Blogger's Copywrited Article Stolen by Cooking Magazine

[lovetoscrap]

I have wondered when we would hear of something like this. There are so many wonderful blog authors out there and I have wondered about how they can safeguard their work.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/11/05/cooks.source.plagiarism/index.html?hpt=T2

(CNN) -- Roasted. Burned. Cooked.


It was hard Friday to find a corner of the internet where talk about Monica Gaudio and her run-in with the magazine's editor wasn't cropping up.

On Wednesday, Gaudio wrote about her discovery on her blog.

She said she learned about it when a friend congratulated her for being published on the site. Gaudio responded that she had never heard of it and that the article in question -- which detailed medieval pie recipes -- had been written for her own site.

She hunted Cooks Source down and proposed a solution: Donate $130, the equivalent of 10 cents per word, to the Columbia School of Journalism as payment.

What really set the internet aflame, however, was the response she said she got from editor Judith Griggs.

Gaudio said Griggs wrote her an e-mail that read: "[H]onestly 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 offense 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."

Gaudio said the language that was edited was the medieval-style English used in the recipes. She wrote that Griggs went on to tell her the article is now fit to be used in her portfolio and said, perhaps joking, that because the magazine "put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me!"

That's where the internet jumped in. A friend and fellow blogger first wrote about the incident.

The story spread further after such influential Twitter users as fantasy writer Neil Gaiman and science-fiction/geek icon Wil Wheaton (combined, the two have a Twitter audience of 3.2 million) shared it with their followers.


Online foodies were all over the story.

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.

The blog post about this: http://illadore.livejournal.com/30674.html

*I know I am probably breaking copyright laws by posting the whole article. I cited the source and provided the link, and am not making any money off of this post so hopefully that keeps me out of the same circle of hell that this magazine editor is in.

 

[bicker]

I can't say I'm surprised. There is a general and selfish disregard for the property rights of others in our society, and so I think this kind of things is probably more common than we realize.

 

[merryweather20]

Several big businesses have also been caught lifting photos from personal sights even from professional photographers with all the applicable legal notations to prevent unauthorized distribution.

I remember a young journalism student going after one of the big tech companies for lifting one of her pics, and labeling her a "geek". They didn't seem to understands that intellectual property rights go both ways. They can't sue someone millions of dollars for unathorized software use and then go and rip stuff themselves

The lack of professionalism in the response from the magazine is a ittle scary

 

[OceanAnnie]

The editor came across as shady and condescending. People don't respond well to that.

 

[lovetoscrap]

The really funny thing is that she just keeps digging that hole deeper and deeper on her (the magazine's) facebook page. She is really coming off like an absolutely arrogant child and the more she makes comments the more it incites the crowd.

They are bombarding all of the advertisers with emails to ask them to stop supporting her, have made numerous spoof pages, and have been doing a lot of digging and found a BUNCH of things that were published that were taken from numerous other sources! It seems like this person has been putting this together with completely plagiarized material from all over-- including many high power companies and celebrity chefs-- those that have deep pockets and lots of lawyers.

Dont make teh interwebz mad. (I need a LOL cat!)

ETA: with some more reading it appears that the FB page that is supposedly "her" posting is most likely a fake-- a spoof that is doing a very good job. She may actually be doing the smart thing and lying low and keeping her mouth shut. And hopefully finding a good lawyer. I think she is going to need it!

 

[lovetoscrap]

And in an interesting connection apparently one of the sites they have stolen from is one owned by our own beloved DISNEY!

Looks like a lot of stuff was lifted from Food Network and supposedly they are looking into it.

 

[tvguy]

I have wondered when we would hear of something like this. There are so many wonderful blog authors out there and I have wondered about how they can safeguard their work.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/11/05/cooks.source.plagiarism/index.html?hpt=T2


The blog post about this: http://illadore.livejournal.com/30674.html

*I know I am probably breaking copyright laws by posting the whole article. I cited the source and provided the link, and am not making any money off of this post so hopefully that keeps me out of the same circle of hell that this magazine editor is in.

While you absolutely bring up an issue that is hotly debated...it amuses me you did the exact same thing....copy and pasted the CNN article on another commerical for profit site, the DIS boards. And you also posted the direct link too, just like the woman cited in the article.

As someone who writes for a news website, I have sat through far too many legal seminars, and legal advisors tell us to post a link to the article, but do not post the article itself or portions of it on another site.

 

[bicker]

Dont make teh interwebz mad. (I need a LOL cat!)

At least this time, it is warranted. The Internet is just as likely to "get mad" for no reason.

As someone who writes for a news website, I have sat through far too many legal seminars, and legal advisors tell us to post a link to the article, but do not post the article itself or portions of it on another site.

There is an incontrovertible right to comment on something in context. But I suppose quoting something is different than posting portions of it. What I'm doing here, posting a sentence of yours and then writing a few sentences about that sentence, that's perfectly within the bounds of the law... that's really what Fair Use is all about, despite how some people work to abuse it for their own personal gain, beyond that for which it was intended.

 

[tvguy]

At least this time, it is warranted. The Internet is just as likely to "get mad" for no reason.

There is an incontrovertible right to comment on something in context. But I suppose quoting something is different than posting portions of it. What I'm doing here, posting a sentence of yours and then writing a few sentences about that sentence, that's perfectly within the bounds of the law... that's really what Fair Use is all about, despite how some people work to abuse it for their own personal gain, beyond that for which it was intended.

Well, when I post here, I am giving implied conscent that fellow posters can quote my post.
I know on our website, we encourage people to link to our content, but forbid people from copying it. That's because we want to get credit for the hit, not someone else.
We have strict rules on what we can copy, or air, especially off You Tube.

 

[bicker]

I think the Fair Use Doctrine does make it clear that all publication comes with implied consent for limited copying. There are many people who think that copying the whole thing, in its entirety, without adding any value to it, is covered by Fair Use. That, at least, is not true, but the general rule-of-thumb I've seen discussed is that Fair Use is clearly evident if the copied portion is no more than one-third of the whole new work. However, that's just a rule-of-thumb. Often, the law has protected people who copied far more than that. I've never seen a court case where someone was found in violation of copyright law when they published a work that quoted other works where the quoted material constituted less than one-third of their work. The nature of the use matters (or at least should) but that one-third threshold seems to apply generally.

 

[cm8]

I can't say I'm surprised. There is a general and selfish disregard for the property rights of others in our society, and so I think this kind of things is probably more common than we realize.

 

[RayaniFoxmur]

While you absolutely bring up an issue that is hotly debated...it amuses me you did the exact same thing....copy and pasted the CNN article on another commerical for profit site, the DIS boards. And you also posted the direct link too, just like the woman cited in the article.

As someone who writes for a news website, I have sat through far too many legal seminars, and legal advisors tell us to post a link to the article, but do not post the article itself or portions of it on another site.

Yes, but she's also not making money off of it. While the Cooks Source magazine is ultimately free, she does make money from the advertisers. Lovetoscrap is reposting for informational purposes only. Not to make money off of someone else's article, without their permission.

 

[bicker]

Making money is just one factor. It isn't an overriding factor, balanced against others, such as the percentage aspect I mentioned earlier: For example, all other things held constant, someone making money perhaps would be required to have a greater percentage of their own original content (i.e., less copying of other works) than someone who is not making money.

 

[lovetoscrap]

While you absolutely bring up an issue that is hotly debated...it amuses me you did the exact same thing....copy and pasted the CNN article on another commerical for profit site, the DIS boards. And you also posted the direct link too, just like the woman cited in the article.

As someone who writes for a news website, I have sat through far too many legal seminars, and legal advisors tell us to post a link to the article, but do not post the article itself or portions of it on another site.

You are absolutely right and that is why I put my disclaimer at the bottom--with a bit of tongue in cheek commentary. I have edited to only quote the main news points of the article. However even that is a very grey area-- the line between "fair use" and "copyright infringement" is very very blurred and most of what I could find says that the only one that can ultimately tell you if you have crossed over from fair use is the judge that rules in the case brought against you. And it actually makes no difference whether you gain any financial benefit from the use or not.

In a forum where you are trying to encourage a discussion of the topic it is more likely that others will join in if all the information needed is actually in the first post. Just providing a link means that a majority will just skip it and move on. I actually did debate at the time of posting removing much of what I just did but in the end laziness won.

 

[bicker]

In a forum where you are trying to encourage a discussion of the topic it is more likely that others will join in if all the information needed is actually in the first post.

To be fair, that's not a valid reason according to the law. What you could have done is presented the article, pretty-much as you did, but put two or three paragraphs of your own personal commentary after each paragraph in the article. I know this might not have been what you wanted to do, but to be fair to tvguy, it is indeed what you should do in cases like this.

 

[tvguy]

Yes, but she's also not making money off of it. While the Cooks Source magazine is ultimately free, she does make money from the advertisers. Lovetoscrap is reposting for informational purposes only. Not to make money off of someone else's article, without their permission.

Actually, the DIS Boards ARE a commerical for profit site, and copyrighted content posted on their site, could be seen as generating revenue for them.
Intent of the poster isn't a factor. If you run over a pedestrian, few are going to argue to intended to do it, but you still did it, and are responsible for damages.

 

[tvguy]

We run into this all the time at work with stuff on You Tube. While we have the capability of putting video from You Tube directly on the air, we are no longer allowed to do so. The corporate lawyers say we must shoot the video off a computer monitor, starting with a wide shot showing it is being shot off a computer screen, then you can zoom in full screen, and then you must zoom back out wide to show it is being shot off a computer screen. All 3 steps must be used EVERYTIME you use You Tube video, even if it is the same video, in the same story.
The real issue isn't the legality of taking something off You Tube or any other site, where you don't know if the poster even had a legal right to post it. The issue is the COST of defending a lawsuit to prove you had a legal right to do so. Everything is the bottom line these days. If you don't use the video, you don't get sued. If you do, and get sued, even if you ultimately prove you had a right to, it will cost at least $100,000 to defend yourself. The corporation doesn't care you were right, they just care that they had to spend $100,000.

 

[cm8]

We run into this all the time at work with stuff on You Tube. While we have the capability of putting video from You Tube directly on the air, we are no longer allowed to do so. The corporate lawyers say we must shoot the video off a computer monitor, starting with a wide shot showing it is being shot off a computer screen, then you can zoom in full screen, and then you must zoom back out wide to show it is being shot off a computer screen. All 3 steps must be used EVERYTIME you use You Tube video, even if it is the same video, in the same story.
The real issue isn't the legality of taking something off You Tube or any other site, where you don't know if the poster even had a legal right to post it. The issue is the COST of defending a lawsuit to prove you had a legal right to do so. Everything is the bottom line these days. If you don't use the video, you don't get sued. If you do, and get sued, even if you ultimately prove you had a right to, it will cost at least $100,000 to defend yourself. The corporation doesn't care you were right, they just care that they had to spend $100,000.

Agreed!