Copyright Infringement and Me
Nov. 3rd, 2010 @ 11:14 pm
version of this post: My 2005 Ice Dragon entry, called "A Tale of Two Tarts" was apparently printed without my knowledge or permission in a magazine and I am apparently the victim of copyright infringement.
I was contacted early last week by a friend of mine who lives in the Northeast about my "As American as Apple Pie - Isn't!" article that was published in Cooks Source magazine, mostly to inquire how I had gotten published. This was news to me, as I hadn't ever heard of this magazine before.
However, some basic Google-fu lead me to find them online
and on Facebook. In fact, after looking at the Cooks Source Facebook
page, I found the article with my name on it on on "Page 10" of the Cooks Source Pumpkin fest issue. (No worries, I have screencaps.) The magazine is published on paper (the website says they have between 17,000 and 28,000 readers) as well as being published on Facebook as well.
So. I first phone the magazine then send a quick note to the "Contact Us" information page, asking them what happened and how they got my article. (I thought it could have been some sort of mix-up or that someone posted it to some sort of free article database.) Apparently, it was just copied straight off the Godecookery webpage.
As you can see from the page, it is copyrighted and it is also on a Domain name that I own.
After the first couple of emails, the editor of Cooks Source asked me what I wanted -- I responded that I wanted an apology on Facebook, a printed apology in the magazine and $130 donation (which turns out to be about $0.10 per word of the original article) to be given to the Columbia School of Journalism.
What I got instead was this (I am just quoting a piece of it here:)
"Yes Monica, I have been doing this for 3 decades, having been an editor at The Voice, Housitonic Home and Connecticut Woman Magazine. I do know about copyright laws. It was "my bad" indeed, and, as the magazine is put together in long sessions, tired eyes and minds somethings forget to do these things.
But honestly Monica, the web is considered "public domain" and you should be happy we just didn't "lift" your whole article and put someone else's name on it! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally. Now it will work well for your portfolio. For that reason, I have a bit of a difficult time with your requests for monetary gain, albeit for such a fine (and very wealthy!) institution. We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me! I never charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written pieces, and have many who write for me... ALWAYS for free!"
I got nothing.
Scratch that. I sure as heck do. Let's go over the major points: At this point, I am mad as hell. It is now the principle of the thing -- and I also can not quite believe that my copyright was violated -- and then I was informed that I should *pay them* for editing it for me!
The web is NOT public domain! Don't believe me? Try the University of Maryland University College -- or just Google it.
I should be thankful because I wasn't flat out plagiarized? Don't college students get, oh, I dunno, tossed out for being caught for plagiarism? How is this a valid argument?
I have some ideas of where to go from here but I am more than willing to listen to other suggestions.
EDIT: Nick does a better job of telling the story than I do: http://nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com/1553538.html -- Thanks, Nick!
|Date:||November 4th, 2010 10:16 pm (UTC)|| |
Here through zoethe
, and here's the comment I left on the Wall of their Facebook page:
As a professional columnist, editor and broadcaster, published in major media in three countries, I'm swinging by to tell you you have a nerve stealing copy and refusing to pay your (unwilling!) contributors - and then piling insult on injury by pretending when you were caught the copy you went out of your way to take ...wasn't good. You are dishonest, pathetic and shameless. I hope the current pile-on kills your sorry magazine, and you end up in supermarkets again - but as baggers this time.
|Date:||November 4th, 2010 10:21 pm (UTC)|| |
What a COMPLETE moron. This uneducated, disrespectful twit fully deserves to lose her job.
|Date:||November 4th, 2010 10:23 pm (UTC)|| |
Got here via @anamariecox via RT @lehmannchris: The publishing equivalent of stomping on someone's head then demanding victim apologize to you.
|Date:||November 4th, 2010 10:26 pm (UTC)|| |
Cooks Source didn't offer a donation....
Cooks Source didn't offer a donation as settlement, has anyone else stepped up and offered? Can I make a donation?
|Date:||November 4th, 2010 10:28 pm (UTC)|| |
|(Link)|WaPo has picked up the story now
. I'm also impressed by the volume of OTHER plagiarized articles alert Facebook readers have located. And they are notifying the copyright holders.
Can you say, "You are SO OUT OF BUSINESS< BITCH?!!!" Thought ya could!
|Date:||November 4th, 2010 10:29 pm (UTC)|| |
Don't know if anybody has told you, but this was posted on The Consumerist
(http://consumerist.com/2010/11/magazine-copies-entire-story-from-web-tells-writer-she-should-pay-them-for-publishing-it.html) this afternoon. I'm sorry this happened to you and I hope this gets sorted out the right way pretty soon!
|Date:||November 4th, 2010 10:30 pm (UTC)|| |
|Date:||November 4th, 2010 10:32 pm (UTC)|| |
I would recommend you contact
the Authors' Guild, based in New York.
|Date:||November 4th, 2010 10:34 pm (UTC)|| |
It seems the 'October issue' has disapoofed.
|Date:||November 4th, 2010 10:51 pm (UTC)|| |
Re: Content denied
|Date:||November 4th, 2010 10:35 pm (UTC)|| |
Whatever you do, don't let them get away with it.
Statutory damages in copyright cases is $750-$150,000 per infringement; they were put in place precisely as a deterrent. Without the statutory damages the magazine would only be liable for the actual damages, which would make stealing articles much more profitable, since if they got caught, they would only have to pay what they would have paid in the first place.
Other than finding a lawyer, you may want to forward that transcript off to the magazines legal department, or whomever is that editors boss. Then just sit back and watch the fireworks.
|Date:||November 4th, 2010 10:47 pm (UTC)|| |
They sent you an official communication claiming that everything on the Internet is in the public domain? And they publish their things on the Internet?
It sounds to me like they just said that you are free to copy everything they have and republish it under your own name! ;-)
But seriously, get a lawyer, because in copyright infringement suits you can either go for actual damages (not much in this case) or statutory damages, which can be up to $150,000 for willful infringement.
|Date:||November 4th, 2010 10:54 pm (UTC)|| |
You don't need a lawyer
It's a small claim, you do not need a lawyer. You can file this yourself and claim a few hundred dollars in damages.
|Date:||November 4th, 2010 10:56 pm (UTC)|| |
When I first heard about this, I was as shocked as anyone who has ever worked for a publication. But I think people are approaching the topic in exactly the wrong way.
Screaming at Cooks Source for alleged copyright infringement is counterproductive. A civil discussion on laws and respectful copyright practice would be a better way of doing things.
Blasting the editor on Twitter and launching a guerrilla campaign on Facebook serves little purpose: The point has already been made. Education is the way to go.
People should imagine they're the editor who has made this lapse in judgment (no matter how many times) and think about things for a bit:
You're the editor of a small cooking magazine in New England with a readership (I've seen different things) in the ballpark of 17,000. You've been taking content from the Internet under the impression it's public domain. You haven't been corrected for years. Then, one person finds their content in your magazine and informs you it's illegal. You now panic, knowing that this has been your business model for a while. You try to cover your mistake, not knowing it would explode into a huge fiasco. But it does.
Now, I'm not trying to defend the editor by any means. Copyright infringement is a serious infraction. But think for a moment about the context of the situation and the extent of the response it got. It's disproportionate any way you look at it.
I am not advocating any penalty, but I'm not advocating against one, either. I'm not getting into that issue. What I think, for what it's worth, is that we need to do a better job of educating people about copyright laws, rights and respectful practice.
|Date:||November 4th, 2010 11:11 pm (UTC)|| |
Re: Wrong Approach
If the editor's email had read differently, I'd be agreeing with you anon. But it doesn't - there is a line to be drawn between not knowing what you were doing was wrong and trying to wriggle out of it, and trying to bully someone else into not only shutting up, but also suggesting they owe you money, and Griggs has firmly landed herself in the latter category.
On top of this, her lack of response (the facebook reply is so overwhelmingly flippant I'm leaving that one for the moment as I'm half convinced it's a hack), apology, or even acknowledgement of what's going on says she's hoping this will all blow over, and she'll get away without making amends. If you're in the publishing business, you're aware what a nightmare, and occasionally heartbreak, it can be to be plagarised. Her lack of apology, never mind that older copies of the magazine (complete with stolen content from larger corp.s) are still up, says she's hoping to get away with this.
Education wouldn't have helped this - her attitude now she's been told what she's doing is illegal hasn't changed - it wouldn't have changed anything had she known beforehand.
She needs to be dragged through this courts and this ridiculous parady of a magazine closed down. If nothing else, it might stop a practise which is disturbingly prevalent in the industry, for all it's rarely this blatent.
|Date:||November 4th, 2010 11:04 pm (UTC)|| |
Get a lawyer and start a found raiser...
Hey, If you get a lawyer and take them to court I'll contribute $10.00 send by PayPal to your legal fees for this case.
Anyone else like to contribute to take the case to court?
|Date:||November 4th, 2010 11:08 pm (UTC)|| |
So how many people commenting about how awful this is have illegally downloading music online? Still think that's not stealing, either?
that is appalling and totally messed up (also, i think the wrath of the internet broke their website)