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]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)


[info]bigbigtruck
2010-11-04 09:18 pm UTC (link)
True, it's definitely going to serve as a good lesson.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]papervolcano
2010-11-04 09:30 pm UTC (link)
As another copyright hawk - god, this! I've spent the last few days explaining to one of my guys that internet =! free. Also, uploading it to your own flickr page and marking it as commercial use allowed doesn't count as a valid creative commons licence. It's next to the pictures of your *wedding*, how thick do you think I am? If I can put together an internet Dogpile primer, maaaaaaybe I can get him to think twice...

(Also, why do I only get 'is this libellous?' queries when I've got a hideous cold?)

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map