PDA

View Full Version : Schadenfreude [The Cooks Source Debacle Peanut Gallery]



Button
11-04-2010, 08:34 PM
I find this amusing. I'm mad for the writer, totally understand the plight. But the response from the editor is just... It's too crazy not to laugh at it.

http://illadore.livejournal.com/30674.html

Button
11-04-2010, 08:40 PM
The kicker is the Facebook page of the magazine (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cooks-Source-Magazine/196994196748), which now has many remarks from the web, who very well know. (Sometimes you have to <3 the Internet.)

scarletpeaches
11-04-2010, 08:42 PM
One of my Twitter contacts retweeted a link to this with "RT because they asked us not to." So...I RT'd it as well.

Please, feel free to go to my Twitter page and join in. This link needs to be spread. :D

shyne
11-04-2010, 08:45 PM
lol @

In Soviet Russia, sources cook you!

CheekyWench
11-04-2010, 08:48 PM
lol @

In Soviet Russia, sources cook you!

LMAO

kayleamay
11-04-2010, 08:59 PM
I have sympathy for the writer, but overall, I'm feeling a little inspired by all of the comments left. Clearly, John Q. Public isn't down with copyright infringement.

I can't believe how petty that editor's response was.

Snowstorm
11-04-2010, 09:09 PM
Sounds like that editor needs to retire ... or just go away. Geez.

Button
11-04-2010, 09:24 PM
Update from Reddit: They are looking at the magazine, most (if not all) of the content is stolen. One article was stolen from Martha Stewart Magazine.

Plus, other good news. One of the Reddit's people is an owner of a bar and restaurants. He knows as many as 10 or more other owners and will be telling them not to distribute their magazine in their places of business any more.

Plus, they have names and addresses of people who have paid for advertising.

I think Cook's Source ain't got Hell's chance in a ball of snow.

Old Hack
11-04-2010, 09:26 PM
I blogged about this today (http://howpublishingreallyworks.com/?p=3450) and have had more hits on the article than I got the time Ian Rankin tweeted a link to my blog. Over 500 hits in the last 20 minutes, and more coming in every second.

Meanwhile, Neil Gaiman thinks Judith Griggs might have done this before (read the comments below the picture) (http://twitter.com/#%21/neilhimself/status/29683630563); and it's being discussed in BR&BC too (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5480158).

Button
11-04-2010, 09:29 PM
Neil Gaiman put in his two cents at the Facebook page.

Button
11-04-2010, 09:40 PM
I blogged about this today (http://howpublishingreallyworks.com/?p=3450) and have had more hits on the article than I got the time Ian Rankin tweeted a link to my blog. Over 500 hits in the last 20 minutes, and more coming in every second.

Meanwhile, Neil Gaiman thinks Judith Griggs might have done this before (read the comments below the picture) (http://twitter.com/#%21/neilhimself/status/29683630563); and it's being discussed in BR&BC too (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5480158).

Yay for hits!

Yes, I think Cook's Source has stolen from everywhere. I've never heard of the magazine until now. It made me wonder if it was some no name online magazine that was just as spam location. You know. One of those places that looks spammy from 10 miles away.

I was surprised to hear it even had advertisers. I wouldn't be surprised if they asked for their money back or something.

CheekyWench
11-04-2010, 09:44 PM
And now "judith griggs" has a google bomb set forth by SBTB :)
when you google her name, this link is second on the list. lol
http://smartbitchestrashybooks.com/judithgriggs/

Button
11-04-2010, 09:49 PM
I <3 SmartyBooks. :)

Misa Buckley
11-04-2010, 09:49 PM
The editor's reply made my mouth fall open so fast I nearly dislocated my jaw.

CheekyWench
11-04-2010, 10:03 PM
The kicker is the Facebook page of the magazine (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cooks-Source-Magazine/196994196748), which now has many remarks from the web, who very well know. (Sometimes you have to <3 the Internet.)

They've also found out they lifted a recipe from Paula Deen and posted it on HER facebook. (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=162870240412203&set=o.104698228576)

:popcorn:

Button
11-04-2010, 10:06 PM
The Cajun says it sounds like a complete Type A ad sales person. If she worked previously for magazines for anything, she was probably in ad sales.

He says lots of ad sales people have sometimes no concept of copyright. He dealt with that during making commercials. People would ask for certain logos to be in their commercials, and the sales people would promise it would be there and would tell him to put it in the ads.

He thinks more than likely he was an ad sales rep who struck out on her own, thinking she could do the same thing and probably hasn't stepped foot as an editor for anyone. She made the sales, threw together a magazines, and kept doing it as long as people were paying her. She'd make a good profit considering she wasn't paying writers at all, and hardly any overhead.

This is opinion only, not fact. Just open speculation. Probably shouldn't mention but it's a good point.

Jcomp
11-04-2010, 10:22 PM
Web retribution is awesome and terrifying to behold. It's like a force of nature. Do not the internet, it is the god that walks on many tweets.

Button
11-04-2010, 10:28 PM
The advertisers know, but unfortunetly they are being bombarded with phone calls.

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=449973041748&id=196994196748

Yes power of the Internet. :) Hopefully it will taper down after today. I doubt Miss Judith will be representing any magazine for a while. She probably needs to go back to ad sales for a legit magazine.

brainstorm77
11-05-2010, 12:09 AM
This woman... yeah, I bet she wished she stayed in bed this morning.

AlexPiper
11-05-2010, 01:54 AM
If you're going to crap on a writer, it seems like the time to do it would NOT be November... when nearly every aspiring writer out there is doing NaNo and networking more actively than usual.

mscelina
11-05-2010, 02:02 AM
It amazes me that anyone who calls themself an 'editor' would be stupid enough to believe (much less SAY) that anything on the internet is public domain. That reminds me of a certain Twilighting spud wacko that made similar claims when she was trying to sell her fan fic rip off as a real book.

Amazing stupidity. And once SBTB gets a hold of it, well, you're pretty much done.

Sheryl Nantus
11-05-2010, 02:19 AM
They've also found out they lifted a recipe from Paula Deen and posted it on HER facebook. (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=162870240412203&set=o.104698228576)

:popcorn:

Paula Deen's gonna eat her alive.

With two sticks of BUTTAH!

:ROFL:

BenPanced
11-05-2010, 03:14 AM
Anna jar o' MAYNAYZE!

Sarashay
11-05-2010, 05:23 AM
The Cajun says it sounds like a complete Type A ad sales person. If she worked previously for magazines for anything, she was probably in ad sales.

He says lots of ad sales people have sometimes no concept of copyright. He dealt with that during making commercials. People would ask for certain logos to be in their commercials, and the sales people would promise it would be there and would tell him to put it in the ads.

He thinks more than likely he was an ad sales rep who struck out on her own, thinking she could do the same thing and probably hasn't stepped foot as an editor for anyone. She made the sales, threw together a magazines, and kept doing it as long as people were paying her. She'd make a good profit considering she wasn't paying writers at all, and hardly any overhead.

This is opinion only, not fact. Just open speculation. Probably shouldn't mention but it's a good point.

This sounds entirely plausible to me. It was apparently a little freebie mag and I would not be surprised in the slightest if there was in fact no writing staff, just a bunch of ripped-off material to pad out pages to sell advertising for.

mscelina
11-05-2010, 05:36 AM
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cooks-Source-Magazine/130323077022302

Just in case you were interested--looks like the perpetrator decided to ditch the Facebook page with thousands of derogatory comments on it and start a brand new one. Either that or someone wanted to spread the fun out a little bit.

Bookewyrme
11-05-2010, 05:41 AM
Just saw this story an hour or two ago. It sort of boggles my mind that anyone with that much alleged experience could be that willfully ignorant.

Also, John Scalzi's (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/11/04/the-stupidest-thing-an-editor-with-three-decades-of-experience-has-said-about-the-web-today/) take on the situation, and that of a friend of the original author's, Nick (http://nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com/1553538.html) are pretty interesting.

I particularly enjoyed the part where the editor talked about how much in need of editing the piece was, and how the author should have payed (!!!) her for editing it. Except apparently all those "typos" were obsolete spellings preserved in the original article because it was talking about historical recipes. :D

MacAllister
11-05-2010, 05:52 AM
The FB flashmob makes me pretty uncomfortable, actually. What Ms. Griggs did was illegal, unethical, and wrong (IMO - IANAL) -- but people leaving comments like "I hope you choke on a dick" certainly are neither helpful or instructive on any level.

scarletpeaches
11-05-2010, 05:53 AM
The FB flashmob makes me pretty uncomfortable, actually. What Ms. Griggs did was illegal, unethical, and wrong (IMO - IANAL) -- but people leaving comments like "I hope you choke on a dick" certainly are neither helpful or instructive.Added to which, she'd probably plagiarise the suggestion and put it in one of her recipes.

Bookewyrme
11-05-2010, 06:01 AM
The FB flashmob makes me pretty uncomfortable, actually. What Ms. Griggs did was illegal, unethical, and wrong (IMO - IANAL) -- but people leaving comments like "I hope you choke on a dick" certainly are neither helpful or instructive on any level.

Mobs are never pretty or comfortable. But historically, they tend to be the easiest way to overthrow unscrupulous people who abuse their power. Which isn't to say the editor deserves to be personally attacked. Somehow mobs never stop with attacking a person's behaviors though.

Stacia Kane
11-05-2010, 07:11 AM
The FB flashmob makes me pretty uncomfortable, actually. What Ms. Griggs did was illegal, unethical, and wrong (IMO - IANAL) -- but people leaving comments like "I hope you choke on a dick" certainly are neither helpful or instructive on any level.


Yeah, I have to admit, I went from being amazed and amused to being a little sick a couple of hours ago. She stole and was a big huge bitch and plagiarized and is a moron, but she didn't kill a puppy and use its body to choke a baby to death, you know?

mscelina
11-05-2010, 07:22 AM
The FB flashmob makes me pretty uncomfortable, actually. What Ms. Griggs did was illegal, unethical, and wrong (IMO - IANAL) -- but people leaving comments like "I hope you choke on a dick" certainly are neither helpful or instructive on any level.

Very true. There seem to be two types of responses. The (rightfully) angered but well-spoken responses from people in the industry, and the not-quite-on-topic responses from the scandal hounds who are just looking to be abusive.


Added to which, she'd probably plagiarise the suggestion and put it in one of her recipes.

*wince*

That would not be an appetizing dish. Just sayin'.


Mobs are never pretty or comfortable. But historically, they tend to be the easiest way to overthrow unscrupulous people who abuse their power. Which isn't to say the editor deserves to be personally attacked. Somehow mobs never stop with attacking a person's behaviors though.

The behavior (intentional and consistent IP theft) should be attacked. But other things about the perpetrator? (Looks, family, whatever these people are picking on) Not so much. Keep the focus on the ISSUE. That's what the mob should be addressing.


Yeah, I have to admit, I went from being amazed and amused to being a little sick a couple of hours ago. She stole and was a big huge bitch and plagiarized and is a moron, but she didn't kill a puppy and use its body to choke a baby to death, you know?

Unfortunately, the purpose of this coordinated attack (for lack of a better term) is being lost in favor of personal attacks and unrelated insults. But, once you let loose the mob, you can't rein them in and make them say what you want them--or need them--to say. I can't say that I'm too upset by the discomfort of this editor at the moment, but I'm not in favor of ugliness that serves no discernible purpose.

Button
11-05-2010, 07:38 AM
I'm glad that the important people were notified, and this person will have some serious thinking to do. The "online witch hunt" will die down after a little while.

It does warm my heart, though, that if there is wrong doing, that people will share their displeasure, even if it's not so eloquently put.

I agree that the "mob" idea fits though. Gets you a little nervous. It was looking a little 4 Chan-ish for a while.

Monkey
11-05-2010, 07:37 PM
The personal attacks are uncalled for.

The professional attacks are beautiful.

IMO, anyway.

veinglory
11-05-2010, 07:45 PM
This kind of dick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotted_dick)one assumes

scarletpeaches
11-05-2010, 07:46 PM
This kind of dick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotted_dick)one assumesAnd if the other sort is spotted, I advise seeing your doctor.

Another Editor
11-05-2010, 10:48 PM
Just in case some of you have not heard, a very interesting and amusing incident took place this week involving plagiarism of online content. Here is the short version: a renaissance enthusiast posted her recipes for authentic apple pies of the period to a web site that specializes in that sort of thing. Her recipes included introductions, colorfully written in Early Modern English. Later on, she found out that her entire recipes, word-for-word, had been copied into Cook Source magazine.

She contacted the magazine's editor and requested that $130 be paid to her alma matter, the Columbia School of Journalism; this was a goodwill gesture, requesting payment that would amount to $0.10/word. The editor wrote back, acknowledging that she copied the recipes, but added a zinger: everything on the Internet is public domain, and free to be copied without recourse of any kind; also, considering how badly written the original work was, the writer should pay her for editing it. She added in a few condescending lines about everything that she has to put up with from "young writers." A more thorough account of it is here:

http://illadore.livejournal.com/30674.html

The fallout from this is already all over Facebook and Twitter. Some people allege that the same magazine has plagiarized recipes from everyone from Martha Stewart to Disney (!). Professional journalistic stories have been written about it in the Washington Post (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2010/11/cooks_source_masters_new_recip.html), The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/nov/04/cooks-source-copyright-complaint), and on MSNBC.com (http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/04/5409728-ye-olde-apple-pies-are-recipe-for-internet-hate-fest-).

I'll keep the pedantry here to a minimum.

The Internet, in one sense, can be considered to be a "domain" and it is open for use by the "public." That does not mean that content on it is "public domain." That term means "free of copyright protections." Online speech is still speech and copyright law applies to it in the same way that it applies to any other form of expression. The US Copyright Act even has clauses in it that specifically refer to the Internet. As for the editor's arrogance, I won't even go there. I will say that making a normative legal statement in public is not a good idea unless you are ready to cite the law line and verse because it is too easy for other people to prove you wrong if you are.

That having been said, there is not a lot that can be done to keep this sort of thing from happening, be it by someone who is merely misinformed or by someone who deliberately wants to steal something. One thing that can be done, however, is to make certain key phrases or sentences in your online work as distinctive and as memorable as possible. This way, you can search for your own work by searching for the phrase (for best results, contain it within quotation marks). This way, you will be able to find copies of your work online fairly easily. I discovered this trick when a writer sent us a story that had a very bizarre word in the first sentence; I googled the sentence and discovered the entire story on a fan fiction forum. (In all likelihood, the story was the original work of the author and not plagiarized, but seeing it already available for free online made us reluctant to publish it, especially since it was probably based on someone else's IP).

Ambri
11-05-2010, 10:54 PM
The editor wrote back, acknowledging that she copied the recipes, but added a zinger: everything on the Internet is public domain, and free to be copied without recourse of any kind; also, considering how badly written the original work was, the writer should pay her for editing it. She added in a few condescending lines about everything that she has to put up with from "young writers." A more thorough account of it is here:


Wow! How incredibly rude. If I were the original author of those recipes, I'd be tempted to at least send that "editor" a cease and desist letter, and possibly more. I would like to say more, but I think I would just end up ranting.

veinglory
11-05-2010, 10:58 PM
We already have threads on this subject.

jclarkdawe
11-05-2010, 11:04 PM
Everyone knows the music on the internet is free to whoever downloads it. Minnesota Mom Ordered to Pay $1.5M for Illegally Downloading 24 ... (http://www.rtvchannel.tv/minnesota-mom-ordered-to-pay-1-5m-for-illegally-downloading-24-songs/)

Some people steal. What's new in the world?

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe

Jcomp
11-05-2010, 11:27 PM
It's interesting to watch the internet in motion. The Cooks Source stuff has now entered jokey meme mode with people posting stuff like "Cooks Source told Custer to go to Little Big Horn" and "Cooks source has Kate + 8 viewing parties." It went from righteous anger to indefensible / creepy threats to jokes in 24 hours.

kangolNcurlz
11-05-2010, 11:37 PM
:D

I.n.t.e.r.e.s.t.i.n.g. Thanks for posting. :)

Williebee
11-05-2010, 11:39 PM
Maybe another merge is in order?

dpaterso
11-05-2010, 11:49 PM
Merging "A prime example of copyright misconceptions..." thread from Basic Writing Questions into older Cooks Source thread in Office Party.

:e2fairy:

-Derek

Jamesaritchie
11-05-2010, 11:55 PM
It's a hoax. A hoax people have jumped all over and spread everywhere, but it's still a hoax.

firedrake
11-05-2010, 11:59 PM
It's a hoax. A hoax people have jumped all over and spread everywhere, but it's still a hoax.

And it says this...where?

Amadan
11-06-2010, 12:04 AM
It's a hoax. A hoax people have jumped all over and spread everywhere, but it's still a hoax.

Oh, dude. Never change.

veinglory
11-06-2010, 12:05 AM
The magazine seems to be real, so what is a hoax? (Other than the Twitter account)

defyalllogic
11-06-2010, 12:44 AM
they changed their facebook page to one that doesn't allow wall posts.
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=196994196748&topic=23238#!/pages/Cooks-Source-Mag/159072764128073

it's weird that they (she?) is just telling everyone they don't know and since she (they?) apologized (was that when she said "may bad"?) everyone should get over it and they plan to continue printing the magazine...

Paradox11
11-06-2010, 12:52 AM
What an awesome trainwreck. What awesome irony. I bet she thought she was dealing with a sucker because of her mistaken belief that the ye olde words in the article were mispellings. I'm not sure whether to laugh or shake my head.

Amadan
11-06-2010, 12:53 AM
they changed their facebook page to one that doesn't allow wall posts.
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=196994196748&topic=23238#!/pages/Cooks-Source-Mag/159072764128073 (http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=196994196748&topic=23238#%21/pages/Cooks-Source-Mag/159072764128073)

it's weird that they (she?) is just telling everyone they don't know and since she (they?) apologized (was that when she said "may bad"?) everyone should get over it and they plan to continue printing the magazine...

That page probably is a hoax.

The real one is still here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cooks-Source-Magazine/196994196748

veinglory
11-06-2010, 12:56 AM
That page probably is a hoax.

The real one is still here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cooks-Source-Magazine/196994196748

I would bet the new one is real, they seem to have lost control of the old one.

AZ_Dawn
11-06-2010, 12:57 AM
I must say I'd like to print out the original article and see if I can get a decent cook to make that second pie recipe for me. :drool

This didn't make it to Fandom Wank, but it is in their spin-off community Off Topic Wank (http://www.journalfen.net/community/otf_wank/638214.html).

Button
11-06-2010, 02:20 AM
http://illadore.livejournal.com/

She updated as much as she could, but since Cook's Source isn't really responding, there's not much she can do.

How Publishing Really Works (http://howpublishingreallyworks.com/?p=3450)has a nice collection of information. I love the updated "apology" from the editor (posted at the end).

jallenecs
11-06-2010, 02:25 AM
I only heard about this debacle this morning. I know the original author of the article, and we share mutual friends (that's how I heard about it, through one of our shared acquaintance).

I assure you, it's not a hoax. Depressing and frustrating, but not a hoax.

Button
11-06-2010, 02:43 AM
Figured it wasn't. The Internet would have found out by now if it was. Those Redditors are pretty good at sniffing out hoaxes.

Although the hoax Twitter and other accounts, including a new CrooksSource.com website, will probably make lots of people think it's a hoax.

mscelina
11-06-2010, 02:44 AM
I think a lot of people WISH this was a hoax, but it's most definitely not one. Although there are some folks who'd like to sweep this under the rug, hide their heads in the sand and pretend it never happened, unfortunately that's not the case. This is a real, prime example of a blatant misappropriation of the intellectual property of not just one individual, but scores of individuals and corporations.

Someone made a ton of money stealing the work of writers from the internet. No matter how much anyone SAYS this is a hoax, it isn't. It's substantiated fact--and probably only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this type of activity. This stupid 'editor' was dumb enough not only to get caught, but to act like an asswipe when she did. I'd be willing to bet there are scads of 'editors' out there will small print run magazines or e-zines, perpetrating the same type of IP theft who AREN'T dumb enough to respond the way Griggs did.

So anytime something like this happens, it's understandable to me at least that the writing community would do their darnedest to publicize the circumstances around it, despite the ostriches who would like to claim 'it's all a hoax.'

scarletpeaches
11-06-2010, 06:18 AM
HOLY CRAP! I AM SO ANGRY RIGHT NOW I JUST WANT TO CRY!!! WOW the nerve of that Judith Griggs. What the hell is wrong with her???She's a raging assclown with all the morals of a Publish America employee on crack?

mscelina
11-06-2010, 06:23 AM
She's a raging assclown with all the morals of a Publish America employee on crack?

Sssh. She may post that as her Facebook status if you're not careful...

Button
11-06-2010, 06:25 AM
She can post this. :e2moon:

scarletpeaches
11-06-2010, 06:27 AM
Sssh. She may post that as her Facebook status if you're not careful...*flips Ye Olde Worlde spellchecker switch*

Verily, I say unto thee, Goodywife Griggs art a tumbler, a jester, yay, a clown of the ass, and she doth have the morals of a servant of the devil. For he walketh among thee and he is called Publish America and he doth snort the crack up his diabolical nostrilholes.

Renounce Publish America and all his works!

Amen!

*swipes hands*

There. That should give her some SRS EDITTNIG work to do.

Button
11-06-2010, 06:32 AM
Someone should publisher her emails at PA.

Not really but it's a funny idea.

Button
11-06-2010, 06:32 AM
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/funny-pictures-cat-proofreads-a-column.jpg?w=500

jallenecs
11-06-2010, 07:32 AM
HOLY CRAP! I AM SO ANGRY RIGHT NOW I JUST WANT TO CRY!!! WOW the nerve of that Judith Griggs. What the hell is wrong with her???

I am not angered by this event. I am frightened by it, by the real possibility that she truly acted out of ignorance of the copyright laws. I have not the least doubt that she is not the only person out there pulling this stunt; she's just the one who got caught.

How do you cure stupidity? Moreover, how do we, as writers, defend ourselves against such stupidity? Malice and disdain for the law can be corrected by the law. Willful stupidity has no redress under the law, and if the person will not learn, then we cannot stop this from happening again, and thereby protect our intellectual property.

Button
11-06-2010, 08:20 AM
I think the public ridicule you might face is a good reason not to do something. Maybe we need more public spankings.

Old Hack
11-06-2010, 02:30 PM
[/URL]
[URL="http://howpublishingreallyworks.com/?p=3450"]How Publishing Really Works (http://illadore.livejournal.com/)has a nice collection of information. I love the updated "apology" from the editor (posted at the end).

Thank you.

jaksen
11-06-2010, 04:25 PM
Amazing. Like a thriller happening over real time.

I hope that editor gets her just 'desserts' ...

Hathor
11-06-2010, 04:28 PM
I suspect that something will happen legally to Ms. Griggs. It wasn't only this one article that was swiped, from what I've read. There was content from people with attorneys on retainer, like Paula Dean, who has already referred the matter to them. Someone even found content from the likes of Martha Stewart, Oprah, and Disney. Think they will let it go? I don't know that Griggs had any original content in any of the issues.

Here is one compilation: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AmTaIPHPnkSedGFhbHo1d1FIR2oxNWJLaDZLeXhEV EE&hl=en&pli=1#gid=0

Maybe a honking class action lawsuit is in order.

She also has at least one other magazine and folks are going through that.

I find it hard to believe it was stupidity. I read the comment of one author who was copied who said she had a copyright notice on each page of her website. Besides, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

jallenecs
11-06-2010, 05:58 PM
Sad to say, I DO believe it could very well have been willful stupidity. It never ceases to amaze me how stupid human beings can be. I truly believe she opened her little magazine without ever bothering to learn the ins and outs of copyright. Moreover, if this little whirlwind hadn't happened, she would have continued on, without doing the research and without consideration of the authors she was robbing, right up until somebody else caught her.

Pure ignorance is one thing: it can be cured by asking the right questions. Willful stupidity -- not wanting to know, or bothering to find out the rules -- is another creature entirely.

Hathor
11-06-2010, 06:41 PM
You may be right. People can be very stupid indeed.

It is just that this woman made such a big deal of her decades of publishing experience. In decades she never heard tell of copyright?

I will be interested in seeing how all this plays out.

I was trying to see if she put a copyright notice on her magazine but all the top Google hits involve the controversy. Then I figured that I was spending too much time reading about this all. It is like rubbernecking at a bad car accident.

brainstorm77
11-06-2010, 11:36 PM
Got to love her apology post on FB... She most certainly isn't out to win any friends. *Sheesh*

Sarashay
11-07-2010, 08:46 AM
This didn't make it to Fandom Wank, but it is in their spin-off community Off Topic Wank (http://www.journalfen.net/community/otf_wank/638214.html).

OTF Wank is actually Other-Than-Fandom Wank. It's for crazy things like this incident that don't quite fit under the umbrella of 'fandom.'

And my, have they had fun with this one.

brainstorm77
11-15-2010, 05:30 PM
Any news on this? I couldn't find anything.

Velma deSelby Bowen
11-15-2010, 06:47 PM
Griggs made an apology, though it was four paragraphs of "those evil hackers at FaceBook have ruined our precious magazine" before the apology appeared; she did make a donation to Columbia School of Journalism; and there's now an article (I can't find the link -- sorry) about how Griggs has been ill-served, and how tragic it is that her magazine might have to close. Apparently Griggs can't make a distinction between "hackers" and people who friended her original FB page to write comments.

(The article annoyed me, because the tone was very much, "she made a mistake and the EVIL WEB beat her up," editing her original response to leave out much of the snark. Also, in the article, contrary to her original response, suddenly Griggs didn't truly understand copyright law, which severely got up my nose.)

Medievalist
11-15-2010, 08:48 PM
That "apology" was not written by Griggs; the syntax and overall style (as well as the spelling) were not hers.

I'm wondering about possibly an SO or family member?

brainstorm77
11-15-2010, 09:17 PM
Is there a link to it? I'd like to read it.

Button
11-15-2010, 11:49 PM
There was an "apology" and "dismay" note at CooksSource.com.

There were rumors that the magazine was talking about folding the magazine. I don't see a loss if they weren't paying for writers and worked with editors who clearly had no idea what copyright law was about.

But the apology was made, for better or worse, and donations were made from the web to food banks and to the school the original author requested. The web didn't just respond with text, they responded with dollars.

And the world keeps spinning. :) I haven't seen a personal message from Griggs. I don't think there is much to feel about it except feeling sorry for Griggs that she may not be taken seriously as an editor from this point on. I hope she had a plan B for a career and hope that in the future she'll learn to be kind and giving.

Velma deSelby Bowen
11-17-2010, 08:27 PM
Well, this is the second apology of sorts -- http://www.cookssource.com/ -- and it's remarkably unapologetic by my lights. "This woman -- Monica" is the big ol' meany who didn't give poor overworked Judith time to respond, and Judith was so so overworked that shed not seen the copyright notice on Monica's page (though she did know enough about copyright on the web to chide Monica in her earlier email; funny, that).

As far as I can tell, Judith Griggs is simply annoyed that she was caught, but not repentant in any way. Now it's all Monica's fault for actually catching Judith in her behavior, not her fault at all for behaving unethically in the first place.

People... some days.

brainstorm77
11-17-2010, 08:35 PM
It's quite half-assed isn't it?

Hathor
11-17-2010, 09:09 PM
Not only half-assed but inconsistent with the actual correspondence.

Boo hoo, she was so tired. Tired when she took the article, tired when she responded to the email ...

She doesn't explain all the articles apparently lifted from other people.

Oh, I know. She was tired ...

I don't recall that being tired is a legal defense, in any event.

But now SHE is the victim. Talk about projection. And the world is being deprived of Cooks Source magazine. Sniff.

I'm ranting. I shouldn't have read the "apology." I knew this would happen :rant:

brainstorm77
11-17-2010, 09:40 PM
She's trying to be the victim...

A simple apology would been better than what she wrote in that link.

Button
11-17-2010, 10:06 PM
FIN

Hahaha. *snickerfits* I'm sorry, but when does an editor run out of articles and snags one from the web, rearraging it and plugs it into a magazine?

I'm curious about the articles she claims she got for free in the mail. Did she assume they were for using in a magazine or were they something else? I get press releases, too, and sometimes books and magazine pieces, but I don't assume I can just reuse the thing.

I think she confuses not having an actual copyright signature on the page with being free for use. Uhm...

Anyway, if the magazine has folded, maybe she'll pick up work doing something else. She clearly isn't meant to be an editor. (Aquisitions or proofreader, for that matter.)

jaksen
11-17-2010, 10:39 PM
http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/11/12/cooks-source-publisher-admits-mistake-describes-struggles-copyri

If already up, apologies. But sort of a summary about the whole situation.
Published on Nov. 12, 2010.