Tuesday, November 9
This affair has attracted a lot of ugliness which I find very disturbing. I know it’s an emotive issue; I agree that Griggs was wrong in using other people’s work without permission, and I don’t think she’s handled things well at all: but I don’t think she deserves the insulting and abusive comments which have been made about her all over the internet.
I’d like it if we could try to create something positive out of this. I’d be really grateful if you would read my post here, blog and tweet about it, and join in. Thank you.
Jane
:
In 2005 a writer called Monica Gaudio wrote a great article called A Tale Of Two Tarts, which discussed (among other things) apple pie’s Americanism (or not) and its evolution from a sugarless mixture of fruit and spices, cooked in a coffin (no, not THAT sort of coffin: read the article!) to its current sweet pastried form.
Roll on five years. Ms Gaudio had pretty much forgotten about her article until a friend of hers congratulated her on her piece about apple pies which she had just read in Cooks Source Magazine (I’m itching to put an apostrophe in there: anyone else?). Cooks’ Source (sorry, I couldn’t hold out any longer) isn’t just a website: it is also a money-making print magazine, which has a whole stable of advertisers which contribute to its finances.
At first Ms Gaudio assumed her friend had made a mistake; but when she, too, found her own work reproduced on the pages of Cooks’ Source magazine without her prior knowledge or permission she contacted the editor who would, she was sure, be keen to recitfy the problem. Ms Gaudio assumed that the piece had been wrongly included by the magazine: it clearly wasn’t plagiarised as her name was still attached to it. So she contacted the editor, Judith Griggs, and asked, quite reasonably I thought, for an apology to appear in the magazine and on its Facebook page, and also for a donation of $130 to be made to the Columbia School of Journalism in her name (the amount being a reasonable fee for the article in question). And this is apparently part of the reply she received:
“Yes Monica, I have been doing this for 3 decades, having been an editor at The Voice, Housitonic Home and Connecticut oman 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!”
Ms Griggs is wrong. Writing on the internet is subject to the same copyright laws that any other sort of writing is: if you don’t believe me, believe the University of Maryland which warns,
If all is as Ms Gaudio explains in her blog article (and I have absolutely no reason to believe she’s misled us with her account), Ms Griggs has clearly breached those laws. If she tries to defend her corner she is going to lose, and lose heavily. Her best course of action would be to make a loud, sincere apology to Ms Gaudio, and to make that contribution to the Columbia School of Journalism as quickly as she can.
Meanwhile, the Facebook page of the Cooks Source Magazine is filling up nicely with people giving the editor all sorts of helpful advice about copyright and the law; blogger Nick Mamatas has written a pertinent post about the situation (which is worth reading if only for his observation about the editing the original piece apparently required, which I had to read three times, it was so marvellous); and I found out about this conflagration on Twitter which is, as we all know, rather good at getting stories out. I bet a few other people blog about this soon.
I am SO glad I am not the editor of Cook’s Source Magazine. And while Ms Griggs is rethinking her policy on acquiring “free” writing from the internet perhaps she could also sort out where her missing apostrophe should go.
ETA: it seems that in July 1999 Ms Griggs was keen to sell Cooks Source Magazine: the Boston Business Journal wrote,
Owner/publisher Judith Griggs is trading in a career in publishing to run a Greenfield bed and breakfast.
I wonder how well that went? It’s not too late for her to try it, even now.
Edited again to add lots more linky goodness!
The good folk at Absolute Write are discussing this now, here and here.
Neil Gaiman has tweeted “Interesting. Per this Facebook posting @cookssource is not new to plagiarism http://on.fb.me/cjbDl7“, and if you follow the link he provided you’ll see that people are now finding other articles which Cooks Source might have used without permission.
The girls at Smart Bitches, Trashy Books have blogged about this: in an article titled Judith Griggs: The Google Is Our Friend, Not Hers they’ve called for a Googlebombing, which I’m concerned is going a little too far and they’ve taken the trouble to add her to their dictionary.
Meanwhile, someone has today opened a Twitter account in the name @cookssource (which I suspect isn’t run by Judith Griggs or anyone to do with Cooks Source) and is tweeting away quite merrily.
It’s been suggested on Absolute Write that Reddit has discovered that a lot of the magazine’s content might have been harvested from the internet.
Edited 18:14:
There’s now a FaceBook page which shows further examples of articles from Cooks Source which originally appeared elsewhere. It’s been reported elsewhere that much of the content might have been lifted from the internet, but I’ve not seen any confirmation of this: but if I were a food writer I’d be checking my content against Cooks Source pages NOW. At present, people seem to have found matches between Cooks Source articles and the Martha Stewart website; The Food Network; NPR; the website of Boots (the chemist); Alternet; Weight Watchers; and a website owned by Disney. If Judith Griggs didn’t get permission to use those bananas she’s going to be in even deeper trouble than we thought.
Edited 19:04:
A Facebook fan let Paula Deen know that her work has been used by Cooks Source; it seems it did so without her permission, as Ms Deen has now notified her legal advisors.
As an advertiser, we are disappointed in Cook’s Source and we are pulling our ads from this publication. Many of us (as is the case with our business) paid several months in advance for advertising and are unlikely to get any compensation back.We ask that you please stop emailing our business, we agree that the publication made a grave error, but the blame should be placed with them. Please do not make small businesses like mine pay for their error in judgment.
Edited 20:57:
I’m linked to by the Los Angeles Times! My cup runneth over and my head explodes. I need a glass of wine.
Edited 21:48:
A suggestion from my darling friends Sally Zigmond and Stacia Kane: while I have your attention, why don’t you check out their books and BUY A FEW COPIES? Hope Against Hope and Unholy Ghosts. Winners, the pair of them. This has nothing to do with copyright infringement or Cooks Source Magazine but a friend has been bold enough to suggest it, and I can only comply because I love them both.
Friday! 08:05:
There’s been a bit more activity while I’ve been sleeping. I’ve read a good few comments online from people who find the Smart Bitches googlebomb campaign distasteful; and many of the comments on the Cooks Source FaceBook page are way beyond acceptable. I’m uncomfortable with both reactions: Judith Griggs stole from writers but in her defence, it seems she thought she was acting within the law; and she hasn’t killed anyone. The reaction to this episode is completely disproportionate: it has moved from internet commentary to cyber bullying, and that’s just not acceptable. But to paraphrase a couple of comments I’ve read: you can’t release the hounds and then expect them to behave like lap-dogs.
John Scalzi has written a minimal blog post about Cooks Source.
His readers follow suit and write blog posts of their own.
People are now wondering if the photos which were used in Cooks Source were used without permission too.
The Rusty Nail has written a good round-up, but has forgotten to link to me. Never mind. [edited to add: The Rusty Nail blog has been deleted, but here's the link for posterity: http://therustynail.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/judith-griggs-of-cooks-source-magazine/]
The lovely P N Elrod has also written an overview, complete with lots of lovely linkage. I DO like her.
The Guardian has covered the story but some of the comments which have followed are a little bit too rah-rah-open-source-power-to-the-people for me.
Edward Champion has written a fabulous piece about the mess, and has quotes from Ms Gaudio and another writer whose work has been used without permission: Elise Bauer, of Simply Recipes. Ms Bauer emailed Mr Champion to say,
For the record, Cooks Source has used my copyright protected content without my permission. The copyright notice has been on every page of my site for 7 years.
I’m astonished by the flagrant plagiarism and copyright infringement. I’m also dumbfounded by the Cooks Source publisher’s response to complaints that have been made about the use of other bloggers works without permission. This person honestly believes that everything on the Internet is public domain.
Rob Pegoraro at The Washington Post dwells on the mob-like response to this story and, like me, is made rather uncomfortable by a lot of it.
Gawker gets in on the act.
Boing Boing made me laugh (do read this one, it’s fab).
There is now a website called Crooks Source, which has a good list of links to articles about the story.
Woot! discusses The World’s Dumbest Editor.
Some people I don’t know make a few clever predictions about forthcoming announcements Ms Griggs might make.
And finally, Judith Griggs has deleted her personal FaceBook page, but has put up her reaction to all of this on FaceBook. I think she thinks it’s an apology, but I’m not so sure:
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!
“Blimey”.
Saturday, 08:40:
The Huffington Post has linked to this article (which is throwing a lot more people this way: welcome, all!).
Sunday, 10:00:
How could I have not noticed Dear Author’s reaction to the story? I’m slipping.
And although this story didn’t make Fandom Wank (because it’s not fan fiction), it has made its sister-site which deals with stories which are too good to miss and a lot of fun was had there.
:
My apologies to Monica Gaudio, who I referred to as Monica Guadio when I first wrote this piece: I hope it didn’t cause her any more upset, as she’s had quite enough already. I’ve now corrected that mistake, and am very grateful to Phiala for pointing out my error.
Goodness! What a snarky response from Ms. Griggs. One would think that after three decades of experience, she would know better.
I am a graduate of Columbia School of Journalism and the professors made sure we knew exactly what copyright means.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Coco Cooks and Jane Smith, Jane Smith. Jane Smith said: Today's blog post: Copyright Infringement And A Medieval Apple Pie http://bit.ly/cHxZDm [...]
From what I’ve read, I understood that once you write something, it is yours and you don’t even have to copyright it. So I would’ve thought this applies to contents on websites too and you can’t use anyone else’s contents even if it hasn’t been registered in a copyright registry. I’ve often found websites that repeat the exact contents of other websites and I always found this quite surprising.
Sarah, you’re not wrong. But this editor certainly appears to be. I do hope she corrects her mistake quickly.
And Marisa: I don’t think the editor in question went to journalism school. Snarky school, perhaps, but not journalism.
This is completely, wonderfully awful!
It is high time such successful and knowledgeable editors as Ms Griggs learned how effective Twitter is as a tool to expose those who try to take advantage of others’ work.
Just look at what happened with Paperchase when they plagiarised artwork. There’s nowhere to hide anymore.
Unbelievable!
What a pompous fool.
Thanks for bringing this to the masses. I will tweet this and hopefully it gains enough traction so that other full of themselves editors may read the “What not to do handbook”
Thanks Jane Ward for bringing this post to my attention.
Isn’t the implication of “We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me! I never charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written pieces…” that she doesn’t get paid to be the editor? I find that hard to believe that she even considers the idea that she should get paid to be the editor of this magazine and then, on top of that, get paid by writers to edit their stuff.
[...] Monica’s account of what happened. An account and commentary. A blog entry about the situation from a copyright infringement point of view. [...]
“We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me!” WHAT??!! Sorry, am now rendered speechless.
Brilliant, isn’t it? As is the point that the rewrites Judith Griggs did on the article apparently “corrected” the spellings in the original recipe–which was quoted direct from its 14th century source.
This blog post has now had over 1,200 views since it appeared. Cooks Source Facebook page, linked to above, is getting so much attention it’s at risk of overheating. I wonder now how much Ms Griggs is now wishing she DID quit the publishing business back in 1999.
It just goes to show, you should not believe everything a publisher tells you. Thank goodness for common sense and copyright laws.
I have to say my flabber has never been so gasted. The audacity in Ms Griggs’ email is almost admirable, if not for the fact that she’s a bloody thief! Three decades of editing? I’d be surprised if she’s been at it three months.
Ms. Griggs has set herself up for a world of hurt. She’d better hang on to her hat. It’s gonna be a bumpy ride.
I’ve just edited my original post again to add a few more links. If you follow the link in Neil Gaiman’s recent tweet you’ll see that this might not be the first time Ms Griggs has used the internet as a free source.
(Word verification: “some forged”. Brilliant!)
Thanks for posting about this. It would be nice if you’d spelled the author’s name correctly:
Monica Gaudio
It looks like Cooks Source may have been plagiarizing from any number of sources, including the Food Network.
While you’re trying to add a trailing apostrophe to “Cooks” you might also try removing the trailing “s” you added to “Boston Business Journal.”
Phiala, I saw several spellings for Ms G’s name, and took the one which seemed correct (as I found it on her website!). I’ll recheck and edit–thank you for the heads-up. And yes, it does seem that she’s not the only person whose copyright Judith Griggs and/or Cooks Source infringed: I’m just checking a few things now and will post about it in a bit. Do add links if you have anything new. Thank you!
It’s definitely Monica Gaudio – that’s the spelling used on the godecookery.com site (and in her personal email, but you can check the former).
Or rather, Gode Cookery seems to be swamped right now, but googling for Monica Gaudio godecookery gets you a big enough snippet to check the spelling.
Thanks for checking.
Pat–thank you for that. I hate to have errors in my work. That’ll teach me for trying to work too quickly. I’ve made the correction, and am grateful to you for pointing it out.
I’m not sure if my last comment got eaten or has been held for moderation. If the latter, I apologize for the double-posting.
“Gaudio” is the spelling Monica uses on Gode Cookery and in her personal email, and is the correct one. godecookery.com is down at the moment, unsurprisingly, but if you google for monica gaudio godecookery you get a long-enough snippet to see the full spelling.
Here’s an apparent Food Network borrowing, and links for a Sunset appropriation.
Someone has also created the question “Why did Cooks Source Magazine steal someone’s article and print is as their own?” on yahoo answers, Jane:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101104091413AA8RcvY
Phiala, your comments went into the spam folder for a while–sorry about that. I’ve approved them both, because I really like the links you’ve provided.
The more I read about this, the more incredulous I become. The list of copied works is growing; and yet the editor has not responded to any of these comments.
I’ve saved screenshots of a lot of the magazine’s pages from FaceBook, and hope to summarise the comparisons soon.
Sadly this happens WAY more than most non-editorial staffers realize. I combatted it vehemently at a prior job until I learned that my own staff was doing exactly that (copying large chunks of text from web sites and pasting directly into feature articles) and then realized I hadn’t a leg to stand on.
If you’re a writer at a legit magazine, just google one of your headlines with quotes around it and I’ll be it’s somewhere it’s not supposed to be.
People who try to make money out of other people’s work are despicable. The biggest problem is that fighting this sort of thing can be terribly expensive, time consuming and energy draining. Yes, I speak from experience and sincerely hope Monica Gaudio succeeds.
Jesus, Jane, I was KIDDING!
[...] (This post from “How Publishing Really Works” has a pretty good run-down of the situation, with many updates. Apparently it’s not just Guadio’s work that’s possibly been plagiarized.) [...]
Stace, you might have been kidding but your books are wonderful and deserve to be much more widely read. So there. xxx
Sarah, there is a very minor quibble between registered and unregistered copyrights. If you register a copyright you’re entitled to statutory damages; if you don’t, you’re entitled to common-law damages. So you’re right, but it’s still a good idea to register copyright on any work that’s worth anything significant.
@Sarah: there’s a minor quibble between registered and unregistered copyright. With an unregistered copyright, you’re entitled to actual common-law damages in court, but with an unregistered copyright, you’re entitled to statutory damages (which I think are based on some multiple of actual damages). So you’re right, but it’s still a good idea to register a copyright for any work that’s worth anything significant (i.e. that you’d care enough to call a lawyer if you got plagiarized).
[...] Source managing editor Judith Griggs has just tanked her career with great energy and [...]
[...] have seen my FaceBook page, The Smart Bitches Blog, or any of a growing number of writer / blogs / today, then you’re know that Judith Griggs, editor of the grammatically-challenged Cooks [...]
Tweet, tweet, tweet!! And I’m loving the title. Tarts indeed. (the nerve of some people) This sort of wholesale sampling is rampant on design blogs. I keep wondering when someone will notice.
As a Bed & Breakfast owner, please do not wish Ms Griggs on my honoured profession, either
Folks who fudge lines of honesty and trust shouldn’t take care of tourists, either.
[...] Follow this story with ongoing updates and links at “How Publishing Really Works.” Bloggers are finding more and more examples of Cooks Source having lifted material from other [...]
This woman’s arrogance and ignorance is appalling. I, too, am an editor (retired) with 30 years’ experience, and Griggs is an embarrassment to the profession.
[...] Source managing editor Judith Griggs has just tanked her career with great energy and [...]
I am a college student studying writing and editing, and holy wow. How is this woman working in editing? Her condescending reponse begs for my red pen!
I also have a few suggestions as to where we could put that apostrophe…
[...] retelling: Copyright infringement and me; from How Publishing Really Works: Copyright Infringement And A Medieval Apple Pie; Nick Mamatas’ pithy putting-it-all-together; Poynter Online’s take and Boing [...]
[...] a marvelous ongoing summary of the the saga of Cooks Source Magazine – Copyright Infringement And A Medieval Apple Pie. The editor seems to have taken material from “the Martha Stewart website; The Food Network; [...]
[...] related blog, How Publishing Really Works focuses on copyright issues. At the time the SPRC blog was written, Cooks Source Facebook page had [...]
[...] I’ve gotten my information from. Marci Sischo, BlogHer, Food For Real, Washington Post, and How Publishing Really Works Tags: a magazine title badly in need of an apostrophe, cooks source, judith griggs, monica [...]
@ Alex:Thank you very much Alex. That’s very interesting and in fact it’s quite contradictory (not you, the laws) because they’re saying it is yours by law, but best copyright it to have more rights over it.
In any case, I always remember Judy Judd saying on her blog something like don’t worry, your work isn’t that good, no-one will bother stealing it.
And the truth is, it’s so difficult to publish your own work, why make the effort for someone else’s too?
This is rather despicable. Sadly yes, they are right it is commonplace in some ares (and bingo, college campuses are such places). If a thing’s being commonplace wre an argument for acquiescence we’d be in a right pickle.
May I ask the obvious on the two wrongs not making a right front and assume that under the 1998 Data Protection Act permission to reproduce the portion of the e-mail in question was, indeed, sought and obtained wherever it was first reproduced by someone in the UK?
I’m no expert on the law, Dan, but I would have thought that the quoted email is covered by fair usage on a matter of public interest. It is of interest to everyone who posts work on the Internet, myself included, what at least one editor’s attitude to online work is.
The Guardian, amongst other large newspaper outfits, have also cited it, and I would hope (?!) they know the law regarding its usage.
Dan, when I used to write for the papers I often made that same query and was assured each time by the lawyers that such use is considered fair use as it’s in the public’s interests to be informed of such things. I can’t remember their exact wording, but I’m comfortable with my quoting–otherwise I wouldn’t have done it.
Sorry, Jane, we simulposted
Ha! It was good for me, Sally.
Well as long as you still respect me in the morning …
Thank you – I get paranoid owing to the dayjob!
Oh, Sally: when did I EVER respect you? Ha!
And Dan, it’s better to be safe than sorry.
[...] this is just part of the torrent of nonsense. Read more here, and see some of the friendly comments folks have had for Editor Griggs on Facebook [...]
[...] adapted from one, I will cite it. Many times I will riff off an idea and there is no source. Plagiarism is evil. The US Copyright Office has even weighed in on recipe registration. Posted by deisert Filed [...]
[...] of fuming – if THIS happened to me, I would be on a plane and ripping this “editor” a new one. I’m sure most [...]
Actually, I think the omission of the apostrophe is intentional, and that ‘cooks’ is a verb in this publication’s weird title, because clearly they cook their sources. What a low-rent, amateurish but insanely narcissistic editor Judith Griggs is. Don’t feed her massive ego anymore. Just boycott her, wherever she turns up, bc I’m guessing she won’t be at Cooks the Books much longer now that Paula Deen’s called her lawyers. Go, Paula!!
[...] #3: Another good summary of the developing story, which cites the Paula Deen infringement as well, by “How Publishing [...]
@ Sarah: “… they’re saying it is yours by law, but best copyright it to have more rights over it.”
Sarah, please, Alex tried clarifying this once already, and the terms really do matter here.
The moment you write an original text, whether onto paper or onto the Net, you already have copyright on it — it is your intellectual property, protected by laws under which you can act if anyone substantially takes it, other than brief quotes for “fair use” (as in reviews, or discussion snippets as above)… which reprinting the full article surely exceeded.
Adding the copyright notice is nice and helpful but not legally required, which reflects a change in laws made after the infamous case of a US paperback publisher reprinting Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings without permission or royalties on the grounds that one printing of the authorized hardcover edition had omitted that notice.
What Alex was talking about was extra protection under US law from registering your copyright — actually sending two copies of the work, with a registration form and fee, to the Library of Congress. You could do this for each separate work you write, or bundle up everything you wrote during the year and register it as “Collected Works of [Your Name] for [Year]” to pay just one fee for the year and save money.
Registering, you see, files hard evidence that you had written that work in that year, so someone who comes along years later and claims authorship can’t pretend you’re the one falsifying the claim. That alone is worth the filing fee.
The extra damages you’re also entitled to in court as a result? Ohhhh, that’s gravy. Thick, rich, nourishing gravy. Alex is giving you very very good advice.
@ PiedType:
ARE appalling, surely.
Raven–I appreciate you trying to clarify the situation for Sarah, but I do wonder if you realise just how snarky you sound, especially here:
I hope I’m just misreading this, and that you didn’t intend to sound quite so sharp: it’s perfectly possible that I’ve misinterpreted your tone. But I really would appreciate it if you’d take just a little more care in future to sound less irritated. Thank you.
@ Raven @ Alex: Thanks Raven. I’m sorry I came across as contradicting Alex, but it was far from my intention, in fact it was quite the opposite, I really appreciated his view on this. Indeed I did copyright my work (even if it isn’t worth it) when I finished it just in case. I think all the protection you can get is an added insurance. But thanks for taking the time to explain it so clearly, I’ve now got a very clear idea of the situation.
@ Jane: I do apologize, and for clarity, am & was not *irritated* at Sarah; however, am & was *concerned* at the continued misunderstanding of what copyright is, and how & where it begins — which is not Sarah’s problem alone.
Clearly Judith Griggs also has some substantial misunderstandings on that subject, or the present topic would not have occurred. And in turn she is not as rare a specimen as might be wished, agreed?
So the fundamentals of copyright really do need to be explained from the ground up, because they really are not understood by as many people as they should be, or as we may think they are.
Truly, that was my only purpose in going over the same ground that Alex had already gone over once — because of the confusion between copyright begins the moment you’ve written an original text (you don’t have to “go copyright it”) and registration gives extra protection (so do “go register it”); two separate but closely related issues.
Please don’t read more “snark” into it than that. Thanks.
Raven, I was almost beginning to like you with your most recent comment, until I read your last line where you once more sank into snark. What a shame!
There are plenty of publishers who would prefer writers to NOT register their copyright for themselves, not because they don’t want their authors to have the protection that such registration provides but because prior registration can cause problems when a book is published; and writers who register their copyrights themselves are often targetted by vanity publishers and scam agents, who see them as easy pickings.
There’s the added complication that in the UK (where I live) we don’t register copyright in the same way as can be done in America, so the suggestion that it can provide extra protection is just not the case here. And Sarah’s Spanish which adds a whole new layer of complexity to our discussion as the rules regarding copyright in Spain are similar but different. Some of the attitudes to copyright in Spain are, in my experience, very different to the attitudes in the UK.
Copyright isn’t a simple issue by any means. But the point here, I think, is that Judith Griggs got into a pickle because she profoundly misunderstood the meaning and implications of “public domain”. I’ll have a look at that in another post, I think, as it’s a significant point.
Jane Smith: “… until I read your last line where you once more sank into snark. What a shame!”
Would you kindly tell me what you’re talking about? “Once more“? I hadn’t snarked in my first post; my second post consisted of saying so; and here you describe it as sinking into snark, “once more”?! What gives?
Vanity publishers and scam agents will target any authors they can find, copyrights registered or not; a register is just a source of names and addresses to them. Non-registration is no deterrent, if they find you by any other means.
This would be why I specified, “What Alex was talking about was extra protection under US law from registering your copyright….”, Library of Congress, etc. Copyright laws do vary from nation to nation, despite some broad similarities under the Berne Convention; what Alex was discussing covered specifically US laws — which would still matter if a UK or Spanish author were to sue for infringement by a US publisher in a US court.
Yes, I’ve placed some of my own writings into the public domain, explicitly, with the intention that others be able to draw from them freely and rewrite them to their own purposes. (Example.) I had to explicitly act to so place them, as this would not have been their default condition.
[...] are people such jerks?? (…And this whole attribution thing reminds me of yesterday’s kerfuffle when a magazine editor said that the Internet is public domain. [...]
[...] was Grigg’s response that set off the still-raging internet backlash. But honestly Monica, the web is considered [...]
[...] was Grigg’s response that set off the still-raging internet backlash. But honestly Monica, the web is considered [...]
[...] was Griggs’ response that set off the still-raging internet backlash. But honestly Monica, the web is considered [...]
I am a teacher librarian. I teach information literacy. That includes the research process, citations, plagiarism and copyright.
You’d be surprised how many students think that just because it’s on the internet it’s “free”. Including pictures and photographs.
No wonder there is such a problem with cut and paste plagiarism in school.
But a college graduate should know better. Am I mistaken to assume Ms. Griggs is a college graduate? Perhaps so, since “my bad” is hardly an adequate apology. And she is a repeat offender. It will be interesting to see if Cook’s choice (Or Cooks’ Choice depending) will survive this instruction on copyright law by fire given at the hands of Professor Disney, Professor Martha Stewart, Professor NPR, etc. It will be painful and will not be pretty.
And for those of you who may have occasion, please note that this is the kind of instruction teacher librarians provide. So if your local school board is going to balance the budget by firing all of the school librarians, fight them. We don’t just check books in and out, shelve and shush people. We teach information literacy. Without us, you’ll have a lot more Ms. Griggs’ running around stealing intellectual property. Cited or not.
@ Sarah Callejo:
That’s correct. Once you “publish” it’s yours. You do not have to file a copyright or even put © on it. No labeling required. It’s still your intellectual property. That pertains to any sort of publishing, be it a newspaper, book, a website or pencil scribblings on a legal pad.
After her claimed 30 years as an editor, I would have thought Ms. Griggs would be very aware of copyright. But her age may be against her. Copyright has changed a bit (you no longer have to file or put a copyright © on your work) and she may be totally ignorant of copyright and the internet.
However, what any lawyer will tell you, ignorance is no excuse and a judge will not consider your ignorance of the law.
I can’t help but laugh to think how Judge Judy would give her a dressing down if she tried that excuse.
Jane Smith wrote:
Would you expand upon that subject, please?
I know prior publication of a book/story/article is a critical topic to be settled, as publishers prefer first publication rights, and certainly always want to know whether you’re submitting previously-published material.
But copyright-registration isn’t “previous publication,” so I don’t understand why that would be a problem… unless the publisher intends keeping the manuscript a great secret until the gala publication day, a la Harry Potter — in which case any industrious reporter might scoop the story with a visit to the Library of Congress (in the US). Well, yes, trade secrets and patents have the same trouble mixing. But that’s rather a special case, so I don’t know whether that’s what you had in mind.
The draft you originally registered might not even be the same version that gets published, after multiple revisions (by you and/or editor and/or proofreader), and registered anew.
If the potential problem of concern is distinguishing between the texts of the two registered versions, it’s easy enough to say that version A is “The Mystery Novel of Doom by Jane Smith, manuscript, registered [date], registration #___”; version B is “The Mystery Novel of Doom by Jane Smith, as published by Random House, registered [date], registration #___”.
I’m making wild guesses in the dark here. I have no idea whether I’ve come close to your meaning. Googling prior copyright registration turns up lots of links on how to do it, and why to do it, but none that I could find on what problems that creates for getting a book published. So please, Jane, share.
Judith Griggs hasn’t killed anyone?
Write a novel. Maybe 3. Hand them over to someone else. Let that person take credit for your work. Die in penury.
A rose by any other name…
Sorry, Griggs is as guilty as they come in my books.
Raven wrote:
Don’t worry, I intend to (and I think I alluded to that in my previous comment to you). This is a huge issue which can’t properly be addressed in a few quick comments.
mlaiuppa wrote:
That’s not quite correct: as soon as you write something, you own the copyright to it. You don’t have to publish it for that to happen. But apart from that, yes.
Cinder wrote:
Cinder, you need to get a grip on your rhetoric.
It is highly likely that Griggs has infringed on the copyrights of many people: but she hasn’t stolen any novel-length works, she does appear to have mostly credited the original authors of each piece, and while I think that what she’s done is dreadful I cannot equate it to murder. That’s a ridiculous suggestion.
I do think that Griggs needs to apologise, fully and unreservedly; and she needs to do what she can to make amends for all the lifting she’s done. But I don’t think she deserves much of the vitriol which has been directed her way: some of the comments I’ve read online are VILE, and are completely disproportionate.
[...] that ‘web is public domain thing?’ Umm… no. Just… [...]
[...] that ‘web is public domain thing?’ Umm… no. Just… [...]
[...] Cook Source Magazine. This one really caught fire yesterday, didn’t it? I was amazed at how fast this went from a LiveJournal post to having 140 separate news articles written about it the very next day. What I gleaned from it? Bloggers really, really hate to have their copyrighted work infringed upon. Giving a half-assed apology is like offering no apology at all. Publishers need to think twice about pissing bloggers off. And mob mentality builds even faster online. If you weren’t following flaming yesterday, you can find a great synopsis of the drama at How Publishing Really Works. [...]
This is all very interesting! I read “Everything I want to do is illegal” by Joel Salatin, and offered to make it into an audio book (I have Broadcasting degree, as I was let go from my radio stations). Before I CONSIDERED speaking a word of it into a microphone, I contacted his publisher. Then I spoke to him, and we made an agreement (even though I did it for free). I felt very passionate about the topics within the book, and wanted to make sure I wasn’t going to violate any law before doing such a thing. It’s Joel’s first audio book, he is working on publishing it himself after getting the go ahead from his book publisher.
Forget the copyright issues, I’m more bothered by Griggs attitude.
She clearly views blogging as a second class medium.
She then qualifies IP theft, not that she admits to her publication ever doing it, by saying her staff took the time to edit the, allegedly, stolen article.
I might just help myself to my neighbors car and it’s all right so long as I give it a paint job and an oil change.
Kevin wrote:
And update the VIN display in the dashboard under the windshield.
And give it a stunning new set of plates.
@ Jane Smith:
Yep. Well go walk into some CEO’s office and tell him his job is now yours. Or take away someone’s invention and pass it off as your own.
The theft of livelihood is unforgivable. This may *seem* small – after all, it’s just a few articles – but it’s much easier to steal a dollar from a million people than it is to steal a million dollars from one person.
You get a grip. It’s a cannibalistic world out there, God forbid you ever actually set foot in it.
@ Jane Smith (wrote):
But mlailuppa did qualify the scare-quoted “publish” by adding:
In other words, writing. Setting words down in any textual medium, including “website.”
Which also crosscuts Ms Griggs’s “Web = public domain” fallacy.
RedState.com’s link:
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2010/11/06/let-me-introduce-you-to-cooks-source/#comment-44732
[...] Copyright Infringement And A Medieval Apple Pie – How Publishing Really Works [...]
Replying to Theresa Lyons:
Theresa, thanks for your comment: but Joel’s book appears to be self-published, so I’m not sure why you had to first check with his publisher and then speak to Joel: he IS his publisher, isn’t he? According to his Amazon listing his book was published by Polyface: and lo! When I googled his name, and the word Polyface I found this page which shows his picture, and discusses Polyface Inc., which appears to be his family’s business.
Anyway. I’m glad you took care to do the right thing: it’s important to be sure that you’re not breaking any laws or contracts; and I wish Joel well with his books. Thanks for commenting here.
Kevin wrote:
I can’t separate the two. If she didn’t have such a cavalier attitude she probably wouldn’t have infringed on so many other people’s copyrights (allegedly!). And to be honest I don’t give a monkey’s bare behind if someone has a bad attitude towards me: that’s their foolishness. But if they steal from me? That’s a whole other matter.
Cinder wrote:
And here we’ll have to disagree. While I intensely dislike Ms Griggs’ actions I’ve forgiven people for doing much worse to me. Life is too short to be bitter and grudging.
Oh, bless.
Jane Smith wrote:
Well, then, you just did separate the two.
You acknowledged that the bad attitude was at the root of bad actions [can't be separated] — but immediately went on to say you don’t care whether someone has a bad attitude toward you, only whether they commit bad actions toward you, because that’s a “whole other [i.e. separate] matter”.
“The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents.”
— H.P. Lovecraft, “The Call of Cthulhu” (1926), opening sentence.
Raven wrote:
Writing something down doesn’t count as publishing it, though. The two are different. I have reams of stuff I’ve “scribbled on legal pads” over the years and while I own the copyright to it all, it’s never, ever been published nor will it be.
Raven, I really appreciate the time you’re taking to join in with the discussion here: but every time you turn up you’re either snarky, or you go out of your way to pick holes in someone’s comments and it’s just not helping. You’re dragging this conversation off topic, and you’re distracting everyone from the real issues on hand.
It might be that I’m misreading you. But I gave you the benefit of the doubt earlier, and you come back with this so I really don’t think that’s the case. So, here’s your official warning. Either drop your sneery, snipey attitude and start to make a positive contribution to this blog; or don’t come back.
@ Jane, with every great and friendly respect, because this is your website, and you have absolute control over it:
I came here with interest in reading your choice of topic and your treatment of it, and only commented when I felt I had something helpful to offer, where it was needed.
Sarah’s response was, “thanks for taking the time to explain it so clearly, I’ve now got a very clear idea of the situation.” But you slapped me down for sounding “snarky” — though you initially allowed that you might have “misread” or “misinterpreted”. So I apologized to calm the situation, and explained my (nonsnarky) motives for the sake of clarity. You then said that response “once more sank into snark” (with no allowance for misreading or misinterpretation this time), and never answered my request for explanation. I still don’t know what you meant by that. I feel that I’ve been randomly attacked here.
That is exactly the opposite of what just happened here.
You jumped all over mlaiuppa for using the term “publish” (in her own scare-quotes) — omitted the part where she defined it to include “pencil scribblings on a legal pad” — and “corrected” her to say that to “write something” was sufficient.
Well, you are the blog owner, so I suppose that is not going out of your way to pick holes in someone’s comments. And my patching the holes you picked is therefore actually picking holes. And all the holes you’ve picked in my comments, oh my…. At least mlaiuppa lets me feel not so alone. And Cinder. And Kevin. I’m not the only person you’ve treated oddly.
I didn’t post here to snark, or sneer, or snipe, Jane, just to provide good information, being a long-time FAQ-writer. But you’ve attacked, and accused, without any reason or explanation at all, until I don’t want to be here any more. I’m gone. Goodbye. Enjoy your own, your very very own, blog.
Raven wrote:
I do: but I only edit comments which are obviously spam, libellous, or clearly batshit crazy so I’ve not blocked any of your comments.
Hurrah! That’s what I like. Readers and commenters who are interested and trying to be helpful.
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, despite having received several emails and DMs on Twitter from people who felt you were out-and-out trolling my site. Trust me, I wouldn’t have called you snarky if I were the only person who saw that in your posts: lots of other commentators here felt that you were being very rude. Four of them advised me to delete your comments. Did I? Nope. I’m good like that.
I used to have a boss who said, “I’m sorry–but you’re wrong.” He wasn’t sorry at all, and neither were you. I ended up having his butt for breakfast. He still hasn’t recovered.
I told you in my reply that I thought that a further blog post was warranted: I’ve not yet made that blog post as I have this thing called PAID-FOR WORK which takes priority over this blog. When I do make that post, I hope you’ll like it.
There’s nothing random about my reaction to your comments, Raven. I have targetted each one at you.
So: you go out of your way to applaud holes? You go out of your way to pick holes when they don’t exist? Or do you go out of your way to understand not just the obvious meaning of the responses you get, but also the spirit of them, the good feelings behind them, or the heart of the people who are trying their best to make sense of this whole debacle?
No I didn’t “jump all over her”: I ponted out that there’s a difference between “writing” and “publishing”. You need to work on your reading comprehension, my friend.
Because “writing something” IS enough to give you copyright in it. You’re picking holes again.
Yes, I am. And I’m very pleased to be, by the way.
I treat all SORTS of people oddly. Most like it. Most get the point. You don’t seem to. So why do you keep on coming back?
Funny, because it seems like you DID come here to snark, sneer and snipe and I can’t see what information you’ve provided.
What’s one of them, then? Beats me. I’ve written fiction, non-fiction, proposals, pitches, press releases, articles, journalism, websites, letters, emails, tweets and all SORTS of stuff. But I have never met anyone who specialises in writing FAQs let alone long-term ones.
I’m vicious, I am. Grrrrrrr!
Hurrah! Byeeee!
Oh, don’t worry. I shall. Thanks for dropping by.
Now: could we please get on with discussing the topic in hand? Anyone? Thank you.
@ Raven: I would just like to clarify that, despite my polite answer, I did find the beginning of your reply to me slightly offensive or maybe the right word would be patronizing with the “Sarah, please,…” but I decided to ignore it and value the time you’d spent on explaining your knowledge to me clearly, whilst also trying to lower the tone on a public and a very useful site to us ignorant wannabe writers.
I don’t have the necessary information to say if you’re in the right or wrong on this subject, but often the way of saying something makes one lose ground and firmness in their assertions. I think you simply chose the wrong way of introducing your ideas, even if your intentions were honourable. Words can get us far, but finding the right way to express them will get us even further.
In any case, I have no intention of leaving this blog. For a start, I can’t allow myself that luxury, I still have too much to learn from Jane Smith and she has so much to offer. I am sure countless people appreciate it and value her effort and generosity.
This is mind-boggling! I’m not a writer, but I can imagine this is the equivalent of being burgled,then being told because you sometimes have guests it isn’t really your house, and you should be grateful the burglar vacuumed the living room….
As a bye-the-bye, however, I do find the whole witch-hunt thing that’s going on with the google rankings, etc, quite distasteful. I think it’s possible to utterly condemn something without resorting to vitriol or petty-mindedness. It’s all a bit Mean Girls, especially when the author in this case has been very gracious.
I’m interested to see how this all unfolds. Here’s to hoping that all of the websites Cooks Source has been copying will join together and sue her alongside Ms. Gaudio. Shame on Ms. Griggs!
@SCallejo Sarah, you are unfailingly gracious, and I applaud you for it!
However snarky the posts here have been, and however off-topic, I for one (as a learning writer like Sarah) found the explanations of copyright etc to be very helpful. So, thanks to all who contributed to that pool of knowledge.
Jane, I look forward eagerly to your blog post on the subject. I know it’ll be a good’un!
[...] Copyright Infringement And A Medieval Apple Pie [...]
Not sure if you’d noticed this, but Wikipedia now has an article (being rapidly edited as we speak, as is usual with hot recent topics) on this, titled “Cooks Source infringement controversy” – Judith Griggs redirects to that article as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Griggs
[...] that ‘web is public domain thing?’ Umm… no. Just… [...]
Jane:
Just wanted to offer kudos on a fantastic post. It seems to me that this episode is a powerful “teaching moment” for us in the blogosphere, and this post (and the comments, too!) is a great tool towards that end.
(BTW: Tried to trackback to it from our post on the subject – in which we linked you – but it didn’t work. Gotta love the tech!)
Replying to hgstern:
Thank you! You are too kind.
If you want to link back to this post here’s the permalink:
http://howpublishingreallyworks.com/?p=3450
If you include that in your post the magic of teh intarwebz will soon add it to the list of trackbacks and pingbacks which is growing underneath our comments. Does that help?
Bookshop Becky wrote:
I agree. There’s a huuuge difference between condemning bad behaviour and behaving badly yourself, and I think a lot of people have been far too nasty in their response.
Thanks, Becky.
@ Jane Smith:
Hmmm….that was the link I used in the post. Tried using Adam Kalsey’s SimpleTracks, but no joy.
No biggie – the important thing is that your post is VERY well done, and I appreciated some of the comments (and agree with you about the snark-level – although it’s sometimes difficult to tell at first, it becomes apparent when folks double-down on it).
hgstern, is your blog searchable by Google? If not, that might be the problem. I don’t know what Adam Kalsey’s SimpleTracks is; but really, all you have to do is use that link and eventually your blog should appear in that list of trackbacks. Why don’t you try again and give it a day or two to filter through? I hope it works!
This concerns me…
[LINK TO FACEBOOK REMOVED]
“Den Bryce
Call us at (XXX) XXX-XXXX
Drop us a note at P.O. Box XXXX,
Sunderland, MA XXXXX
…
or email us at
[EMAIL ADDRESSES DELETED]
This is highly suspicious activity.
Anon, the link you provided leads to a FaceBook page concerned with raising funds to help troubled gay teens: an admirable enterprise. Only someone has posted there what seems to be personal phone numbers and email addresses for Ms Griggs, and implied that she’s trying to scrape up funds for herself there. I’ve edited that information out of your comment because I don’t think it’s appropriate to leave it here.
Ms Griggs did NOT make that post herself, and yet she is once more being criticised for it. What’s really troubling is that I also read this comment there:
Things have gone far too far. Although Ms Griggs has behaved very badly she doesn’t deserve such treatment–no one does.
@ Jane Smith:
Will do.
Have a GREAT rest of the day, and a TERRIFIC week!
I get so PISSED with editors who think writers should kiss the ground they walk on. Without writers, magazines have no content, editors are therefore without a job. It’s ridiculous. Writers and editors need EACH OTHER. As a writer it really irks me; indeed, the one editor who ever treated me like dirt was the one editor who refused to pay their writers. Cooks Source doesn’t value the people who create the content they sell, nor do they understand copyright laws!
Judith Griggs is a snide and unprofessional ego who I hope will be taken down a notch following this debacle. Her attitude is despicable.
@ Jane Smith:
I consider the act of putting thoughts to paper “publishing”. It’s the term we use in schools.Jane Smith wrote:
I consider putting thoughts to paper to be “publishing”. It the term we use with students in schools. Once they produce a final hard copy draft, that is considered “published”. It could be a powerpoint, a video, a website. It’s a final presentation of material in whatever form it takes.
@ Jane Smith:
Jane Smith wrote:
It depends on your definition of publish. I work in schools. We use the term publish to describe a finished work, be it a hand written hard copy, a powerpoint, a website, a video. Anything a student produces as a final work for presentation is considered “published”. There are many posters on the writing process for which the last step is “publish”.
And in whatever form it takes, our students own the copyright on their work, so if I want to use it as an example for a website or a paper or whatever, I need their permission.
When I was preparing my National Board Certification portfolio, I needed a written consent form from every student from whom I used one of their written assignments as an example in my portfolio.
So I guess the definition of the word “publish” simply adds to the controversy and confusion.
http://www.teachersdiscovery-english.com/item_details.php?item=010%20300%20P000739
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0768210690/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0768216923&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1SHFDDPD6JA72T2B7KYY
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000FA3RM8/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0768216923&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1SHFDDPD6JA72T2B7KYY
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0768209609/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_3?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0768216923&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1SHFDDPD6JA72T2B7KYY
While that may not be the definition of publish in the grown up publishing world, it means that copyright requirements have been met as far as my students have been concerned.
Thats quite ironic that Paula Deen’s recipe was reprinted. Didn’t her rug company knock off rug designs from other artists a few months ago? Will have to google that, as I can’t recall where I read that.
In any case, that’s just shameful of Cooks Source magazine to lift articles like that. No matter who wrote them.
[CONTENT DELETED]
[CONTENT DELETED]
[...] was Griggs’ response that set off the still-raging internet backlash. But honestly Monica, the web is considered [...]
[...] Copyright Infringement And A Medieval Apple Pie | How Publishing Really Works. [...]
mlaiuppa wrote:
It does indeed! Here’s the definition from the dictionary I have closest to hand—it’s the Collins Shorter English Dictionary, ISBN 978-0004703633.
I don’t interpret that definition to agree with yours: definition (3) might do so if you really stretch the point, but only just: and I would be very uncomfortable with doing so.
Really? But how does a work become “published” just because it’s finished?
I did wonder if this was a common academic usage which I’d not heard about and so I asked a friend of mine who is a professor at a nearby university for his view. He was perplexed by your definition: he said that academic papers are only considered published once they’ve been published, not once they’re completed. His wife, who is head of the English department at a local secondary school (which is very successful in both local and national league tables) agreed. Neither of them had heard of your definition before. And another friend of mine who also works as a teacher at a different school also agreed that work isn’t published until it’s published, and he had never heard of your definition either.
This could be a UK-US difference, of course, so if anyone would like to chime in here and let me know then I’d love to hear. I have a few friends who are academics in America and I’ll ask if they could come and provide a view (although I’ll warn you now, my internet connection is treacly slow today and so I might not be able to get online for a while to do it.
I’ve not seen posters which detail the writing process—that’s probably a school thing and my school days are long over!—but I can understand that: publishing IS the final step in the process for a lot of writers, me included. But that doesn’t mean that I equate “finishing” a piece with “publishing” it—the two are distinct from one another. And finishing doesn’t automatically lead to publishing, as any number of writers can tell you.
Absolutely. But needing their permission to quote their work has nothing to do with whether their work has been published or not: it’s to do with copyright law, not publishing.
As I said before, that has to do with copyright laws and has nothing to do with whether or not their work has been published.
Because of my troubled internet connection I’ve not been able to look at any of your links yet, so I’ll address them separately once my connection speeds up. Sorry about that—I just don’t have an option right now.
With all due respect, I don’t think I’m confused by this at all. Yours is the only suggestion I’ve seen that “finish” means “publish”.
But as I’ve already said, whether a piece of writing has been published or not has nothing to do with copyright laws and I really don’t understand why you’re implying that they’re connected. If you want to reproduce a piece of work you need the permission of the copyright holder before you can legally go ahead: it doesn’t matter whether the work has been published or not.
From where I’m standing it seems that you’re just adding another layer of complication to this, and I don’t understand why you’d do that. As I’ve said, it could be that this is a UK-US difference, in which case I’m really interested to learn more and I do hope a few people will chime in with their views. I might just write a whole new blog post about it. So thanks for your comments—I’ve found them very interesting.
jimjim: comments like yours might be encouraged elsewhere, but I WILL NOT ALLOW such defamatory comments here. Do not do it again. It’s vile, bullying behaviour and I just won’t have it.
Andy Mathis wrote:
Andy, if you find anything do please come back and provide links to it here: until you do, we’ll just have to consider it no more than heresay.
I can’t disagree with that!
Several people have now subscribed to this thread using SpamArrest and other services.
If you’re one of them, please read this blog post of mine RIGHT NOW:
http://howpublishingreallyworks.com/?p=3521
You’re welcome to subscribe to any of my other blog posts but please ensure that I will not be asked to verify your subscriptions before you can receive them as from now on I’ll be reporting all the verification emails I receive as spam. It’s rude, it’s intrusive and it’s unreasonable to demand that I have to spend my time helping you out in this way.
But it seems to me that if we say that everything we’ve ‘finished’ is ‘published’ then we could all call ourselves published writers. Even if the work is only languishing on our hard drive. That means I’ve got over 200 stories and several novels ‘published’ even though they’ve never seen the light of day and probably never will.
I realise that perhaps I’m looking at this from a professional point of view, of work accepted by a professional body to be put out there, but I can’t help feeling sorry for the students who, when asked if they’ve been published in the future, will all say ‘yes’ when in fact they haven’t. Not in the proper sense.
It’s a bit like someone saying they’ve had a music video released when all they’ve actually done is filmed themselves singing into a hairbrush in their bedroom.
I’m sure it’s just semantics, and every career has its jargon, which is fine as long as its understood that the rest of the world might have a different definition of the word.
This my friends is the way Judith Griggs roles. Should something come of this and old writers and employees be interviewed they will all say the same thing. What surprises me is the magazine folded in the late 90′s and when she brought it back to life she had the same core advertisers. She has a fantastic idea for a business, it satisfies a niche locally, but as before Judith Grigg’s personality always gets in the way.
Good luck Monica! I hope you pursue this and receive a just reward.
Re the definition of \published\
Semantics definitely make a difference for us, because we get a lot of people in wanting us to stock their books. I am automatically more open to people who have a book which has been produced by a publisher I recognise because the implication is that the book has been through a review/editing/proof-reading process (dare I say quality-control?). Yet many people used the word \published\ to mean they have self-pubbed, or even just stapled it together, which…in my view is not the same thing.
Saying something is published just because you have finished it would send the scientific world, for example, into utter shambles, surely?
I’d definitely agree that self-published and published are not the same thing, Becky, but even self-published books are still ‘published’ in terms of the author having taken the words from their computer and put them through a publishing process before putting them out to the world. In that sense, then it’s ‘published’ because someone other than the author and people they know *might* read it, if they manage to sell any copies. It is slightly further along the publishing route than just ‘finished’ imo.
Whether it counts as a proper publishing credit, and is ‘finished’ in terms of polish and quality so that it’s earned a place amongst professionally published work in a bookshop is another matter.
[...] Gaudio discovered that one of her articles found its way into the magazine se objected. The editor responded with some fantastic claims the best one being: “But honestly Monica, the web is considered [...]
@ Sally:
Oh yes, I think we are agreed that self-published is definitely more of a “product”. And we have some lovely self-published books in the shop (eg gorgeous book of Edinburgh photos). However, when we buy books from reps we choose from AIs, proofs and samples, not from the finished product because we trust the publisher to produce something properly typeset, etc. We have never to my knowledge bought a self-published book without looking at the final product beforehand, because the quality control (in general) just isn’t the same.
I guess in a sense published to us means that we or someone we trust has a) examined the book for errors and b)assessed the production values and c)has produced it with a market in mind. Would also say that a barcode/ISBN is fairly important so that the book is industry-standard.
I think we are agreeing, I’m just rambling a bit
*Goes back to proper work*
On Tartys in Applis…
If you’re interested – and you should be, if you ever post original content on, for example, a blog – this post provides an excellent starting point….
Greetings from a fellow rambler
mlaiuppa wrote:
You may call it that but you and your colleagues are incorrect. I note, as someone with more than twenty years experience teaching both K-12 and college that I’ve never heard anyone else assert that the act of creation is the same as publishing.
Note the root of the word “publish” is the Latin verb pulicare, and that the definition of publish includes the concept of distribution of the work, in the sense of making it widely available to the public.
http://www.cookssource.com/ is currently only serving a broken homepage. No content, and all links return 404 errors. This makes it look like someone is attempting to make searching the site for other misappropriated material posted online difficult.
@ Chris:
“it’s not the crime, it’s the coverup…”
[...] black mark of shame about someone’s wrongdoing across the web. In some cases, such as the recent dust-up over a blogger’s abducted post about pies and the thief’s egregious r…, this seems perfectly legit and well deserved. But in others, where guilt is harder to prove and [...]
[...] How Publishing Really Works story, “Copyright Infringement And A Medieval Apple Pie“ [...]
We have put together a list of articles and recipes that have been copied and their original sources.
http...@gmail.com#gid=0
[...] Well, it’s all kicked off this week. Judith Griggs, editor of Cooks Source, has been caught infringing the copyright of multiple individu…. If you write about food, you might want to check out the facebook page to see what’s been [...]
@ Marisa Birns: Did you see the Hitler video on YouTube mocking Cooks Source? What a fantastic piece of writing that is. I’ve linked to it, along with a piece I wrote on lessons we can learn from Cooks Source.
[...] stepped back from egging on the fray to voice like concerns. At How Publishing Really works, Jane Smith wrote, many of the comments on the Cooks Source FaceBook page are way beyond acceptable. I’m [...]
Greetings, all!
I just have one thing to say – the best response at this point, aside from a place as a permanent example of how things are NOT done in every decent Journalism school in the nation, if not the world, is to completely and totally ignore Ms. Griggs. She is an unworthy, non-entity and ignoring her in perpetuity would be the best punishment of all.
@ Melissa: I have been putting together a class The Business of Photography. This discussion about copyright and this site will be a big part of the discussion. I have been photographing for 35 years and heard all of the stories about copyright infringement, the mea culpas and the settlements. The saddest thing is that creative content has no value in the country and yet \borrowing it\ does have value. The debate over value can use perspective and artists work hard enough without being undervalued in the commercial world.
Judith Griggs / Cooks Source has just issued another statement, which I’ve posted here:
http://howpublishingreallyworks.com/?p=3573
I still don’t think she gets the point.
[...] blog and used by Cooks Source Magazine, a for profit publication. This is not the first story I have read but it is an important one because of the back story behind it and I encourage you [...]
You don’t think she deserves it? What does she deserve after a lifetime of stealing? A pat on the back and a cookie? That’s why people think they can get away with this type of stuff, because we say “I think we should be nice about it”, forget nice, let Judith Griggs deal with the mess she made, its one thing for her to steal, its another sin for her to be so evil about how she denied responsibility for her actions. We should take a stand against people like that and the type of thinking they promote.
David, I took a great big stand against Ms Griggs’ actions when I blogged about this whole affaire.
I’m not saying she didn’t deserve to make reparations for the things she did: but I don’t believe anyone deserves to be maligned and abused in the way that she was. No matter what they do. The reaction Ms Griggs was faced with was entirely disproportionate to her misdemeanour, and I don’t think that that’s at all fair. That doesn’t mean I like or admire her or what she did: just that I think that justice and reason are preferable to mob-rule and hysteria.
[...] you missed the Cooks Source brouhaha at the end of last week, there are plenty of great, detailed articles on what went down. Here’s the short [...]
[...] as to what is right and what is wrong. Last year, an article in a cooking magazine created an Internet meme, with an editor of the magazine responding that “the web is considered ‘public [...]
[...] means they are public domain. You may remember that Cook’s Source Editor, Judith Griggs used the same phrasing after choosing, without permission, to publish an article written by food blogger, Monica [...]
[...] There’s plenty of news from the food media world this week, starting with the shuttering of Cooks Source, the New England food journal that launched the plagiarism scandal heard round the world (well, at [...]
[...] for the inevitable wimps and worriers afraid of just punishment leading to deterance, and those weirdly naïve about what goes on on the Internet. People are outrageously rude (and, if we’re lucky, [...]
[...] Copyright Infringement And A Medieval Apple Pie – How Publishing Really Works [...]