I feel I should quote from Godfather III
Nov. 17th, 2010 @ 01:15 pm
A number of people (journalists, bloggers, commentators on my Livejournal and friends of mine) have all asked that my own emails be posted to set the record straight. They're included below.
I would like to be clear: I am only providing this text for the record as I feel uncomfortable with some of the things that have been implied in public. I am pleased that Ms. Griggs and Cooks Source has done as I have asked, I am truly grateful for all the support that I received (BIG THANK YOU), and I wish Ms. Griggs no ill will and hope that this matter can be considered closed soon for all of those involved.
(I did remove my phone number and email address from the emails for obvious reasons.)
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Monica wrote:
My name is Monica Gaudio - and your magazine has published an
article with my name. That is my article - but I did not give you or
the magazine, Cooks Source, permission to publish it.
It appears that someone from your magazine took it directly from the
Godecookery.com website, from my article titled "A Tale of Two
Tarts" (including the photos that are also on the website.)
If you could please contact me at your earliest convenience @ xxx-xxx-xxx or
this email, I would appreciate it.
Sent from my iPhone
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:54 AM, Monica wrote:
I am somewhat confused that I have to explain copyright to a magazine editor.
My article is copyrighted.
It does not fall under any fair use clauses.
My work was used for profit (while your magazine is free, it is not, as far as I can tell, a non-profit organization,) without my knowledge or permission, and without any compensation.
This is copyright infringement.
While I am flattered that you used my article, it is still copyright infringement, and a pretty serious matter. I am unsure how this happened at all.
What I would like is an immediate apology, printed both on Facebook and your next issue, and $130 to be donated the Columbia School of Journalism. (Which is ~$.10 per word of my original article.)
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Monica Gaudio wrote:
I would really like to speak to you regarding this problem and how you plan on resolving it. I have not heard from you since last Thursday. If you would please get back in touch with me, I would appreciate it.
Wow. Terribly rude, what with all those 'please contact me' comments and all.
And pretty much what I expected. Monica, you have demonstrated grace and poise throughout this incident. While in my opinion it was unnecessary to post your e-mails (Ms. Griggs' responses speak for themselves), there should now be no question whatsoever where the fault lies in this sorry matter.
Thank you! I didn't really think it was necessary but a number of good friends of mine said I should perhaps listen to those asking for the emails.
I am really hoping everyone looks at these emails and gets really bored. :)
|Date:||November 17th, 2010 09:53 pm (UTC)|| |
It's always better to just silence the issue than to leave it open for postulation, at least when it's something trivial like this that doesn't hurt anyone by being out there.
Do you think you could rally the internets into declaring my 25+ page paper due in 2 hours to be unconstitutional or something? :P
Good luck with that one, teffan!!! :)
|Date:||December 28th, 2010 03:27 pm (UTC)|| |
I'm sure you paid royalties to use that photo. I'm sure you didn't find that image online and publish it without consent for me to see right now. I'm sure of it.
What you have posted here looks very much like professional correspondence as I have learned it. Good on ya!
|Date:||November 17th, 2010 10:45 pm (UTC)|| |
It's not like you kept hammering on at her either. Your mails were short, to the point, and you gave her time to respond.
|Date:||November 17th, 2010 11:49 pm (UTC)|| |
Gosh, I have the vapors! I mean, "You have stolen from me, let's talk about this like civilized people and negotiate a paisible solution in which the wronged party is fairly recompensated and the offender is properly chastened without undue humiliation or distress, on the understanding that it won't happen again."????????!!!!!! Where's my fainting couch? Why, if you had written such a blistering salvo of e-mails to ME, I would have holed up in my bedroom through the long weekend to sob my eyes out, emerging only to vomit and to dictate responses to your missives that consisted of nothing but a string of guttural howls. I would then transform my oversized supermarket flyer into a staggering media empire to dwarf Oprah's, and my highest pleasure and sole purpose would be channeling my vast wealth to crush you and yours like a bug under my heel. A BUG, I SAY! You got off easy!
But honestly, Monica, if only Judith had thought to steal an atom of class, grace, and dignity from you along with your article, she would have saved herself from the fearsome wrath of the Internet, and she would still be in scummy, sleazy business. Please, Monica, continue being the classy Gallant to Judith's crass Goofus, and as for the rest of you, always be asking yourself "WWMD?" this holiday season and beyond.
|Date:||November 18th, 2010 12:09 am (UTC)|| |
Re: Soooooooo rude!
|Date:||November 18th, 2010 12:02 am (UTC)|| |
"She's run away"
... looks like Cooks Source web site has buggered off.
|Date:||November 18th, 2010 03:02 am (UTC)|| |
Re: "She's run away"
Google seems to have a cached version of the page, or maybe that's just on my machine. I have the full text downloaded already though :)
Re: "She's run away"
Probably more a case of "ooh exceeded bandwidth, you're cut off!"
Even without seeing her replies (other than the excerpt that every
one has already seen), I am more convinced than ever that she is getting off lightly.
|Date:||November 18th, 2010 12:45 am (UTC)|| |
thanks for posting the email
Thank you. The other party was making some pretty serious charges on her web page. They were, from what I'd seen of you, unbelievable, but it is better to fill a void with truth than to allow others to fill it with lies. It is regrettable that the other party made self contradictory statements on her webpage and in the press that were wild and incoherent. It is regrettable that she chose not to make public her side of the e-mail exchange. It is sad that there was so much self destruction wrought by her intractability. Best wishes and best of luck. You have been an example for all who know your story.
|Date:||November 18th, 2010 02:10 am (UTC)|| |
It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business.
Monica, if you're gonna quote a Godfather movie, at least quote one of the good ones.
And all things being equal, the statement of you being pulled back in is specious at best because that implies that you were dirty like Michael. Nope. Throughout this whole sordid affair, you have been a paragon of grace under fire. Judith Griggs is a delusional idiot, and I doubt that she has any idea how much trouble she really is in. She probably thinks that she can deflect some of the criticism aimed in her direction by making you out to being something less than honorable or civil.
I'd even suggest that she believes by removing her website, she probably thinks that nobody will be able to slap her with legal paperwork.
Your part in this sordid affair is over, and as a freelancer, and as a former book editor, I thank you for taking the moral high ground. You are an inspiration.
Nasty e-mails? Really?
I've had worse e-mails from smaller screw ups at work! You pointed out her error and wanted to know what action would be taken and when to expect an answer. That's called acting like a grown up. At best, you were honest, at worst you were blunt.
Even a short "Hey, I'm on the road or under deadlines, can we discuss this at X time?"
Srsly, bad grammar, no explanation why she didn't get back to you in a timely manner, unapologetically nasty, making excuses, not rectifying the situation in a manner appropriate to her "audience"...she couldn't last 2 nanoseconds at ANY other job. Oh wait, the TSA maybe.
I think you can finally stop worrying about Judith Griggs making accusations. Not only did she take down her website, but she told her local newspaper in an interview that November is the last issue of Cooks Source. She's done. The story is here: http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/11/17/cooks-source-calls-it-quits?SESS6f0fd580e4826fca3478dc794135dde4=gnews
Aaaaand... because I know you...
YOU should not feel ONE MOMENT of remorse about that.
YOU didn't do it to her. She did it to herself.
All she had to do was respond civilly, and appropriately, to any of your initial inquiries so conveniently outlined here, and she would have been able to continue on her merry way infringing on Disney and Martha and Paula, with them probably none the wiser.
For that matter, if she'd never stolen your recipe, she might still have been found out by one of the other scores of articles and photos she stole, and the result might well have been the same.
In any case, the larger story is that you put the fear of god into copyright infringers the world over. I absolutely LOVE that Suzanne McMinn got a big check for her stolen photo at least partly because of YOU. :-) Check it out here: http://chickensintheroad.com/living/open-letter-to-dave-belanger/
So don't go guilt-tripping yourself about this, ok?
|Date:||November 18th, 2010 10:38 am (UTC)|| |
The depressing thing is, if Griggs is in any way savvy she will sell her domain name - imagine the traffic it'll be getting.
|Date:||November 18th, 2010 03:06 pm (UTC)|| |
I don't think we need to worry about her being savvy ;)
I've said it before elsewhere, and I'll say it here. General George Custer had more "situational awareness" than Judith Griggs.
Awww. Thank you, Arianna. :)
|Date:||November 18th, 2010 05:34 pm (UTC)|| |
Can't see the Gazette article. Seems they've made their site 'Subscription Only' and you now have to PAY for it.
|Date:||November 18th, 2010 05:48 pm (UTC)|| |
Had to Google the article to get to it.
What really strikes me about this, is her continuing to lie and to justify in this whole situation. She claims you never gave her a chance, but looking at the whole timeline, your first email was on Oct 28th. There seems to be replies and back and forth on the 29th, and Nov 2nd.
It's not until Nov 4th (a whole week later!) that you post on your LJ account, and then on the 6th that it really goes crazy with the mighty internets.
So all things considered. You DID give her a chance. A whole week's head-start on this. In fact, if she had replied to your last message, or at least worked with you on resolving the situation, then the rest of us wouldn't have been the wiser, and there might have been a December Issue of C(r)ooks source with another uncompensated blogger's work on it.
|Date:||November 18th, 2010 10:42 pm (UTC)|| |
I don't think she's knowingly "lying", I think she's actually convinced herself what she's saying is an accurate representation of the truth. Can you see anyone putting themselves out there to look so stupid otherwise?
|Date:||November 18th, 2010 11:18 pm (UTC)|| |
The thing that is pretty clear is that the woman is a narcissist ... clinically. She has a truth that lives outside of normal understanding, is completely defined by her and which she relentlessly goes back to. Indeed she probably doesn't think she is lying and even when the "truth" is in print in front of her she reads something very different and believes that we are all wrong and only she has a clear understanding. It was her downfall, but she won't learn anything from that and she will never truly apologize.
|Date:||November 18th, 2010 11:50 pm (UTC)|| |
There's a thesis on Judith Griggs just waiting to be written by some sociology or psych student.
|Date:||November 19th, 2010 01:12 am (UTC)|| |
Someone found two previous (non-internet) incidents in the press where Ms. Griggs caused frustration and was considered unfair. Sorry I don't have those links here. But I share your appraisal that she's a narcissist, and they can be among the internet's most amusing/astonishing sources of lulz.
Yes, Judith apparently used to be a town planner in MA, and there are two articles online detailing the frustrations developers and others had in working with her. Some of the quotes from her seemed reminiscent of the things she said to Monica; i.e., "It's not my fault; I'm just dealing with a bunch of meanies."
I wasn't sure if she was the same Judith Gruggs, so I asked someone who lives in MA (and who had been following the Crooks Source story too), and he said the town in question is so small that odds are it doesn't have two loonies both named Judith Griggs.
|Date:||November 20th, 2010 12:17 am (UTC)|| |
Are these the articles in question?
LANCASTER -- Conservation Agent Judith Griggs called Conservation Commissioner Mark Melican "a son of a bitch," and then stormed out of a tense meeting Thursday night about a long-delayed development.
Ms. Griggs got involved in projects without first checking to see if she was covering ground already dealt with, Mr. Richard said.
"There was a lot of conversation going on that no one was really privy to except herself," he said, "and I think she was under the impression that she could do a lot more bargaining on behalf of the town than she can. She had all these things in the fire and nobody knew what was going on."
For the past two weeks, Ms. Griggs had failed to show up for work. Prior to that, she had reduced her work week to 27 hours, and last month accepted the job as conservation agent in Lancaster.
That bitch is crazy.
Nice research. Maybe it is the New England gloom making her crazy... but I like New England even in the dead of winter.
|Date:||November 19th, 2010 02:31 am (UTC)|| |
Cooks Source's FB page gone
I forgot to save every post.
|Date:||November 19th, 2010 04:30 am (UTC)|| |
Re: Cooks Source's FB page gone
Re: Cooks Source's FB page gone
Do you have a copy of them?
|Date:||November 19th, 2010 03:52 pm (UTC)|| |
Re: Cooks Source's FB page gone
Nope. But there seemed to be plenty of people out there already grabbing stuff (after all, it's all public domain ;)
Plus, you know, google cache
|Date:||November 19th, 2010 09:05 pm (UTC)|| |
Seems very reasonable to me. More reasonable than I would have been, under the same circumstances.
Your communication was very reasonable. The comments posted by Griggs on her site (preserved here since the site went down http://www.innovativepassiveincome.com/c
ooks-source-new-official-statement/) are very unreasonable. Way to rise above the fray Monica.
|Date:||November 20th, 2010 05:34 am (UTC)|| |
How very rude of you
All those "pleases" and "thank yous" just makes you appear to be a mean " ". You should cut that crap out. STOP BEING RUDE TO PEOPLE.
But seriously, WTF was she thinking? I may have one answer: she wasn't.
I did like this line though (I'm going to copy and paste your work here):
"I am somewhat confused that I have to explain copyright to a magazine editor."
I smell sarcasm.
I would have written it like:
"As a magazine editor one might think it important to know something about copyright laws."
The sarcasm is in the "one might think". Referring to ones ability for that task.
|Date:||November 24th, 2010 10:32 pm (UTC)|| |
Monica I need to send you an email
Do you have a site or email address where I can contact you?
|Date:||November 25th, 2010 12:16 am (UTC)|| |
Re: Monica I need to send you an email
You can either log into Livejournal and send me a private message or you can ping me at @Illadore on twitter, oh Anonymous. ;)
Having come to this story via cracked, and therefor your pie recipies (I'm English and have a passion for apple pie) I'd like to make a recommendation if it ever becomes a possibility. Though modern by anyone's standards, Bramley apples have become the British quintessential cooking apple. If you can get them, try them. It's not easy in the US. But try it, for a sample of how tastes change.
I've yet to find an american apple that comes close; and anyone who loves apple pie should try Bramley at least once.
Hope my suggestion is not to forward. Your website looks like great fun - if a bit too precise for medieval recipes ;) - along with your book recommendations.
Re: Late-commer comments
I'd also like to ask, in complete ignorance if not innocence, if the crust-like recipe shouldn't be using lard, and the filling one using beef-fat processed in the same way, the name of which I have forgotten. Both were very popular historically, if I remember, particularly since they taste so damn good and don't waste the animal. The other advantage is that lard is weirdly good for us, comparatively speaking, for the modern health-conscious. Better than butter. Weird but true. I can find sources. Of course, it's also harder to get un-hydrogenated. I'm rambling a little due to it being late and my being unable to sleep, also because the internet is mostly anonymous and therefor I am aloud to look stupid without repercussions.
|Date:||January 14th, 2011 01:07 pm (UTC)|| |
Re: Late-commer comments
The thing I loved the most about this whole adventure was that I had so many people get interested and talking about medieval food. :)
The actual Elizabethan recipe discusses how to make the crust-like substance (aka the coffyn) and that is one of my biggest conclusions -- that the crust was meant to be eaten. It says specifically: " make your coffyne after this maner take a little faire water and halfe a disshe of butter and a little safron and set all this vpon a chafyngdisshe till it be hote then temper your flower with this vpon a chafyngdissh till it be hote then temper your floure with this said licour and the white of two egges and also make your coffyn
Which translates to: Make your coffyn after this manner: take good water and half a dish of butter and a little saffron and set all of this upon a chaffing dish til it is hot then temper your flour with this liquid and two egg whites to make your coffyn. -- more or less. I am not an English Elizabethan major so my translation could be a bit wrong but it looks about right. (Nor am I a journalism student. Just a foodie.)
From that, I've surmised that the recipe does not call for lard and did not put it in it. Could they have put lard in it? Of course. :) I just have no proof that they did. Edited at 2011-01-14 01:09 pm (UTC)
Re: Late-commer comments
Thankyou for being awesome.
Hi! So glad to hear it worked out okay.
Hi, I saw the Cook's Source story trending on Twitter a while ago (along with thousands of other people), and I wondered at the time how it would work out. Just stumbled across this page today, and it's great to hear that you actually got the donation and the apology - well done there. :D When I finish work I've got to go read Gode Cookery; looks like there are tons of recipes worth trying there. :3