to hear what those same people think of this case. It doesn't seem so much different to me. Same issue: copyright infringement. Cooks Source is a free magazine available at news stands, supported by ad revenue, just like most piracy sites.

I find the editor's behavior deplorable, but I guess I wonder how those who are OK with e-piracy feel about this, and why.


Well, for one thing, taking someone's article and printing it in your dead-tree magazine without permission has nothing to do with the standards of "the new reality of content distribution". It is actually a violation of long-held ethical standards in the old reality of content distribution. In contrast, if this had been another site which reprinted her article, I doubt there'd be half as much uproar (the plagiarism is, of course, a different story).

In short: the internet operates by different community standards than traditional publishing does. Trying to "gotcha" people for following those different standards doesn't make much sense, any more than it makes sense to try to "gotcha" Americans for not tipping in Japan.
posted by vorfeed at 10:34 AM on November 4, 2010 [4 favorites]


"I'd like to hear what those same people think of this case. It doesn't seem so much different to me. Same issue: copyright infringement. Cooks Source is a free magazine available at news stands, supported by ad revenue, just like most piracy sites.

I find the editor's behavior deplorable, but I guess I wonder how those who are OK with e-piracy feel about this, and why.
"

Sure. I already mentioned that this was totally bullshit on Griggs' part, and I'm frequently someone who defends downloading.

That the issue is the same (copyright infringement) doesn't mean that the situations are the same. Mixtapes are copyright infringements too, but we've all made mixtapes (or cds or playlists) and given them to friends. And I'll also note that my position on copyright isn't nearly as black and white as I often see from putative defenders of copyright, so (as a courtesy) try not to assume much about my position before you see me actually write it.

I support infringing on copyright in a couple of instances. The most clear-cut is that I support a lower threshold for work being considered "transformative" with regard to art. The bar's already pretty low in most writing and fiction — it's accepted to reference, riff on and sample other people's words, phrases and ideas in making something new yourself. I'm a big fan of remix culture, and think that while permission should generally be sought and credit given, that's not always feasible. I think our culture is better having Girl Talk and Biz Markee than without.

However, this is pretty different from remix culture, despite the "editing" done. There pretty clearly wasn't an intent to transform or create new work, no traditions or structures of non-fiction magazine writing were referenced or reaffirmed, and there was no explicit declaration that this isn't the original material.

Less clearcut, I have fewer issues with copyright infringement of commercial media for private use than a lot of people do. In trying to act ethically there, questions of providence, availability and use are important to me. It was obviously clear who wrote this piece, so there wasn't any need to forgo contact or infringe out of ignorance. The piece is obviously available elsewhere, so it's not like Cooks Source was infringing with the intent to distribute a piece that would have otherwise been impossible to see. And Cooks Source is profiting directly from the content of the piece that they have infringed upon — for me, that's far less ethical than, say, running ads on Rapidshare, where the company should suspect that a fair amount of their traffic is based on infringement, but is really just a file-neutral distributor, rather than something that is engaged in by a person with the authority to make individual decisions.

I support people being paid for their work, but feel that in general, the way copyright has been set up supports huge companies while not protecting a lot of little content producers. I am much more hesitant to download an independent album than I am a major label one, and much more likely to pay money to the independents if I like the music I listen to. But this also wasn't a try before you buy situation, something that only really should apply to consumers, rather than content distributors.

So, those are some of the ways that I think this is pretty significantly different, and why I feel no problem in calling Griggs out.
posted by klangklangston at 10:36 AM on November 4, 2010 [18 favorites]


I find the editor's behavior deplorable, but I guess I wonder how those who are OK with e-piracy feel about this, and why.
posted by artemisia at 10:14 AM on


I was thinking this myself. It would be interesting to hear the opinions of those who so vociferously defended their "right" to pirate stuff online in that MeTa thread the other day.
posted by 1000monkeys at 10:38 AM on November 4, 2010


She also has a magazine called Travel Source. Go to it, gumshoes!
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:39 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


> I'd like to hear what those same people think of this case. It doesn't seem so much different to me. Same issue: copyright infringement. Cooks Source is a free magazine available at news stands, supported by ad revenue, just like most piracy sites.

I feel that if I was to download a movie I'm not actively hurting the original creator as I personally would not buy it unless I really like it. And if I really like it I might buy it, and I will tell people about it either way. As I would use an adblocker I would not click through any links on the torrent site, so I suppose the pirate host does not benefit much.

The very tenuous difference here is that it is unlikely a reader of this magazine is going to leap up and dash out to buy all the back issues of a website in hard-copy.

Dan Ariely has an interesting section in his book 'Predictably Irrational' that discusses how our honesty changes when we deal with non-monetary transactions. He concludes that we are a lot less honest when cash is not involved.
posted by a womble is an active kind of sloth at 10:40 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


I will write an official Letter Of Apology on their behalf for a mere $130.
posted by sourwookie at 10:44 AM on November 4, 2010


jedicus wrote "If you want to be accurate, use something like Bob's Red Mill whole wheat pastry flour."

Which is awesome, by the way, and the company is awesome, and ought to be supported. If you aren't already using it (and don't have any convenient excuse for it, like a wheat allergy or whatnot) then you really ought to hang your head in shame for a moment.

...

OK. That was long enough. Now back to slagging this Griggs lady as previously scheduled.
posted by caution live frogs at 10:48 AM on November 4, 2010 [3 favorites]


1000monkeys wrote "It would be interesting to hear the opinions of those who so vociferously defended their 'right' to pirate stuff online in that MeTa thread the other day."

Taking for personal use is a little different than taking and attempting to re-sell at a profit. Whatever the opinion of filesharing may be, I haven't ever met anyone who downloads music simply to resell it.
posted by caution live frogs at 10:49 AM on November 4, 2010 [9 favorites]


Someone remind me again how this is different than downloading music you haven't purchased?
posted by andreaazure at 10:50 AM on November 4, 2010


If they had no qualms about stealing an article, they should have stolen an apostrophe, too.

I assume you're referring to the name of the magazine and saying it lacks an apostrophe? Not so, at least according to the AP Stylebook. See the entry for farmers market, which says to leave off the apostrophe, with the justification that it's a market of or for farmers, not a market owned by farmers. The same would hold true for Cooks Source. If you're not try to adhere to a specific style it's really just a matter of personal preference and correct either way as long as you're consistent about it.
posted by ekroh at 10:52 AM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


yeah, I see no grey area or fair use case here.

When friends of mine who run zines and small press comics have had similar problems their response has generally been to apologies and remove the offending material, and then the problem has gone away. It's a hassle but it's the fair and equitable thing to do. Of course, in every case I can think of remotely similar to this it's been purely by accident and they've been horrified to discover that they've accidentally run something without permission from it's owner. The case that comes to mind immediately is when a manga themed comic used an image from Deviant Art as it's cover, after getting permission from it's "creator", who turned out to have merely copied the image from the web and cropped it a bit. After much apologizing they went about removing the cover and replacing it with another on their unsold issues - a major hassle, but they did the right thing.

As for the idea that it's impossible to run a small magazine without pinching material, um, no. Plenty of people do it.
posted by Artw at 10:52 AM on November 4, 2010


Neil Gaiman has tweeted about this.

(In fact, using cooks source as a Twitter search term gives you a nice realtime view of this Exploding the Internets).

She and her little article-stealing magazine are toast.

The funniest bit is that had she simply paid the original blogger 180.00, she probably could have kept flying under the radar. But now she might get nasty letters from Food Network and NPR, and if she's a sole proprietor, she may be really screwed.
posted by emjaybee at 10:52 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Sidhedevil: "She also has a magazine called Travel Source. Go to it, gumshoes!"

Calling all Chili and Latin Music Lovers - original
Tours des Farms - partial original
MG TD Raffle - original
Sweetness and Light Exhibit - original

Also, every non-copy/paste article I've read has at least one glaring grammatical issue in the opening statement. If this woman is an editor, then she is a very poor one.
posted by specialagentwebb at 10:53 AM on November 4, 2010 [16 favorites]


In my personal, but very well-advised opinion, Judith Griggs is a plagiarizing asshat.
posted by aramaic at 10:53 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Someone remind me again how this is different than downloading music you haven't purchased?

Someone remind me again where everyone condemning Griggs on this thread is also in favor of downloading music they haven't purchased? Someone remind me again whether or not some of the folks on this thread (self included) don't routinely get dogpiled in threads about how downloading unauthorized shit is awesome?
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:54 AM on November 4, 2010 [8 favorites]


Well, for one thing, taking someone's article and printing it in your dead-tree magazine without permission has nothing to do with the standards of "the new reality of content distribution". ...

In short: the internet operates by different community standards than traditional publishing does. Trying to "gotcha" people for following those different standards doesn't make much sense, any more than it makes sense to try to "gotcha" Americans for not tipping in Japan.


I see where you're coming from; your argument goes far to explaining why certain people would be enraged by this when they demonstrate no outrage about e-piracy.

That said, I'm still not convinced. This instance of infringement would not have happened without the "new reality of content distribution" that is publication on the internet. When print publications locate and re-publish content from the web, that's not a tale of separate spheres clashing, but of spheres collapsing.

Isn't it a bit naive, then, to assume that values and standards can remain meaningfully separate when the two spheres themselves are blurring? I think it's a shaky premise on which to build an argument about the wrong kind of piracy vs. the not-so-wrong kind.

To use a more provocative example: Compare this case to one in which a pirated e-book is downloaded and read on a Sony Pocket reader with no access to Wifi or the internet. The content was taken from the internet without permission, with the author's name attached, and is now being consumed in a medium that has no immediate connection to the online world -- a medium that might, in your view, be governed by different community standards. Do you feel differently and more negatively about this sort of piracy than you would if you were reading the book online at Scribd?
posted by artemisia at 10:54 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


The question of profit is the most vexed point, I think, in pondering the difference between these instance of infringement and others through torrent sites, etc. I'm still trying to figure out how to think about it. It's true that the downloader doesn't profit monetarily in the way that, say, Cooks Magazine's shareholders/owner might, but at the same time, most downloading sites ARE supported by ad revenue, so piracy, there, is profiting somebody--the administrators or owners of the site, I suppose.

I don't know. Tangled and thorny issue, but very interesting to think about!
posted by artemisia at 10:58 AM on November 4, 2010


Sidhedevil: I try not to download shit, myself. But whatever turns you on.
In any case: taking someone else's work and selling it without remuneration is wrong, unless they have explicitly given you permission to do so. Period, full stop.
posted by Old'n'Busted at 11:00 AM on November 4, 2010 [4 favorites]


Someone remind me again how this is different than downloading music you haven't purchased?

Hey I've got a free download for you: "Bad Romance", written and recorded by chaff. Get a copy on my website!
posted by chaff at 11:02 AM on November 4, 2010 [5 favorites]


In the highly unlikely event that somebody ever plagiarizes me for profit, can I count on y'all to have my back?
posted by Gator at 11:02 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


piracy sites don't make up dvds with ads on them and have them given away in local stores

piracy sites also tend to link to content, rather than host it - if judith had just linked to the article in question, there would be no controversy

the analogy people are trying to make here doesn't quite work
posted by pyramid termite at 11:02 AM on November 4, 2010 [10 favorites]


Old'n'Busted, I think you misparsed me a bit--I am anti-downloading unauthorized shit and take a lot of flak for it, as do some of the other folks on this thread.

That said, I think klangklangston raises some pertinent points. I also am kind of impatient with the derailing of this thread to scold downloaders.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:03 AM on November 4, 2010


Someone remind me again how this is different than downloading music you haven't purchased?

If you want to make an analogy with downloading music, this is like downloading a tune for free, remixing it slightly, then re-releasing it on a for-profit compilation album you are selling; all this without permission of the original artist.

The nub of the copyright infringement here is the re-releasing, not the downloading.
posted by motty at 11:07 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


I don't see the relationship between these two things.
Point 1) The initial crime was small. The attitude exacerbated it.
Point 2) "The Mob" is perhaps not the best judge of the severity of the offense, and the magazine's reputation has been cast to the wolves.


i think it is unfortunate for anyone else at the magazine who thought they were working within an honest organization. i think it's easier to consider the initial crime small when it is happening to someone else; if follow-up reports are correct, it was part of a larger pattern. and i doubt it is considered small by advertisers who likely thought they were supporting an honest endeavor.

i think what's pushing buttons here is not simply that the content was stolen; that could have been resolved with a sincere apology and modest payment/donation or whatever. it is more that the editor's response reflects a larger impression and concern that individuals' rights do not matter in the face of larger organizations and corporations whose own rights are painstakingly protected. the 'your rights don't really matter, and there's nothing you can do about it anyway' message so explicit here is the undercurrent of the relationships we have with cell phone carriers, credit card companies, and utilities against which we, pretty much appropriately, feel powerless.

at the same time, the shocking inaccuracy of the arguments made by the editor hits us on a different level, considering we're coming out of an election cycle in which voters and media rewarded insanity and disinformation that was offered with the same tone of arrogance, the same use of mockery and insult as a cover for plain and obvious dishonesty. what griggs did here is celebrated on wall street and in the voting booth, which is likely why she figured she could get away with it. she's unlucky in that she does not have the personal or organizational weight to pull it off, but i'm not so sympathetic as to begrudge those who target her for it.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 11:10 AM on November 4, 2010 [4 favorites]


> Which of the following is not stopping me from moving back into my parents basement, reducing my wardrobe to a half dozen pair of boxer's shorts, and start a magazine called The Quarterly Journal of Brain Surgery Techniques?

Well, I wish you would get on with it - I'm waiting on you in order to start my career as a Brain Surgeon.
posted by mmrtnt at 11:10 AM on November 4, 2010


i think it is unfortunate for anyone else at the magazine who thought they were working within an honest organization.

There isn't anyone else at the magazine. It's just Griggs on her kitchen table.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:11 AM on November 4, 2010


> that's far less ethical than, say, running ads on Rapidshare, where the company should suspect that a fair amount of their traffic is based on infringement, but is really just a file-neutral distributor, rather than something that is engaged in by a person with the authority to make individual decisions.

So if I my pal and I declare that we, collectively, comprise a neutral, no-questions-asked distribution service... and we set up shop on your street corner... and someone breaks into your place and copies down your Social Security Number... who then passes it on to us... and then someone else pays us to copy down whatever information we have in inventory (because, hey, we've got a lot of stuff, and we make a point of not checking out the provenance of what we're offering... because this feels freer to us and makes things easier for our visitors)... that would be cool with you?
posted by darth_tedious at 11:16 AM on November 4, 2010


Wonder if she's lifted anything from the North Country Gazette.
posted by doublehappy at 11:17 AM on November 4, 2010 [6 favorites]


Ah, the internets is a place where the traffic rules are enforced by vigilantes armed with thermonuclear weapons.

It's not mine, I stole it from somewhere...
posted by warbaby at 11:22 AM on November 4, 2010


Someone remind me again how this is different than downloading music you haven't purchased?

Had she downloaded the article (or photocopied it or whatever) for her own reading pleasure, it would be the same as downloading mp3s, and honestly I would turn a blind eye. The issue is that she stole someone else's work and PASSED IT OFF AS HER OWN. That's seriously not cool.
posted by ValkoSipuliSuola at 11:22 AM on November 4, 2010 [3 favorites]


Just some quick skimming and googling:

I was ready to write this off as a small-time goof, but that's pretty damn brazen. Hang her!
posted by stargell at 11:23 AM on November 4, 2010


To use a more provocative example: Compare this case to one in which a pirated e-book is downloaded and read on a Sony Pocket reader with no access to Wifi or the internet. The content was taken from the internet without permission, with the author's name attached, and is now being consumed in a medium that has no immediate connection to the online world -- a medium that might, in your view, be governed by different community standards. Do you feel differently and more negatively about this sort of piracy than you would if you were reading the book online at Scribd?

No. But downloading something onto your own Sony Reader and then reading it isn't publishing, whereas the original case is.

As others have pointed out, personal use is a different issue.

Isn't it a bit naive, then, to assume that values and standards can remain meaningfully separate when the two spheres themselves are blurring? I think it's a shaky premise on which to build an argument about the wrong kind of piracy vs. the not-so-wrong kind.

I don't see how the two spheres are "blurring", here. One either has a print publication -- in which case the community rules for print publication apply -- or one has a web publication, in which case there are different rules. Again, it's the rules about publication which are being violated here, not the rules about making one copy of someone else's article (whether on the web or otherwise).
posted by vorfeed at 11:23 AM on November 4, 2010


I seem to be unable to see the contentious article. That said...

1. Cooks Source republished an article that included a recipe. Doing so without permission in this case (since the article is not in the public domain) is not okay.

Recipes are not copyrightable (think about the implications that would entail.)

Now, if there was creative instructions (read: Court Costs) that were copied, well, then you get into copyright territory.

But, for the time being, a set of directions (to a place, to make a cake, whatever) are still outside of copyright in the US.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:23 AM on November 4, 2010


If you want to make an analogy with downloading music, this is like downloading a tune for free, remixing it slightly, then re-releasing it on a for-profit compilation album you are selling; all this without permission of the original artist.

The nub of the copyright infringement here is the re-releasing, not the downloading.


You missed the part where the compiler of the compilation album scolds the original artist, saying, "You're lucky we didn't decide to release it as someone else's work."
posted by ricochet biscuit at 11:26 AM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


Well, I wish you would get on with it - I'm waiting on you in order to start my career as a Brain Surgeon.

Just don't become a Brian Surgeon. Take it from me - it's a very specialized practice.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 11:26 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


ChurchHatesTucker, you are wrong. Lists of ingredients are not copyrightable. The concept of how to prepare a food is not copyrightable, though the actual wording of the instructions is--if you don't change the wording, you're infringing on the original recipe writer's intellectual property.

This article was an historical survey of apple pies through the ages, which included recipes. There is no gray area here, as lots of expository non-recipe content was reprinted without authorization.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:27 AM on November 4, 2010 [3 favorites]


Cue Benny Hill Theme Song...





I'm too late aren't I...
posted by From Bklyn at 11:28 AM on November 4, 2010


Had she downloaded the article (or photocopied it or whatever) for her own reading pleasure, it would be the same as downloading mp3s, and honestly I would turn a blind eye.

Yeah, but instead she downloaded it for the reading pleasure of her entire readership and to make money.

I see no difference. It's the same principle. Stealing is stealing whether you share or sell your stolen goods or not.
posted by fourcheesemac at 11:29 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


For God's sake, can people stop trying to turn this into a "scold the downloaders" thread? We have "scold the downloaders" threads too often already (and I say this as a downloader-scolder myself).

Again, in addition to copyright infringement, outright plagiarism has been documented. This is way beyond "scold the downloaders" territory.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:31 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Recipes are not copyrightable (think about the implications that would entail.)

Now, if there was creative instructions


Which there are. Did you read her article? She took directions for how to make apple pie - one from the 14th c, one from the 17th, and wrote out detailed instructions in modern English.

Also: Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook.
posted by rtha at 11:34 AM on November 4, 2010


"Yeah, but instead she downloaded it for the reading pleasure of her entire readership and to make money.

I see no difference. It's the same principle. Stealing is stealing whether you share or sell your stolen goods or not.
"

That's moronic bullshit. It's not stealing, it's infringement, and by reading MetaFilter and clicking on links, you've been party to infringement likely hundreds of times. Turn yourself in, thief.
posted by klangklangston at 11:36 AM on November 4, 2010 [9 favorites]


Lengthy list of crowd-sourced research on articles plagiarized by Cook's Source.

This has been going on for a while, it seems.
posted by hippybear at 11:36 AM on November 4, 2010 [3 favorites]


Okay, not plagiarized. Stolen. Whatever they did, they've been doing it for a while.
posted by hippybear at 11:37 AM on November 4, 2010


Someone remind me again how this is different than downloading music you haven't purchased?

She's using the material for profit-- her advertisers are paying for space in the print version (and paying three months in advance, from a comment on the FB page from one of her now former advertisers who are pulling out of a relationship with the magazine). If you downloaded a song, put it on a compilation CD, and then used the music to get ad revenue for your magazine, you'd be closer to this situation. The difference is personal use vs. profit.
posted by jokeefe at 11:39 AM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


These lines are too long. Which one is for pitchforks? I brought my own torch.
posted by norm at 11:39 AM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


Or as about three different people have already pointed out.
posted by jokeefe at 11:40 AM on November 4, 2010


That's moronic bullshit. It's not stealing, it's infringement, and by reading MetaFilter and clicking on links, you've been party to infringement likely hundreds of times. Turn yourself in, thief.

No need to get upset over common colloqial terms.
posted by Artw at 11:46 AM on November 4, 2010


Did you read her article?

No. As I said, I can't get it to load.

To reiterate: repeating a recipe is not a copyright offense. It's the colorful elaboration that'll get you.

If this is merely a case of parroting a website, it's lame. Those sites are usually ignored by the originating creators.

If this is repeating a recipe., well, it's fair and square (in the US, anyhow.)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:50 AM on November 4, 2010


No. As I said, I can't get it to load.

...and yet you persist.
posted by Floydd at 11:51 AM on November 4, 2010 [3 favorites]


It's cyber-bullying, really, and it's not a pleasant side of the net, and I wouldn't even want to contemplate how I'd feel being on the receiving end of it.

I have a simple solution for you, then: DON'T DO STUPID SHIT LIKE JUDITH GRIGGS.

Problem solved!
posted by bitter-girl.com at 11:59 AM on November 4, 2010 [4 favorites]


Some of the Travel Source articles look like they are just reproduced press releases regarding events in the area, so nothing to get too pitchforky about.
posted by jokeefe at 11:59 AM on November 4, 2010


"No need to get upset over common colloqial terms."

Actually, I'm upset by the hypocritical reductionist moralizing from someone who has favorited more than a few posts that feature infringing content. I like plenty of the posts, like this one that features pretty obviously unauthorized recordings of the Temptations, or this Pete Seeger post featuring several different forms of infringement just in Youtube alone, and am pretty sick of people crying "stealing" when they want to be seen as moral and ignoring the troubles with copyright when they don't.
posted by klangklangston at 12:06 PM on November 4, 2010 [7 favorites]


If this is repeating a recipe., well, it's fair and square (in the US, anyhow.)

A) No. Writing a new recipe with the same ingredients and techniques is OK. Copying the list of ingredients is OK. Copying, word-for-word, the expository description of how to make the recipe is not OK. Copying any other accompanying expository matter (a personal account of how one got the recipe from one's great-aunt, or a history of this particular food to date, or whatever) is not OK.

B) The above isn't even applicable to this article, which is a history of apple pies with recipes, not a collection of recipes with no expository content.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:10 PM on November 4, 2010 [4 favorites]


I'm starting to wonder if the "people who write for her" in her letter is her way of saying that she thinks she's actually allowed to aggregate everything on the internet into her own magazine.

I don't understand how you can have the ability to compile, edit and publish your own publication, complete with dealing with paying advertisers, and not understand you can't just rip all your content off of other peoples' sites.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:11 PM on November 4, 2010 [3 favorites]


Yeah, we get it. We're all pirates. Most people don't have a reductionist view of IP that divides everything into black and white though, and are pretty capable of understanding nuance.
posted by Artw at 12:12 PM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


They've lost at least one advertiser so far, so even if Cook Source doesn't get sued, they'll feel the effects nonetheless.
posted by me3dia at 12:12 PM on November 4, 2010


It's the colorful elaboration that'll get you.

And that's what it was. Why do keep insisting, despite the fact that you haven't read the article, that it must be the way you think it is, and not the way that it actually is?

Here, I'll help. Here is the original 14th c recipe: Tak gode Applys and gode Spycis and Figys and reysons and Perys and wan they are wel ybrayed colourd with Safron wel and do yt in a cofyn and yt forth to bake wel.

The modern translation she supplies includes (uncopyrightable) a list of ingredients and their measurements. And then? It includes four paragraphs of instructions (copyrightable!) on what to do with them to make the pie.
posted by rtha at 12:12 PM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


I'm starting to wonder if the "people who write for her" in her letter is her way of saying that she thinks she's actually allowed to aggregate everything on the internet into her own magazine.

There doesn't seem to be much, if any, original content there. Of course people write for her for free--they don't even know they're doing it!
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:14 PM on November 4, 2010


If this is repeating a recipe...

Can anyone who wants to talk about non-copyrightable recipes and downloadings MP3s, please read all the fucking comments already?

Okay, not plagiarized. Stolen.

It seems like a combination of the two.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:22 PM on November 4, 2010 [3 favorites]


Cooks Source is now trending on Twitter. I'd say that both of Griggs' magazines are done for at this point; nothing the internet likes better than self-righteous mob action...
posted by jokeefe at 12:26 PM on November 4, 2010


but we've all some thieves have made mixtapes (or cds or playlists) and given them to friends.

Just to be clear. Your willingness to take something without permission isn't universal. As to those who claim that copying things is okay if it's for personal use, I wonder if they would say this were I to come take something of theirs, strictly for my own personal use, of course.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 12:29 PM on November 4, 2010


Can we all PLEASE get off the whole downloading tack? It's not relevant to this. This lady seems to be in her 60s and very Internet-naive to say the least--it's not like she was inspired to her plagiarizin' and infringin' ways by Napster or whatever.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:45 PM on November 4, 2010 [3 favorites]


the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now...we put some time into rewrites

They were just following the "if you make 3 changes then the recipe is yours" rule.
posted by straight at 12:46 PM on November 4, 2010


Fair enough. Sorry.
posted by klangklangston at 12:47 PM on November 4, 2010


This topic prompted me to register some of my works. Good things to know:

-- register promptly! You only get statutory damages and attorneys fees for unpublished works, or registrations within 3 months of publication. Sorry about your old zines.
-- register online; cheaper ($35) and faster. go to http://www.copyright.gov/eco/notice.html
-- you need to get a login on their site before registering. Pwds need a number and a special character (such as # * ?).
-- you can register several different unpublished works all together for one fee as a 'collection", if you own all the copyrights and give it a name. Pour it all into a Word or Text document.
-- check out the FAQ and Acceptable file types for upload.
posted by msalt at 12:54 PM on November 4, 2010 [6 favorites]



Judith Griggs is a plagiarizing asshat.


I wasn't sure if I would go so far as to say Judith Griggs was a plagiarizing asshat, but after reading everything above, I think there can be no doubt, at least in my opinion: Judith Griggs is a plagiarizing asshat.
posted by davejay at 12:56 PM on November 4, 2010


Cook's Source: #1 tweeted about recipe source! #1 in facebook, too!
posted by boo_radley at 12:56 PM on November 4, 2010


Man, as the Internet becomes more and more dominant, everyone in the world needs to take a fuckin' PR course, because this is a PR disaster.

Griggs writes an apologetic e-mail to the original author and ponies up a little money to a school and this never starts.

While the plagiarism/copyright infringement is genuinely an issue, what's got our rankles up is how she responded to it.

People, if you screw up in a public forum, and you're called out on it, apologize, act with humility and do what you can to make amends. Then people think you're awesome for screwing up.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:59 PM on November 4, 2010 [7 favorites]


It would be interesting to hear the opinions of those who so vociferously defended their "right" to pirate stuff online in that MeTa thread the other day.
posted by 1000monkeys at 1:38 PM on November 4


When I pirate ebooks of short fiction I'm not in the habit of taking of taking a few stories here and there and subsequently publishing a new anthology with myself as "editor." Merely consuming digital media is very different than using other people's work to turn a profit and implicitly making a claim that you are their publisher.

It's actually really not comparable at all, and to do so is really grasping at straws and kind of sad.
posted by Gandhi Knoxville at 1:01 PM on November 4, 2010 [5 favorites]


Stealing is stealing whether you share or sell your stolen goods or not.

Is this derail necessary?
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:07 PM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Is this derail necessary?

No, it's really not. Some comments removed, if this is a conversation that anyone really feels the need to have, go to metatalk and explain why there. Otherwise, yet another argument about what largely non-specific people said in some other thread than this one is really just fucking up the thread for no good reason.
posted by cortex at 1:38 PM on November 4, 2010 [3 favorites]


Back on the topic -- I'd feel badly for this woman if it was a one-time mistake. Even though she should have known better. There's a lot of these sort of content farming going on online, and she's not uniquely guilty of it. I'd even feel badly for her after she wrote that email -- it's was a bonehead move, and the mark of someone not very savvy about the Web, and how that sort of thing can snowball. It's was an offensive letter, and she owes the original author an apology. But even for that, the pile-on seems a bit much.

But it's seeming that she's a serial content thief. And, for that, she deserves never to work in publishing again, and, if the pile-on will insure that, more power to it. There are enough ethical editors out of work without an unethical one in the mix.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:46 PM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


And she turned me into a NEWT!

i got better...
posted by entropicamericana at 1:57 PM on November 4, 2010


Dammit! Too slow in concocting my FPP!

BTW, Illadore's name should have a capital letter in the FPP. Don't know why Avenger50 wrote it that way. (Illadore/Monica is a friend of mine, so I'm pretty confident of the spelling!)
posted by IAmBroom at 2:08 PM on November 4, 2010


Does anyone remember a plagiarism!!! drama from a year or two ago, where a fairly well-known author of bad romances that paired white frontier ladies with Native American dudes was revealed to have lifted enormous passages from odd sources like a book about black-footed ferrets? When confronted, she seemed to have a similar "That's not theft!!! You people are all crazy." response.

I wonder if there's a generational component, where sometimes folks who came of age in another era just don't get the internet, or the idea of IP?

(Or. They could just be loons.)
posted by thehmsbeagle at 2:17 PM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Lucky you didn't post a link to your friend's page then!
posted by doublehappy at 2:17 PM on November 4, 2010


Does anyone remember a plagiarism!!! drama from a year or two ago, where a fairly well-known author of bad romances that paired white frontier ladies with Native American dudes was revealed to have lifted enormous passages from odd sources like a book about black-footed ferrets? When confronted, she seemed to have a similar "That's not theft!!! You people are all crazy." response.

This is the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassie_Edwards#Plagiarism_allegations
posted by dfan at 2:20 PM on November 4, 2010 [3 favorites]


There's a good roundup here, by Ed Champion, entitled The Cooks Source Scandal: How a Magazine Profits on Theft.
posted by jokeefe at 2:42 PM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


The modern translation she supplies includes (uncopyrightable) a list of ingredients and their measurements.

Incorrect. A translation is considered an original work and is copyrightable, even if the source text is public domain.
posted by charlie don't surf at 2:43 PM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


Incorrect. A translation is considered an original work and is copyrightable, even if the source text is public domain.

I'm pretty sure they were saying "a list of ingredients is uncopyrightable" not "a translation is uncopyrightable".
posted by nomisxid at 2:57 PM on November 4, 2010


charlie don't surf - it's pretty well established, I think, that a list of ingredients is not copyrightable. Her "translation" of the recipe was not a word-for-word translation, but an expansion of it and in modern English, to boot. Even she doesn't call it a translation.
posted by rtha at 2:57 PM on November 4, 2010


From Facebook :
    Cooks Source Magazine 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

posted by crunchland at 3:03 PM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


OH NO SHE DIDNT
posted by entropicamericana at 3:06 PM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


Hey, so just out of curiosity, has anyone actually seen a copy of this magazine? The Wayback machine is useless when it comes to looking at older versions of the website, and google doesn't know anything about it except this story.
posted by crunchland at 3:09 PM on November 4, 2010


I'd say she just poured gasoline on a fire, but that doesn't really seem to do justice to the explosive stupidity of the response she just offered, especially as it has come out that she is a serial content thief.

She's just dropped an atom bomb on an atom bomb factory.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:13 PM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


Never mind. This collection of back issues of the magazine online at Facebook have got to be legit, or would indicate a hoax of epic proportions.
posted by crunchland at 3:20 PM on November 4, 2010


Well, I've spent about two hours exploring this rabbit hole. Wow.
posted by arnicae at 3:26 PM on November 4, 2010


Yeah, we get it. We're all pirates. Most people don't have a reductionist view of IP that divides everything into black and white though, and are pretty capable of understanding nuance.

Except when it comes to not reducing copyright infringement into the same offense as theft.
It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... "an infringer of the copyright.' [17 U. S. C.] § 501(a)." Sony Corp., supra, at 433. ... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
Dowling v. US, 473 US 207.

What Griggs did was wrong, and it was plagiarism, but it wasn't theft
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 3:29 PM on November 4, 2010 [4 favorites]


I myself stopped pirating music/movies/what have you years ago when I realized that I couldn't make a morally justifiable argument for my doing so aside from "This is awesome." That said, this is a different animal. This isn't Napster - this is eBaum's World.

But yeah, the bigger problem here is Griggs' response to the whole thing. Take South Park's similar situation last week. They were caught having lifted dialog for their parody of Inception directly from an internet parody video of Inception, without attribution. Parker and Stone immediately spoke with the video's creators, politely and remorsefully, and apologized. They explained how it happened - they hadn't seen Inception since it came out, were looking for direct dialog to parody, and came across a video which they believed to have original dialog in it. Parker and Stone were penitent, the original creators happily accepted the apology, and everyone moved on with their lives.

This woman has proven herself to be a drama queen with a martyr complex, however, and seems the type to be incapable of seeing her actions as anything other than correct. She:

1.) Condescendingly claims to know everything she needs to about copyright law, while
2.) Demonstrating a complete lack of understanding about copyright law on even the most basic level;
3.) Edits accurately quoted spelling in historic recipes, thus presenting inaccurate quotes, while
4.) Using the Author's byline on a re-edited article which now misrepresents the author's research, and
5.) Insulting the author about it, showing a profound misunderstanding about the material she is lifting and republishing,
6.) Without permission;
7.) Instead of apologizing, calls the letter asking for recompense "offensive" and
8.) Claims that, if anything, the author owes her money for the trouble, and
9.) In her defense, states that other authors write for her for free.

That last bit might be my "favorite" part, since it demonstrates the same line of thinking that you get from rapists and sexual harassers. "Don't you know how many others would want a piece of this?" Of course, that sense of egotism and entitlement runs through the whole email. Of course, the re-editing part is wonderfully skewed as well. One might hire an editor, and pay them, much as one would go to a barber by choice. If one is doing a work-for-hire, one will accept that the work will be edited as part of the deal, much like an actor will be made-up and costumed according the the demands of the director. One does not, however, give someone an unsolicited makeover while they are sleeping and then respond to the assault charges that, "Well, I think it she looks a lot better now. She should thank me, really."

We can feel bad for Judith Griggs about the hell she's catching for this, but I for one doubt that she has enough web-savvy to see the extent of it, and she's also surely pitying herself more than enough to carry the load without us jumping in to help.

Fuck her. She's a plagiarizing asshat. The fact that she is dead-certain about her own self-righteousness makes things worse, not better.
posted by Navelgazer at 3:29 PM on November 4, 2010 [7 favorites]


As bitchy as the response was, it's sort of sad how much of the internet is devoted to laughing at stupid people. I don't really see any value to it at all, and it's inherently kind of mean spirited.

This is not about laughing at a stupid person: it's about laughing at a mean person who thinks she can steal other people's work repeatedly, profit from it, admit it, insult them while she's at it, and still have a viable business once word about this gets out. It's clearly not a one-time thing and it clearly wasn't a one-off, drunken/stoned and/or impulsive mistake by a young and/or foolishly naive person. It's an adult who has profited from theft repeatedly getting paid back for being not stupid but being mean, dishonest, arrogant and greedy.
posted by Maias at 3:32 PM on November 4, 2010 [7 favorites]


Some value added through the Internet pile-on:

- advertisers now know to steer clear of her shitty plagiarized publication;
- writers now know to check to see if she plagiarized their stuff for her shitty publication;
- other asshats who were thinking of doing the same thing might think twice.
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:40 PM on November 4, 2010 [3 favorites]


...and yet you persist.

And still will, since apparently the 'offending' article/recipe/theft/whatever isn't amongst any of the links even once they do load, so I have no better basis for my judgement.

Stealing is stealing whether you share or sell your stolen goods or not.

Dressing like you isn't theft.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 3:45 PM on November 4, 2010


Identity theft isn't theft!

Could you can stop wasting every bodies time with this derail? It's a perfectly normal and accepted use of language.
posted by Artw at 3:47 PM on November 4, 2010


so I have no better basis for my judgement.

So maybe just stop with the judgement, then?

This is the link to the original piece, the one that was republished without permission by Cooks Source.

This is a link to the cached version
, should the original not load.
posted by rtha at 3:54 PM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


The Cooks Source Scandal: How a Magazine Profits on Theft

That list on FB has now grown to 30 posts. Unbelievable.
posted by zarq at 4:03 PM on November 4, 2010


It seems you can pretty much grab any random couple of sentences from the magazine and paste it into Google and find the original source.
posted by Razzle Bathbone at 4:07 PM on November 4, 2010


Could you can stop wasting every bodies time with this derail? It's a perfectly normal and accepted use of language.

Be careful about conflating terms, it'll come back and bite you eventually. Infringement isn't theft, and saying it is doesn't make it so, no matter how often you state it.

More to the point, this isn't even clearly (from what's been presented) infringement.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:09 PM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


More to the point, this isn't even clearly (from what's been presented) infringement.

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP

Seriously, stop it. Both infringement and plagiarism have been well-documented. You don't know what you're talking about.
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:12 PM on November 4, 2010 [5 favorites]


It's a perfectly normal and accepted use of language

...which isn't correct. Maybe it's accepted among people Judith Griggs's age that "public domain" refers to works that are publicly available and that the author doesn't make you pay for, but that isn't right either, and nobody in here seems to have a problem correcting her about it. "Death panels" was a perfectly normal and accepted use of language for one out of every two Americans a year ago.

There's value in using the right terms for things, especially when the wrong term comes with a lot of baggage that doesn't apply to the right one. I mean, nuance, right?
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 4:13 PM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


Maybe it's accepted among people Judith Griggs's age that "public domain" refers to works that are publicly available

It's not. In fact, people over 55 are generally more stringent about copyright infringement than people under 55, not less stringent about it.

She's just a doucheclown.
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:15 PM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


And yeah, other CHT, it's infringement. The original work wasn't an ingredient list; there was protectable expression. At most Griggs can say her edits produced a different work from the original, but it's a derivative work that the copyright owner didn't authorize. Plus she's reproducing and distributing it. She even admits to doing it in the email response to the original author. It's pretty cut-and-dry infringement (but IANHL)
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 4:17 PM on November 4, 2010


SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP

You make an interesting argument.

The original work wasn't an ingredient list; there was protectable expression

Oh, as I noted I suspect that's the case. I just can't see it to judge for myself.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:22 PM on November 4, 2010


You make an interesting argument.

There are dozens of examples given on this thread of either unauthorized reprinting or actual plagiarism. Why do you need to keep playing the devil's advocate? Especially since you keep repeating slightly incorrect info--lists of ingredients cannot be copyrighted, but the narrative exposition of a recipe is protected by copyright.
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:27 PM on November 4, 2010


Jesus, just stop replying to the guy, people. You're being trolled.
posted by mediareport at 4:33 PM on November 4, 2010


I just can't see it to judge for myself.

And yet you do!
posted by rtha at 4:34 PM on November 4, 2010


There are dozens of examples given on this thread of either unauthorized reprinting or actual plagiarism.

That's what I'm asking for. Where's the offending article?

I may just be missing the obvious (it wouldn't be the first time) and I'm seriously not trolling.

And yes, I noted above the difference b/t a recipe and the narrative expansion thereof. That's rather the crux of the issue.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:48 PM on November 4, 2010


Links to Cooks Source articles with their originals here and here.

And yes, I noted above the difference b/t a recipe and the narrative expansion thereof. That's rather the crux of the issue.

It isn't, actually. Here's the Cooks Source version, as reproduced on Gawker.com. Here's the original.
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:55 PM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Wait... if we're all pirates... am I going to get scurvy?

SOMEONE, QUICK. GET THE LIMES.
posted by sonika at 4:59 PM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


Oh, as I noted I suspect that's the case. I just can't see it to judge for myself.

How charitable of you to "suspect" that what you are being told about the piece by people who have actually read it is true.
posted by anazgnos at 4:59 PM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Until this story finishes its rounds, I'd suggest a name change to Cooks Source Sloppily.
posted by Municipal Hare at 5:05 PM on November 4, 2010


It isn't, actually. Here's the Cooks Source version, as reproduced on Gawker.com. Here's the original.

Ah! Thank you. I wasn't looking for an image.

That's fairly damning, but it's not pure lifting. Or rather, it is but with a whole lot of additional work, which gets into the whole question of who owns derivative works.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:14 PM on November 4, 2010


As far as I can tell, you know just enough about copyright law to make a fool out of yourself.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:21 PM on November 4, 2010 [7 favorites]


Is Copyright Infringement Theft?
The debate over the labels we give to copyright is interesting in an academic sense but largely meaningless in the real world. Creators often use words like “theft” to reflect how they feel about acts of infringement. Shifting the focus from the colloquial meaning of the word to the legal meaning accomplishes little more than arguing for the sake of argument, while misusing language from case law only forecloses a fuller understanding of the law.
posted by Artw at 5:24 PM on November 4, 2010


As far as I can tell, you know just enough about copyright law to make a fool out of yourself.

Well, that's probably true of most people, lawyers included. Seems to be a problem with the law, if you ask me.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:24 PM on November 4, 2010


CHT: "which gets into the whole question of who owns derivative works."

That's not really a question, the original author owns the right to license derivatives. It's one of the things you can explicitly give away to the public with a Creative Commons license, but otherwise it's one of the rights that are automatically reserved for the author.
posted by mullingitover at 5:31 PM on November 4, 2010


Artw: "[tenaciously continuing to derail]"

Dude. Just stop.
posted by mullingitover at 5:33 PM on November 4, 2010


That's fairly damning, but it's not pure lifting. Or rather, it is but with a whole lot of additional work, which gets into the whole question of who owns derivative works.

You could make that argument, except that what Cooks Source did is to publish the [reworked, derivative] work under Monica Gaudio's byline. Without asking her. That's the part that takes the cake and pretty much nails down the intent to steal.
posted by beagle at 5:37 PM on November 4, 2010 [3 favorites]


I've helped ms. mouse check high school papers for plagiarism. This would get a zero. I guess in court the verdict would depend on whether or not the judge has been to high school.
posted by fleetmouse at 5:39 PM on November 4, 2010


That's fairly damning, but it's not pure lifting. Or rather, it is but with a whole lot of additional work, which gets into the whole question of who owns derivative works.

The original author. It's not a question. It's set down in law.

And before anyone squawks about "transformational works": If a copypasta websearch can determine the original material, you haven't deviated enough from the original work for me to consider it transformational.
posted by Netzapper at 5:39 PM on November 4, 2010


That's not really a question...

Sure it is. "Is it transformative?" being the big one.

..what Cooks Source did is to publish the [reworked, derivative] work under Monica Gaudio's byline. Without asking her. That's the part that takes the cake and pretty much nails down the intent to steal.

This is where it get interesting. It'd probably be considered plagiarism, but that's not a crime. Did the new article transform the original enough to escape copyright? These days, probably not, but it seems to me to be an open question.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:42 PM on November 4, 2010


Sure it is. "Is it transformative?" being the big one.

Published under the original author's byline? How so?

A big part of my job is wrangling reprint permissions requests. Most are straightforward: "Can we reprint Chart A from Report Blah for [some purpose]?" and I say yep, here's the citation, thanks.

Others are more like this: "Can we reprint Chart A, except we want to turn it into a bar graph?"

In those cases, I tell them that we would like to see the bar graph; I pass it on to the appropriate program area, and if they give it the okay, I tell the reprint seeker to add language like "Altered with permission of [mywork]." In cases where the alteration is really significant, we ask them to use language like "Created by the Author, based on data from [mywork]."

It'd probably be considered plagiarism, but that's not a crime.


In the publishing world? Of course it is. It may not be a go-to-jail crime, but it is a lose-your-job/reputation/get sued crime. I fired a freelancer for it once, even (well, told them we wouldn't be using the article they'd sent in, and why, and why we wouldn't be contacting them in the future).
posted by rtha at 5:57 PM on November 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


It'd probably be considered plagiarism, but that's not a crime.

It's a tort, actually.

Did the new article transform the original enough to escape copyright? These days, probably not, but it seems to me to be an open question.

In what way is it an "open question"? They reprinted the article with her byline without her permission. The fact that they made crappy edits to it does not in any way diminish the infringement.
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:01 PM on November 4, 2010


It may not be a go-to-jail crime, but it is a lose-your-job/reputation/get sued crime

If you're getting sued, it's not for plagiarism.

OK, I seem to be doing more harm than good here, so I'll bow out. 'Night all.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:07 PM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Not get sued for plagiarism, you say?

Goodnight.
posted by rtha at 6:19 PM on November 4, 2010


It's been said here, at least a dozen times, but I'll state it again.

This is not equivalent to downloading music. Downloading music would be equivalent to browsing a magazine while you stand in line in the supermarket, and reading a recipe in it.

This is equivalent to taking someone's song, maybe changing the equalization on it a bit, and giving it away for free on a CD, while claiming it was your own song. Oh, and then telling the original songwriter they should be happy for the exposure you're giving them, once they complain about what you're doing.
posted by Jimbob at 6:55 PM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Artw, while that article is earnest, it's a blog post written by someone who graduated from law school six months ago and is self-employed as a blogger. Even if he were correct, his opinion wouldn't overrule the Supreme Court. Moreover, he's arguing against a strawman (the claim that, because infringement and theft are two different things, "any comparison between the two is invalid," which I have literally never heard anyone say), he's playing fast and loose with case law (he implies that a three-justice concurrence is equally authoritative as a majority opinion), he mischaracterizes a passage disagreeing with his point without acknowledging its content (the Green quote), and he handwaves away the policy discussion in the closing paragraph (creators feel that infringement is theft, so why use a different term? [no mention of any arguments for using the correct term]).

Saying there's no reason not to refer to infringement as theft is the same thing as saying there's no reason not to refer to first-person shooters as "murder simulators," to the estate tax as a "death tax," and so on. There is a reason: the latter terms are loaded, and intended to influence discussion of the topic by appealing to the reader's feelings about unrelated things. There's a legal term for violating a real property owner's right to exclude others: it's "trespassing," not "theft." There's a legal term for violating a copyright owner's exclusive rights: it's "infringement," not "theft." And to this day I have not heard a single justification for why not to use it.

I'm done with this derail, but I look forward to having it again every time this subject comes up
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 7:04 PM on November 4, 2010 [24 favorites]


Wait... if we're all pirates... am I going to get scurvy?

SOMEONE, QUICK. GET THE LIMES.
posted by sonika at 4:59 PM on November 4 [+] [!]


Furl the mainsheet there matey, it's not lime, but lemon juice you'll be needing.
posted by Ahab at 7:19 PM on November 4, 2010


MetaFilter: the original article gets the flour all wrong.
posted by dhartung at 8:03 PM on November 4, 2010


meta
posted by Artw at 8:06 PM on November 4, 2010


Not a good week to be the bike shed.
posted by hawthorne at 10:45 PM on November 4, 2010


do we sue the tart?
posted by clavdivs at 12:27 AM on November 5, 2010


Oh please please PLEASE make this a picture that I can look at with my seeing-holes. I desire it so much it is almost inexpressible, aside from all the expression that I am doing right now. Pleasenow.
posted by FatherDagon


http://yfrog.com/nghummingbieberdg

Don't judge me.

I don't have a job!
posted by blue funk at 4:25 AM on November 5, 2010 [1 favorite]


Even if none of the other parties whose work has been published without permission in this rag takes action, Disney isn't likely to be terribly forgiving about Griggs' use of this article.

From Disney's website:

"The United States Copyright Act protects original "works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression." The owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to reproduce the work, to create derivative works, to distribute copies to the public, and to perform or display the work publicly. Any violation of a copyright owner's exclusive right constitutes an infringement. A person who infringes a copyright willfully and for commercial advantage is subject to criminal as well as civil prosecution. "
posted by essexjan at 4:39 AM on November 5, 2010 [1 favorite]


Sorry, blue funk, that looks like a fully-grown hummingbird, not the baby one we all wanted.
posted by essexjan at 4:40 AM on November 5, 2010 [1 favorite]


Blame google, I only GIMPed what it found ;)
posted by blue funk at 4:49 AM on November 5, 2010


SOMEONE, QUICK. GET THE LIMES.

sonika, you better not be using my supertopsecret margarita recipe! I'll sue you! for margarita infringement!
unless you share
posted by bitter-girl.com at 6:43 AM on November 5, 2010


Tart reform?
posted by zerobyproxy at 6:43 AM on November 5, 2010 [2 favorites]


Clearly, this is a case of prior tart.

I'll show myself back out.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:11 AM on November 5, 2010 [3 favorites]


I wonder why she doesn't delete her Facebook account?
posted by taz at 8:19 AM on November 5, 2010


Because she's unskilled at the web.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:21 AM on November 5, 2010


Yeah, it's strange, isn't it? She-- or somebody-- has been taking stuff off the website, but you'd think the first thing she'd do is to delete the FB page.
posted by jokeefe at 8:23 AM on November 5, 2010


She may believe the Facebook community is salvageable. When this uproar dies down, the page will still have several thousand new fans. Perhaps she thinks she can win 'em over.
posted by zarq at 8:46 AM on November 5, 2010


sonika, you better not be using my supertopsecret margarita recipe! I'll sue you! for margarita infringement!

Not for another 18 weeks, I'm not! *sigh* Though at times, it seems like it'd be a damn good idea.
posted by sonika at 8:57 AM on November 5, 2010


Mmmm -- tarts and tartlets.
posted by ericb at 9:01 AM on November 5, 2010


FAIL! She went and got a new Facebook account and is now claiming the other one was "hacked."
posted by bitter-girl.com at 9:05 AM on November 5, 2010 [1 favorite]


NPR: The Day The Internet Threw A Righteous Hissyfit About Copyright And Pie
posted by zarq at 9:17 AM on November 5, 2010


I also love that she misspelled "Housatonic" in her claim of having been an editor at Housatonic Home. Whatever that was; I've never heard of it, and there's no reference to it on Google or Bowker's. Probably another kitchen-table production of hers.

Yeah ... I am also surprised at the misspelling.

Since Cooks Source is "A publication for food lovers in Western New England," her Housatonic Home was likely about homes in Northwestern CT (i.e. Litchfield County) and Southwestern MA through which the Housatonic River flows.
posted by ericb at 10:48 AM on November 5, 2010


Uh-oh!
"A photo on Food Network star and Southern-cooking champion Paula Deen's Facebook page showed what the poster said was one of Deen's recipes used on the site.

'Thank you, this has been forwarded to our legal department,' replied Deen or, perhaps more likely, a staffer running the account. Deen was one of several high-profile cooks whose articles appear to have been used on the magazine's site."
She's a 'cereal plagiarist!'
posted by ericb at 10:53 AM on November 5, 2010


Crooks Source -- "Our Magazine is Free Because We Steal The Content."
posted by ericb at 11:50 AM on November 5, 2010


The new FB page is a piece of work. And it appears to be quite real.

I don't know what some of you think you are going to achieve? We apologized, now go find a rabbit to catch or something

For those that have asked POLITELY, no we will not be stopping the magazine, and yes we will be taking further action against anyone caught hacking. Jack Ogden from Cheltenham UK has volunteered to help us catch these hackers. Thanks to you for your help Jack

Any posts considered libelous will be removed

There's lots of people here that do not seem to understand a few basics yet they seem to all be experts in the print business.

My.... goodness. She's going to try and take action against people posting derogatory comments to a FB page? Good luck with that...
posted by jokeefe at 2:25 PM on November 5, 2010


There's lots of people here that do not seem to understand a few basics yet they seem to all be experts in the print business.

Golly, I'm an actual expert in the print business, and guess what lady? You done did wrong.
posted by Windigo at 2:43 PM on November 5, 2010


Google Docs list of alleged copyright infringements by Judith Griggs.
posted by ericb at 3:08 PM on November 5, 2010


Oh please, let "Jack Ogden" from "Cheltenham UK" be "Anonymous" from "4Chan."
posted by klangklangston at 3:12 PM on November 5, 2010


New York Magazine: After Plagiarizing Blogger's Story, Cooks Source Magazine Has a (Possibly Fake) New Facebook Page.
"It's looking more and more like the new page is a fake. We've reached out to Cooks Source for comment. Stay tuned."
posted by ericb at 3:17 PM on November 5, 2010


That would be a relief-- I can't imagine how anyone could be so internet-clueless in this day and age. Oh wait, I can. Never mind.
posted by jokeefe at 7:32 PM on November 5, 2010


I decided we needed a Cooks Source "Downfall" video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC-tVHLM99w
posted by nemspyda at 5:53 AM on November 6, 2010 [12 favorites]


Okay, at this point I'm really feeling sorry for the woman, but I still LOLed at nemspyda.

What's interesting about all this is that the object lesson turns out to be not so much "don't steal," as "don't be a smug, condescending ass." The woman could have said something along the lines of "Sorry! But it was my understanding that internet material was 'open source' as long as authorship is attributed" or something like that, and then there would have been a dialog and she would have learned how it works... and pretty much no matter how that incident actually turned out, nobody would have been interested in a mob crucifixion. She just had the bad luck to be a) stupid + b) totally oblivious to "a" + c) excruciatingly arrogant. It was "c" that got her in the end.
posted by taz at 6:58 AM on November 6, 2010 [4 favorites]


That was a good Downfall video.

Esp. the Neil Gaiman part. Heh.
posted by the young rope-rider at 6:59 AM on November 6, 2010


Google Docs list of alleged copyright infringements by Judith Griggs.

Currently at 160 cases of illeged infringement.
posted by ericb at 7:18 AM on November 6, 2010


Nemspyda, that was the best downfall video ever. Thank you.
posted by Ahab at 7:28 AM on November 6, 2010


*alleged*
posted by ericb at 7:38 AM on November 6, 2010


And Neil Gaiman just tweeted the Downfall vid

Boom!
posted by dolface at 9:42 AM on November 6, 2010 [2 favorites]


I decided we needed a Cooks Source "Downfall" video.

"Ceiling Cat doesn't judge."
posted by ericb at 10:26 AM on November 6, 2010 [1 favorite]


I damn near horked up a lung at that same line, ericb.
posted by jacquilynne at 11:06 AM on November 6, 2010


Re: "We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me!"

mr. tula says, "yeah okay, we stole your car---but we WASHED IT!"
posted by tula at 2:21 PM on November 6, 2010


While Cooks Source has been producing this "free magazine" and selling ads in it, there is some question about whether they have been saving money by not actually printing up a lot of copies and getting them to distribution points.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 1:18 AM on November 7, 2010


Hmm, the Wayback Machine has no record of the site which is odd, to say the least...
posted by dolface at 2:19 PM on November 7, 2010


The cookssource.com domain name was only registered in March 2010.


WHOIS information for cookssource.com :
[Querying whois.verisign-grs.com]
[whois.verisign-grs.com]

Whois Server Version 2.0

Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.

Domain Name: COOKSSOURCE.COM
Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net
Name Server: NS1.MDNSSERVICE.COM
Name Server: NS2.MDNSSERVICE.COM
Name Server: NS3.MDNSSERVICE.COM
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 21-mar-2010
Creation Date: 21-mar-2010
Expiration Date: 21-mar-2011
posted by Eddie Devil at 2:40 PM on November 7, 2010


This is smelling more and more like a troll, but a pretty damn elaborate one!
Someone created all those jpegs of pages from "previous issues" of the magazine (but I guess all they had to do was paste lifted articles into an InDesign template, which is a kind of meta-genius all by itself).

But (if it was a troll) it was still a metric shit-ton of work.
posted by dolface at 2:56 PM on November 7, 2010


The cookssource.com domain name was only registered in March 2010.

some are saying this could be a troll, but there's an alternate theory - this is a person who's been running her little magazine in real space for many years and getting away with her cut and paste of anything she can find on the net, in obscurity

someone told her that it was time she got on the web, that it could really help her business, etc, etc, so she did, without a clue as to how easy it would be for people to catch her infractions of copyright and how outrage over it could snowball into a national phenomenon - especially if she made the mistake of being rude to someone who complained

it's an explanation i find pretty believable
posted by pyramid termite at 3:39 PM on November 7, 2010


So it appears that the only thing netizens feel should be copyrightable on the internet are recipes? Not music, comic books, books or film but recipes. In fact, as far as I can see the only thing you're saying here is "lets take the existing structure of copyright (including the provision that recipes are not copyrightable) and turn it completely upside down."

What next, a call for proceeds from Peter Pan to be shared between everyone but the Ormond Street Children's hospital.

It's like you want the internet to be either bizzaro world, or the alternative evil star trek universe.

(I'm kidding here BTW. Please don't hate me.)
posted by seanyboy at 4:58 AM on November 8, 2010


Being in the neighborhood, I can vouch for the fact that Cooks Source is an actual printed publication (it's on newsprint, tabloid-sized, not a magazine format). It has been around for a few years. You can lay the elaborate troll theories to rest. I have a copy of the actual fall issue in question here. I suppose I should list it on Ebay and see what I can get for it.
posted by beagle at 5:03 AM on November 8, 2010


So it looks like over the weekend someone figured out how to take down all the information on the Cooks Source website. The original magazine's Facebook page (which still has photos of the printed magazines pages/articles) has been abandoned by Judith Griggs and is still filling with comments. However a new Facebook page was created where Griggs - if it was actually her - at first alternated between "hackers will be reported!" and "please leave me alone." In theory there's yet another new Facebook page out there - but not this one. So far nothing new on the wikipedia page for Cooks Source infringement controversy.

I'm wondering if we'll get a statement from any of the lawyers of the Food Network, etc. any time soon.

And beagle hang on to your copy - something tells me all the magazines will be collector's items. Not probably worth anything, but worth keeping as a curiosity.
posted by batgrlHG at 1:28 PM on November 8, 2010


@Beagle You should scan it in or take photos of the page. I've read at least one news editorial questioning whether Monica's article really was copied or if was all just "hearsay" and I'd love to be able to say to them "How do you like this for hearsay?" with the actual image.
posted by nemspyda at 4:25 PM on November 8, 2010


That Facebook page is hilarious - if that's her, she's unrepentant. Disturbing.
posted by agregoli at 6:02 PM on November 8, 2010


Oh man I don't know how I missed this thread. I've had the fun "learning experience" of working for a vanity magazine for a woman who could probably swap brains with Judith Griggs and no one would notice the difference. As far as I can tell, all of these actions come from some deep seated idea that I am Better Than You, Because I'm Making a Magazine. This particular magazine was a fashion/rich fancy people lifestyle magazine, so you can double the ego there.

I was one of two graphic designers, and luckily for some reason she had it in her head that design was important. (Also the fact that we held her final product in my hands and could ruin everything, probably crossed her mind) Everyone else on the team wasn't as lucky. Some of the more classy manifestations of this mindset included: "Why should I pay you for retouching time? If you just took the photo right the FIRST TIME, you wouldn't need to retouch it!" "Oh, we need another article this month? Here, my barely literate sister-in-law knows lots about fashion!" "Why do we need someone to do the model's makeup? Your makeup looks pretty good, you do it" I'm not exactly sure what went on between her and the guy she hired to do the website, but it ended in a small claims court suit. She also eventually forced her personal assistant (who is gorgeous) to do a shoot as a model even though she was pretty self-consious about it.

The worst part, since it was also going to be a free/giveaway magazine, it was very dependent on advertising and having good distribution locations. That was supposed to be her responsibility, which she failed at and the magazine sank. If she had kept it going for a bit longer, I don't at all doubt that she would have started lifting articles, stock photos, etc. After all, it was such a great opportunity to get your work in Her Magazine.
posted by fontophilic at 8:12 AM on November 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


My worst crime as a small press editor is drafting in others to do folding and stapling. "Oh" I would tell them, "it will be fun! Like a party! I'll buy pizza! Blitz spirit!" and then a long night of drudgery and bruised blue thumbs would commence.
posted by Artw at 9:24 AM on November 9, 2010


Here's Griggs's newest page, and a private group. (Not clear if the page is really by her or just a clever troll, and I can't see the group without an account.)
posted by metaplectic at 9:47 AM on November 9, 2010


Statement posted on cookssource.com.
posted by dolface at 9:49 AM on November 9, 2010


page, group
posted by metaplectic at 9:50 AM on November 9, 2010


That statement couldn't possibly be by Griggs - it is too grammatical and well crafted.

But it still seems pretty unrepentant and clueless about the legal catastrophe CS is facing.

Recipes created in the Cooks Source Kitchen are owned by Cooks Source and as such approval is given for chefs and cooks in our area to use them.

How generous!
posted by metaplectic at 10:01 AM on November 9, 2010


Scalzi has some thoughts on it.
posted by dolface at 10:08 AM on November 9, 2010


From a PR point of view, there's not much else they could have done, other than close their doors for good.
posted by zarq at 10:35 AM on November 9, 2010


From their official statement, regarding Facebook harassment, emphasis mine:

We respectfully request this harassment be stopped immediately. If you or anyone knows of this abuse, you should go to the bogus Cooks Source (or other bogus pages) Facebook page, look to the left side of the page and press “Report Abuse,” or else go to How to Report Claims of Intellectual Property Infringement, http://www.facebook.com/legal/copyright.php

lol

All schadenfreude aside, I'm not without sympathy for poor Judith Griggs. This is a person who has been doing what she's doing since before the internet and its attendant copyright issues were well-known. She just doesn't get it, never has, and judging from the website statement, probably never will. The best possible outcome here is that other mini-magazine content lifters (and there are a TON) will look at this and say "gee, this could blow up in my face, maybe I should stop."
posted by chaff at 10:55 AM on November 9, 2010


I kind of wonder how many of the stories and recipes she copied were things that she was pitched. The food website I work for gets literally hundreds of PR emails a week (63 since yesterday and counting), and many of them include recipes, practically written articles about things, etc. I do think it's possible, even plausible, that some of the stuff that's identified as having been copied was actually pitched to her in a press release as something she should publish. It may have been pitched by the site where it also appears, or both publications may have received the pitch and decided to run it with enough of the original content to have it look like a copy.

It's certainly not going to be true of all the pieces -- we know she wasn't ever pitched the original blog post, after all, and I'm fairly sure she wasn't pitched the piece she lifted of ours -- but the volume of violations might not be as large as the spreadsheet would suggest.

Not that running material straight out of a PR pitch is good journalistic practice, but it's not illegal, and I don't think Cooks Source was exactly aiming to be the NY Times.
posted by jacquilynne at 10:58 AM on November 9, 2010


The new statements includes such as "oversight of a small, overworked staff."

So far I've seen nothing to disabuse me of the notion that the entire staff is just Judith Griggs sitting at her kitchen table. Maybe she is the type of person that gives her left and right hands different names.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 10:58 AM on November 9, 2010


That statement couldn't possibly be by Griggs - it is too grammatical and well crafted.

Really? Just from the second sentence: " It has since been since been hacked by unknown parties ..."
posted by ericb at 12:14 PM on November 9, 2010


Also: "The Facebook Corporate phone number are 650-543-4800, 650-853-1300 and 650-543-4811which ..."
posted by ericb at 12:16 PM on November 9, 2010


Somewhere on the Facebook page, in the discussions someone actually posted the names of people the magazine listed as staff - there were about 5 names besides Griggs, and one was said to be a nutritionist. Other comments immediately said posting names was going a bit too far, that if these were Griggs actual staff they didn't need to be harassed. And now of course I can't seem to find that thread.

On this Facebook page: I Love To Cook (not sure if this was ever an actual Cooks Source page, hard to tell at this point):
"Hans Mueller: The apology is better than what I expected, but feelings lacking none the less... but I'd like to point out that we're still not hackers. Concerning the one site you said was hacked, well that was social engineering, and you were too gullible and got duped. It's like giving money to those peeps sending e-mails from Africa asking for $10,000 and you'll get $1,000,000 in return."
Comments seem to return to this again and again - that Griggs doesn't get it because she's continuing to call anyone posting negative statements a hacker. Yer another thing to add to this list of Just Doesn't Get It.

I'm in agreement that the apology seems lacking:
"...However: Cooks Source can not vouch for all the writers we have used in the past, and in the future can only check to a certain extent. Therefore, we will no longer accept unrequested articles, nor will we work with writers or illustrators unless they can prove they are reputable people, provide their sources, and who, in our estimation, we feel our readers and advertisers can trust and rely on for accuracy and originality. All sources will be listed with the articles, along with the permission, where necessary."
So I'm thinking the excuse will be "but we were given the article by someone who said it was ok to use! We never thought of Googling to check that it might belong to someone else!"
posted by batgrlHG at 2:51 PM on November 9, 2010


NPR: Cooks Source, Copyright And Public Domain
"...For more on the legal issues here, NPR's Melissa Block talks to intellectual property lawyer Margaret Esquenet...

BLOCK: ...But what she did get in the end was essentially a shaming in the public square on the Web.

Ms. ESQUENET: As a copyright lawyer, I think that's very interesting, because in my experience, there's been this sort of almost cultural shift saying everybody owns everything, and everything online is for free.

The fact that this happened I think is actually very interesting, and it shows that maybe there's a bit of a turning point that people are beginning to understand that authors should get compensated for what they create."
posted by batgrlHG at 3:07 PM on November 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


there's been this sort of almost cultural shift saying everybody owns everything, and everything online is for free.... maybe there's a bit of a turning point that people are beginning to understand that authors should get compensated for what they create. --- I think the truth of it is more like "everything is free, unless it belongs to me."
posted by crunchland at 6:56 PM on November 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


I'm not really clear on what element of all this belonged to me.
posted by aramaic at 7:02 PM on November 9, 2010


NPR update
posted by metaplectic at 7:52 AM on November 10, 2010


A note to readers from the editor of Cooks Source:
It was a dark and stormy night, four score and seven years ago, when I said to myself: In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. Yet, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them. Darn it if we don’t hold these truths to be self-evident.

Bottom line: People try to put us down just because we get around. Working 9 to 5 — what a way to make a living. Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach? I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. Somehow I do not think they sing to me, but frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.

Don’t believe the hype. It’s a sequel. As an equal, can I get this through to you? My 98’s boomin’ with a trunk of funk. All the jealous punks can’t stop the dunk.

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men. Go ahead; make my day. You know I’m bad. I’m bad — come on, you know it.

Regrets? I’ve had a few. But then again, too few to mention. I did what I had to do. Two roads diverged in a wood, and, hey, I took the one less traveled by. Sure, it made a difference. Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.

But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again: I did not have plagiaristic relations with that woman. I think; therefore I am. I am not a potted plant!

Nor will I eat crow. I could not, would not, in a house. I would not, could not, with a mouse. I would not eat it with a fox. I would not eat it in a box. I would not eat it here or there. I would not eat it anywhere.

And why should I? It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood, a beautiful day for a neighbor. My mama always said there’d be days like these — there’d be days like these, my mama said. (Then again, my mama always said life was like a box of chocolates.)

Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. As I’ve been telling myself for years, speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far. Roll over, Beethoven, and rock me, Amadeus.

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers.

The fault, dear readers, is not in the stars but in ourselves.

I’m not going to answer any more questions for the rest of this year. If it’s going to be an interview, I’m going to conduct it. So I’ll answer my own questions. Ask myself the questions, then give you all the answers. (This is no disrespect to the Vikings.)

How many roads must a man walk down before you call him a man? How many seas must a white dove sail before she sleeps in the sand? How many times must the cannonballs fly before they’re forever banned? The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.

What I’m trying to say is this: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

May the force be with you.

P.S. Oops, I did it again.
posted by ericb at 8:55 AM on November 10, 2010 [6 favorites]


Cooks Source Statement:

We have cancelled our Facebook page on Thursday, November 4th, 2010 at 6:00PM. It has since been since been hacked by unknown parties and now someone else unknown to us has control of it. Their inclusion of Cooks Source issues and photos is used without our knowledge or consent. Please know that none of the statements made by either Cooks Source or Judith Griggs were made by either our staff or her.

We do not, and never have had a Twitter page, so what is attributed as our presence or our statements have nothing to do with Cooks Source or Judith Griggs.

We also cancelled our website on the above date, as our advertisers were listed therein, and with the harassment that has taken place on Facebook, we felt was unsafe for them.

Cooks Source will not be on Facebook again at any time in the future: hacking is too prevalent and apparently too easily performed by disreputable people. The email and Facebook abuse of our advertisers is the prime example: it is hurtful to people who are innocent of this issue, and can ill-afford the abuse -- either emotionally or financially. Small business owners are being bombarded with hate mail, and distasteful messages because someone downloaded their contact information on these bogus sites. These small business owners work very hard to keep their businesses going in a bad economy. We respectfully request this harassment be stopped immediately. If you or anyone knows of this abuse, you should go to the bogus Cooks Source (or other bogus pages) Facebook page, look to the left side of the page and press “Report Abuse,” or else go to How to Report Claims of Intellectual Property Infringement, http://www.facebook.com/legal/copyright.php The Facebook Corporate phone number are 650-543-4800, 650-853-1300 and 650-543-4811which hopefully will assist interested parties who feels these snipers who are perpetuating hate have gotten out of hand and want to report it. Interestingly, this phone number and any other contact info is not listed on the Facebook site, and has taken four people a number of days to track down.

Last month an article, “American as Apple Pie -- Isn’t,” was placed in error in Cooks Source, without the approval of the writer, Monica Gaudio. We sincerely wish to apologize to her for this error, it was an oversight of a small, overworked staff. We have made a donation at her request, to her chosen institution, the Columbia School of Journalism. In addition, a donation to the Western New England Food Bank, is being made in her name. It should be noted that Monica was given a clear credit for using her article within the publication, and has been paid in the way that she has requested to be paid.

This issue has made certain changes here at Cooks Source. Starting with this month, we will now list all sources. Also we now request that all the articles and informational pieces will have been made with written consent of the writers, the book publishers and/or their agents or distributors, chefs and business owners. All submission authors and chefs and cooks will have emailed, and/or signed a release form for this material to Cooks Source and as such will have approved its final inclusion. Email submissions are considered consent, with a verbal/written follow-up. Recipes created in the Cooks Source Kitchen are owned by Cooks Source and as such approval is given for chefs and cooks in our area to use them. Artwork used is created by our staff, or is royalty-free or purchased “clip-art.”

However: Cooks Source can not vouch for all the writers we have used in the past, and in the future can only check to a certain extent. Therefore, we will no longer accept unrequested articles, nor will we work with writers or illustrators unless they can prove they are reputable people, provide their sources, and who, in our estimation, we feel our readers and advertisers can trust and rely on for accuracy and originality. All sources will be listed with the articles, along with the permission, where necessary.

To say this has hurt our business is an understatement. But worse, it is harming the very people we are here to assist. Cooks Source’s is a small, free, local food newspaper-type magazine (called 'magazine' because it doesn't generally include what is known as 'news,') whose mission statement is to assist small businesses and farms in our area and help readers learn about sustainable food issues. We promote small businesses and farms in our area, offer recipes because our readers request them, and because we are offered cookbooks and excerpts from distributors, publicists, agents and authors, non-profits, ag organizations, chefs and home cooks so as to help them promote their works. Cooks Source is so named because it reports on food sources: the farms, the bakers, the chefs and the foodie producers and purveyors-- to the home and professional cooks and chefs in our area.

The misuse of Facebook discussed above also applies to Ms. Gaudio: she did what she felt was the right thing, and doesn’t deserve this kind of treatment, either. Regardless of what has been said, we liked her article very much
posted by mdrosen at 11:57 AM on November 12, 2010


To say this has hurt our business is an understatement. But worse, it is harming the very people we are here to assist.

Look at all of the damage that you monsters caused!
posted by Theta States at 12:38 PM on November 12, 2010


Wow, they're actually trying to claim that this clear pattern of plagiarism and reprinting without permission, backed up by the editor's open assertion that "the web is considered 'public domain'", is due to unspecified "writers we have used in the past"?

Judith Griggs is gutsy, I'll give her that.
posted by vorfeed at 1:23 PM on November 12, 2010


Honestly, vorfeed, as someone who comments on the internet, you should know that writers almost always turn in articles with some other writer's name on them. It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of.
posted by taz at 1:48 PM on November 12, 2010


Honestly, vorfeed, as someone who comments on the internet, you should know that writers almost always turn in articles with some other writer's name on them. It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of.

No, I am aware that this happens a lot. I simply don't believe that it happened without Judith Griggs' knowledge and/or tacit approval. Her response to the original author suggests that she had no problem with borrowing content, even when caught red-handed.
posted by vorfeed at 2:03 PM on November 12, 2010


What colour are her hands now?
posted by Theta States at 2:21 PM on November 12, 2010 [1 favorite]


<kermit> I don't think this is the time for that type of humor. </kermit>
posted by Gator at 2:24 PM on November 12, 2010


vorfeed... hamburger!
posted by taz at 2:47 PM on November 12, 2010


{*} Explodoburger!
posted by Artw at 2:51 PM on November 12, 2010


Oh dear lord, it just keeps getting funnier. Current "Statement" on the Cooks Source webpage -- quoted in its entirety because it'll probably come right back down again if and when Griggs retains competent legal counsel. All humorous errors have been retained:
Its sad really. The problem is that I have been so overworked and stretched that when this woman -- Monica -- contacted me, I was on deadline and traveling at the rate of 200 mile a day for that week (over 900 in total for that week), which I actually told her, along with a few other "nice" things, which she hasnt written about.
I was stupid to even answer her that night, her email to me was antagonistic and just plain rude and I was exhausted. But I got suckered in and responded. She doesnt say that she was rude, she doesnt say that I agreed (and did) to pay her. It was my plan to contact her after deadline and have a good discussion about it. The complicating issue was that one of the businesses we worked with had closed without notice, just a sign on the door -- leaving several people, including a chef who had relocated to this area from Florida -- out of work. I do not offer this as an excuse, but that, when she wanted money for Columbia University, it seemed ironic because there were all these people in this small town going into the holidays with no jobs, and no, well, nothing.

I should add that this email exchange took place the day before she wrote her article for the world. After she (likely) received my email, she called the home office phone at 10PM, I didnt answer that late, was in bed as I was traveling again the next day (left at 7AM the next morning) to Connecticut, and didnt get back to her. This is not an uncommon practice with anyone, to not respond to a phone call for a day or two, it happens to me from other businesses, all the time. I came home that day from being in Connecticut to find hundreds of phone messages and emails telling me I sucked and was a dirtbag... and much MUCH worse.

I really wish she had given me a chance to respond to her before blasting me. She really never gave me a chance.

Since then, we have had so much hate email (over 400 pieces) , phone calls and regular mail. My advertisers too, have been so harassed that it has all muddies up the waters as to what the real situation is. I took the site downbecuase someone threatened to go to all the distribution spots and destroy the new issue, also to protect my advertisers.
Facebook has not responded at all; not taken these advertisers name off this bogus site -- or remove the site completely -- and takes no responsibility that someone unnamed can just create a page that can suggest that people -- and I am sure that in real walking-around reality you are all really nice people -- that people should email total innocent strangers and harass them to death. Honestly, some of you have been pretty mean. I have been busy for the last week, apologising to these business owners and helping them to get things right again. If my apology to Monica seemed shallow it was because I was angry about the harm she has inflicted on others on behalf of her own agenda.

So let me say this now: Monica I am so sorry for any harm I caused you. I never ment to hurt anyone, and I think I did a nice job for you, but the fact remains that I took this without asking you and that was so very wrong. Please find it in you heart to forgive me. I sent the check to the University and also, because so many people really need help, serious help, I am sending one to Food bank of Western Massachusetts (sorry, I got the name wrong the first time, even tho we did write an article on them).

This is how it happened:
When putting together a magazine, a publishing firm usually has a staff of many, a stable of writers and proofreaders. Cooks Source doesnt, it is just us two...and believe me we would if we could use more help. Consequently I do much, have a few stalwart writers who love to write (for free) and a number of publishers and book agents who send me A LOT of books, recipes, press releases, etc -- I recieved one even today. In the past I have also assisted budding writers with their writing skills and given them a portfolio piece they can get jobs with, from magazines and newspapers that will pay them. In short, we do a lot of good, sell a lot of books for authors, and help a lot of people.
But one night when working yet another 12 hour day late into the night, I was short one article... Instead of picking up one of the multitude of books sent to me and typing it, I got lazy and went to the www and "found" something. Bleary-eyed I didnt notice it was copy written and reordered some of it. I did keep the author's name on it rather than outright "stealing" it, and it was my intention to contact the author, but I simply forgot, between proofreading, deliveries, exhaustion.

Cooks Source for those of you who are not familiar with it, works with small food-oriented businesses and farms to get the word out on their works/products. We are about getting readers to get up and go to some of these places, because they are so great and so much fun. We write every month on over 20 + businesses and feature a town a month and all their good food and interesting shops. We cover 16 towns and villages in Western New England, every month.

The bad news is that this is probably the final straw for Cooks Source. We have never been a great money-maker even with all the good we do for businesses. Having a black mark wont help...and now, our black mark will become our shroud. Winters are bleak in Western New England, and as such they are bleak for Cooks Source as well. This will end us. In the end if we did keep going, I would (very gladly) hire someone else to serve as editor and just continue my work with the towns. You should know that I did have an interview last week and the reporter grilled me seriously. I was able to show him all the promo books and articles we receive, all the photos we take and the "clip art" that is free for everyone. I also showed him those emails...

Thank you to all our readers, thanks to all our advertisers and writers... and to everyone who has been supportive and who has been a part of Cooks Source. To one writer in particular, Monica Gaudio, I wish you had given me a chance.

FIN
for Food Lovers in Western New England
Someone call the wahmbulance, Judith is TIRED.

"Honestly, some of you have been pretty mean."

Honestly, Judith, you're a plagiarizing bitch who still doesn't get it...at ALL.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 11:03 AM on November 16, 2010


Winters are bleak in Western New England

Are they, really? Wow.

Anyway, I don't know that continuing to pile on the woman is going to accomplish much at this stage, but I do note with some amusement that she still, after all this kerfuffle, still has not addressed that bizarre "Web is public domain" thing, along with the "you should be thanking me" snottiness, which directly contradicts what she claims here.
posted by Gator at 11:11 AM on November 16, 2010


I still feel a little sorry for her. It's clear she has a tonal issue when she writes. And it's interesting that the obviously feels like the victim. I wonder if she has Asperger's.
posted by crunchland at 12:06 PM on November 16, 2010


Man, some people just don't know when to shut up. She's so tired of those Bleak Western New England Winters that she's gonna dig herself to China instead...
posted by vorfeed at 12:29 PM on November 16, 2010


At least she says now that it was wrong to take it without asking.
posted by KathrynT at 2:12 PM on November 16, 2010


She's very carefully ignoring all the other examples of plagiarized content that the pile-on identified.

(Although maybe those fall into the tacit-consent "typed it in from a book the publisher sent me" area.)
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 6:15 PM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


My salient point from the now-deleted thread about Cooks Source closing up shop:

FUCK YEAH, KING MOB
posted by Greg Nog at 6:25 PM on November 16, 2010


FUCK YEAH, KING MOB

no, it was the prospect of being lawyered and fined to death that did it - the liability she'd incurred would lead nowhere but to bankruptcy for the company
posted by pyramid termite at 9:37 PM on November 16, 2010


Wow, if I thought the first "apology" posted at Cooks Source was graceless and somewhat insulting, this is even worse. It's so obvious the author sees herself as a victim and the evil Monica was, well in her words "her email to me was antagonistic and just plain rude and I was exhausted" - ugh. Then again, it's also so over the top that it makes me wonder if Griggs even wrote it. Though at this point we can say that about anything!

I've read a lot of posts where people worry that an internet mob is harassing poor Griggs and that everyone should be nicer - but then if this was indeed posted by Griggs, it's yet another indication that she still doesn't get it (and isn't even clever enough to fake being sorry), and kinder treatment wouldn't have changed anything.
posted by batgrlHG at 2:46 AM on November 17, 2010


She'll be back.
posted by aramaic at 5:54 AM on November 17, 2010


Yeah, this is just a classic Internet Suicide Note, "Everybody hates me so I might as well just LEAVE this messageboard, sniffle," fishing for people to pop up and say, "No, we don't hate you, please don't go!"
posted by Gator at 6:08 AM on November 17, 2010


She'll be back.

Is Ebaum's World hiring?
posted by Theta States at 6:17 AM on November 17, 2010 [2 favorites]


I got lazy and went to the www and "found" something. Bleary-eyed I didnt notice it was copy written and reordered some of it.

copy written???
COPY WRITTEN???? What part of "copyright" doesn't she... oh, right.
posted by Floydd at 8:17 AM on November 17, 2010 [5 favorites]


She was bleary-eyed. Give her a fucking break.
posted by iconomy at 8:59 AM on November 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


Narcissistic personality disorder
posted by metaplectic at 9:16 AM on November 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


Give her a fucking break.

Sure! And a vacation, even.
posted by Zed at 9:18 AM on November 17, 2010


I, for one, am glad that "But honestly, Monica" has entered pop culture's archive of catchphrases.

Cooks Source, the Musical?
posted by Ideefixe at 9:49 AM on November 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


Judith's only media interview: Cooks Source publisher admits mistake, describes struggles in copyright case
Despite the advertising, Griggs said the publication is not lucrative and she cannot afford to pay writers. In many cases, businesses submit material in exchange for free ads. In addition to writing some articles herself, Griggs said she produces, edits and distributes the publication in tandem with her adult daughter, and they travel about 2,000 miles around New England each month.

"It's a very hard job," she said. "I can't find anybody to work for me, and that's a problem."
I wonder why — she seems like such a nice lady...
Although Griggs has not spoken with Gaudio, she has apologized to her in a statement, made a $130 donation to Columbia University as she requested and a separate donation to the Food Bank of Western Massachusetts in her name.

"I donated everything I could, which was $50," Griggs said.
Ha haaaa! *snort*
posted by metaplectic at 9:51 AM on November 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


Snerf. I saw "gazette" in the URL and immediately wondered if it happened to be the North Country Gazette. No such luck, sadly.
posted by Gator at 10:00 AM on November 17, 2010


My gods, she still doesn't get it at all. I am astounded. I'd think even the thickest skull would have allowed the fact that things other people have written are copyrighted the moment they are written to seep into the gray matter, but no ... this woman is totally just not getting the message.

And it's hilarious how she's acting like this was such a rare event, her taking the work of someone else, when it's painfully obvious now that she grabbed stuff from all over the place (including some big name having-lawyers-on-staff people) and had been doing so for quite some time.

CLUELESS!
posted by Orb at 10:28 AM on November 17, 2010


Woah she's from Sunderland? Didn't realize this genius was right in my neighborhood. I've probably ignored Cooks Source hundreds of times!
posted by haveanicesummer at 11:30 AM on November 17, 2010


"It's a very hard job," she said. "I can't find anybody to work for me, and that's a problem."

Wahhh, wahhh. She doesn't get that it's her problem. It's not as if she has a boss issuing orders. The entire magazine is her baby and if she chooses to work her arse off for something which isn't worth it, why should we feel sorry for her?
posted by andraste at 11:57 AM on November 17, 2010 [2 favorites]


she cannot afford to pay writers.

...then...

I can't find anybody to work for me, and that's a problem.

I think I've found the flaw in her business model.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:48 PM on November 17, 2010 [3 favorites]


Yeah, isn't this the same woman who was previously crowing about getting people to write for her for free? Anyway, you'll find if you're willing to PAY people, they'd be willing to work for you. Heck, at this point in my financial situation, I'D be willing to work for her if she'd pay me. I cn rite gud.
posted by Gator at 12:49 PM on November 17, 2010


God knows in this job market it's hard to find chefs and writers looking for work.
posted by Theta States at 1:55 PM on November 17, 2010 [2 favorites]


Current "Statement" on the Cooks Source webpage -- quoted in its entirety because it'll probably come right back down again if and when Griggs retains competent legal counsel.

It seems mildly ironic to quote the entire statement here, presumably without Griggs's knowledge or permisson, considering what started the whole kerfluffle in the first place. Although prescient: the site is down for me at least.
posted by 6550 at 4:21 PM on November 17, 2010


And *bam* - Cooks Source website is now non existent.
The only surprise was that this was actually the smart thing to do.
posted by batgrlHG at 5:33 PM on November 17, 2010


I was just on Facebook and out of curiosity did a search for Cooks Source, and there are literally about twenty different pages dedicated to this stupid mess.

Okay, I'm officially starting to feel bad for this doofus. Yes, she screwed up big time and yes, she's reaping what she's sown, but she's not Bernie Madoff; she ought to be allowed to recover from this and earn a living once she makes it clear she's willing to obey the law and act like a decent human being. I just hope she doesn't go and kill herself or something now because she's lost her main source of income.
posted by Gator at 5:58 PM on November 17, 2010


I write for a living, and I can't imagine why someone who copies work without payment should be allowed to keep on doing so. I couldn't care less if she has to sell Christmas trees for a living.
posted by Ideefixe at 8:17 PM on November 17, 2010 [3 favorites]


I couldn't care less if she has to sell Christmas trees for a living.

all she's got to do is wait until she's found some on the curb, right?
posted by pyramid termite at 8:38 PM on November 17, 2010 [2 favorites]


Man, why didn't we think of doing this to Bernia Madoff??
posted by Theta States at 6:16 AM on November 18, 2010 [2 favorites]


... she ought to be allowed to recover from this and earn a living once she makes it clear she's willing to obey the law and act like a decent human being. ...

But she really shows no indication of having learned any such lessons.
posted by metaplectic at 7:54 AM on November 18, 2010 [1 favorite]


In her previous statement, she said they were going to do that going forward. List all sources, get signed releases and written consent from writers, no more unsolicited submissions, etc.
posted by Gator at 8:00 AM on November 18, 2010


In the past I have also assisted budding writers with their writing skills

Her continued assertions of her own professional skills, to the point of considering herself able to mentor others, are the most appalling things in this story to me. From the moment it broke, every utterance she has committed to the screen has been an example of poorly constructed written English. She wouldn't last long working at a real magazine or newspaper - not only because of her profound misunderstanding of things like copyright (of which the past tense is copyrighted, not "copy written") and public domain, but because her copy is just a serious mess which no professional editor would be willing to deal with on a regular basis.
posted by Miko at 8:22 AM on November 18, 2010 [3 favorites]


From the Gazette piece:

Griggs founded Cooks Source in 1997 after spending decades as an art director and editor at former publications like The Voice, Housatonic Home and Connecticut Woman magazines

aka shoppers -- "primarily advertising media but which may include substantive local news items and articles".

Although she said she has shortcomings when it comes to understanding copyright laws...

*cough* understatement of the year

...Griggs said she has always viewed the republication of recipes as a "gray area,"

She questioned how a chef using a recipe he or she finds online for profit in a restaurant is any different from a magazine publishing one found online.

"There's a big question about recipes," she said.


No, there's not.
posted by Miko at 8:33 AM on November 18, 2010 [2 favorites]


« Older Seydou Keïta, self taught Malian portrait photogra...  |  Werewolf Werewolf2 Werewolf3 W... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments