Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Bougielala mothafucka ([info]thoms) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2010-11-04 11:13:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:food, plagiarism

Public domain... I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.
I came across this on twitter, thanks to John Scalzi.

Back in 2005, Monica Gaudio wrote an Ice Dragon (? I don't know what this is.) entry called A Tale of Two Tarts that appeared on the Godecookery website. It is copyrighted and on a web-domain that Monica herself owns.

Last week, a friend contacted her, asking her how she had gotten published! Monica's answer "I... didn't?"

Turns out, she had. The magazine Cooks Source (Facebook here, they are also a paper publication.) had lifted her article from the Godecookery site and put it in their magazine.

She contacts the magazine via phone and then through the "Contact Us" link on the website, and exchanges emails with them. Finally, they ask her "what she wants." She replies that she wants an apology on Facebook, a printed apology in the magazine, and $130 donated to the Columbia School of Journalism.

What she got in response was this (quoted from her post):

Yes Monica, I have been doing this for 3 decades, having been an editor at The Voice, Housitonic Home and Connecticut Woman Magazine. I do know about copyright laws. It was "my bad" indeed, and, as the magazine is put together in long sessions, tired eyes and minds somethings forget to do these things.

But honestly Monica, the web is considered "public domain" and you should be happy we just didn't "lift" your whole article and put someone else's name on it! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally. Now it will work well for your portfolio. For that reason, I have a bit of a difficult time with your requests for monetary gain, albeit for such a fine (and very wealthy!) institution. We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me! I never charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written pieces, and have many who write for me... ALWAYS for free!


Monica is rightfully mad.

[info]nihilistic_kid on LJ has a post about it here as well. And Scalzi posted on his blog as well.

And John Scalzi linked to his recipe for Schadenfreude Pie on the Cooks Resource Facebook wall here, with a plea that they "don't steal it." Bwah!

EDIT: The Smart Bitches have picked it up.

Also, people are looking. And unshockingly, this isn't the first time this has happened. This Pancetta and Green Onion Tart? Is copyright to Giada deLaurentiis, and appears on the Food Network website under her name.

EDIT of "Oh Fuck, The Internet is Here" - The cookssource.com website is down. Dear Author and Gawker have both picked it up.

EDIT the Heidipology: This is the last one from me, anything else will have to go into the comments, cause I'm going out and having me a drink from a non-plagiarized source. Judith Griggs has "apologised" via the wall of the Facebook account. Facebook is linked up above. Marvel, will you? (Screencap here in case she takes it down.)


(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]bigbigtruck
2010-11-04 08:17 pm UTC (link)
"On the Internet, everyone knows you're an ass."

But seriously, am I the only one who's unnerved at how huge this dogpile has gotten? I mean, yeah, the lady's a plagiarizing jerk, but still... it's a tiny, poorly-made magazine, and... Argh, but then, there's no excuse for that smug response... :\

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]queencallipygos
2010-11-04 08:19 pm UTC (link)
I've got a post on my own (lj) blog brewing about this. Long story short - speaking as a writer, I'm quite pleased that the rest of the world has gone after this asshat with EXTREME PREJUDICE.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]bigbigtruck
2010-11-04 08:23 pm UTC (link)
I can definitely see that. I guess it's not so much the dogpile as... I guess I just can't imagine that outrageous response being written by someone of sound mind.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]bigbigtruck
2010-11-04 08:32 pm UTC (link)
(Should probably mention I had an experience a few years ago with someone with the same "you should pay me for using your stuff" attitude, and she was clearly a couple onions short of a Frito pie.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]twinno, 2010-11-04 08:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]bigbigtruck, 2010-11-04 08:40 pm UTC

[info]sandglass
2010-11-04 11:31 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, no, you don't get to pull the mental illness card here. She fucking plagiarized and doesn't know shit about copyright law, those aren't symptoms.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]bigbigtruck, 2010-11-05 02:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sandglass, 2010-11-05 02:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]bigbigtruck, 2010-11-05 02:49 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sandglass, 2010-11-05 02:54 am UTC

[info]red_eft
2010-11-04 11:32 pm UTC (link)
Ehhh, I dunno. My brother 'worked' for someone exactly like that. He's not mentally ill unless entitled jerkitude is a mental illness.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]sepiamagpie
2010-11-04 11:48 pm UTC (link)
Oh, horseapples.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]sgaana
2010-11-05 01:36 am UTC (link)
I can. "Being an entitled asshole" isn't a mental illness; there's a lot of people like this out there. She's stunningly self-absorbed, and I'm betting she's never been called on her shit before in a way that made her have to learn anything. She's really just your run of the mill bully in the guise of a middle-aged woman who's spent a bit too much time bluffing her way through small-town politics.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]bigbigtruck, 2010-11-05 02:14 am UTC

[info]quantumreality
2010-11-04 08:22 pm UTC (link)
Self-satisfied asshattery can get up a lot of peoples' noses.

The moral of the story is: Any e-mail one writes, one should assume it's going to be seen by, like, the Queen of the United Kingdom.

'cause once one tweaks someone else off, all it takes is a few rounds of e-mail forwards with "look at what this jerkoff asshat wrote to me" before it'll eventually get on the Interwebs somewhere.

*still remembers the slight wankstorm an internal corporate e-mail back in 1999 caused, which was thankfully confined to within the company.*

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]sgaana
2010-11-04 08:53 pm UTC (link)
At this point, the woman's toast, and it doesn't really matter how big the dogpile is. I also keep thinking to myself, "I bet she has NO idea who Scalzi or Mamatas or even Neil Gaiman is," and she seems like the type who probably doesn't care. It's not like she's going to read every single bad comment and take it heart. (I think it's unlikely she continued reading past, say, the 5th "nasty" comment she received.)

The only thing she's going to care about is if the Serious Legal People from FN, NPR, Disney, etc. get on her case. But I can't feel sorry that the viral explosion of this caused it to be brought to their attention -- because she DID steal from them and thought she could get away with it... no, thought she was entitled to it. The OP, a private individual, may not have had the funds to pursue legal recourse, but if anyone deserves to be slapped with lawsuits, it's this "editor".

Beyond that... I actually don't think the dogpile is going to make much of an impression on her. On the other hand, the vast publicizing that this is getting might -- MIGHT -- result in a few other people seeing it and learning "hey, the stuff you find on the internet isn't actually free for you to take and republish!" And there are an AWFUL LOT of people who could use having that lesson hammered in, yet again.

Really, that's the good that comes of the huge dogpile.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


nam_jai
2010-11-04 09:00 pm UTC (link)
I work for a publication and over the years have often played the role of copyright hawk, especially in the area of writers/editors who'd never dream of stealing words but think it's okay to take photos off the Internet willy-nilly. I don't think any of them would respond to a complaint like this woman did, but once the dust has settled, I want to find a good round-up of this dogpile and share it with the staff, with the message: "DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU!"

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]sgaana
2010-11-04 09:07 pm UTC (link)
I know, right?

If nothing else, it becomes a good recent example of how quickly and thoroughly what you think is a private matter can become broadcast internationally. People kind of know that, but I think they forget in the lull between such incidents.

And it's nice to see that it's happening because of stealing content. (Therefore, also a nice object lesson to point out to people who -- like this woman -- imagine that nothing is wrong with doing it.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]bigbigtruck, 2010-11-04 09:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]papervolcano, 2010-11-04 09:30 pm UTC

[info]alexa
2010-11-04 09:00 pm UTC (link)
I think this lady deserves it... but there is a (smallish) part of me that pities her for the dread and panic she must feel, now that the entire internet is coming down on her and larger corporations are being alerted to the publication's history of plagiarism.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]bigbigtruck
2010-11-04 09:20 pm UTC (link)
there is a (smallish) part of me that pities her for the dread and panic she must feel

I guess that's my reservation, even though it might not make sense - and even though the dogpile *is* totally justified. It's just, imagine yourself in that place... eep.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]sgaana, 2010-11-05 01:32 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]duraniedrama, 2010-11-05 01:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sgaana, 2010-11-05 01:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]vampychick, 2010-11-05 04:29 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]beachlass, 2010-11-05 01:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]vampychick, 2010-11-05 04:44 pm UTC

[info]edelweiss
2010-11-04 09:51 pm UTC (link)
I just feel bad for the advertisers -- apparently they are being slammed with calls. I hope they can make up for lost time/money with some free publicity out of this, somehow.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]bigbigtruck
2010-11-04 10:08 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, the "please don't send us angry messages for someone else's idiocy!" notice made me wince.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]beachlass
2010-11-04 10:44 pm UTC (link)
My initial guess is that she actually hasn't figured out how big the internet disaster is... she just mentions the # of FB friends or likes or whatever, and I'm not certain she knows that she's now internet infamous, or in the Guardian or Washington Post.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]sandglass
2010-11-04 11:36 pm UTC (link)
She seems to be taking at as an any publicity is good publicity. Which is delightfully silly.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]sgaana
2010-11-05 01:27 am UTC (link)
See, this is what I'm thinking, yes.

She knows she's gotten a FUCK-TON of comments, and they're almost all nasty to one degree or another. But she's so... erg, smug and upbeat that what I imagine her doing is just giving a big wave and chirping "Okay!" Which means she has no intention of reading all the comments. All she has to do is read like 5 of them to get a sense of the general tenor, and after that, really... in her position, why would she read the rest?

Which means, she's not going to come across any of the posts that would announce all of the places that this has proliferated, or the discovery of other linked pieces, or the news of Food Network or NPR etc. being notified. She'd have to read deep, DEEP into the comments, at this point, to come across those things. I just don't see her doing that.

And that suggests that she has NO IDEA. How would she? Even if someone tries to alert her to all of that by email, I bet her email box is full of invective too, and she's probably just deleting them unread.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


tetradecimal
2010-11-05 01:59 am UTC (link)
It did snowball extremely quickly, didn't it? I've never seen something cut across demographics so fast.

But I can't really dredge up much sympathy for them, seeing as how they were apparently stealing content from people hand over fist.

I predict a tongue-in-cheek NPR piece on the evolution of social media.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]bigbigtruck
2010-11-05 02:55 am UTC (link)
Yeah, no sympathy here, just... well, also_not_a_pipe put it very well.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]agent_hyatt
2010-11-05 03:50 am UTC (link)
It probably snowballed because it was a perfect storm of riling up the internet. Anything copyright-related gets near-universal attention, the editor's attitude makes it extra note- and mock-worthy, and then a bit of digging reveals that the magazine hasn't violated the copyright of just that one person...

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]capering_around
2010-11-05 07:36 am UTC (link)
Your icon is wonderful!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - tetradecimal, 2010-11-05 09:40 am UTC

[info]nevadafighter
2010-11-05 03:54 am UTC (link)
I'm not, because if she'd acted like a decent human being, apologized, and did the very few things that were asked, it never would have been a blip (and unfortunately for others the numerous other cases of plagiarism might not have been discovered). It was her condescending full of shit response and repeated refusal to do the right thing that lit the match.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]janegraddell
2010-11-05 10:24 am UTC (link)
I think part of the reason for the huge response is partly just simple math, namely that food blog followers are a) legion and b) cross many genres.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map