illadore (illadore) wrote,

Okay -- I thought I was done.

Johnny pointed out to me today the newest update from Cooks Source and from what I've read, I am portrayed as a big meanie. I should, 100x really... just ignore it and move on with my life as arguing with people over the internet -- lame -- and yet I can not seem to help myself.

For the record, I will happily post all the email exchanges between myself and Ms. Griggs if Ms. Griggs gives me permission.

I contacted Cooks Source five times: by voicemail October 28th, by email October 28th, by email again October 28th, by email November 2nd and by voicemail November 2nd. I believe that was giving Ms. Griggs a chance.

Not once did Cooks Source offer to pay me in any of those email exchanges -- or donate to CSJ. The apology Cooks Source gave me in an email was "If you want an apology, So Sorry, Monica!" -- I took that as sarcasm. As for my emails being rude -- I was demanding that "this" be fixed. I had one line of my own email that was borderline - "I am somewhat confused that I have to explain copyright to a magazine editor."

I do not think of myself as a big meanie in all of this -- I think of myself as a woman as mad as hell for having her work stolen and then being talked down to like I was a child. As I said, again, it was the principle of the thing -- my work was republished without my permission, my copyright was violated and I stuck up for myself.

Lessons learned:

Pay the writer.
Be nice to people.
Be mighty.

AND on this, I hope, really really really, -- I'm out.
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

← Ctrl ← Alt
Ctrl → Alt →
That apology on the website is the biggest load of horseshit I have ever read. It is such a non-apology it's ridiculous, and Ms. Griggs' ego in posting that (poor grammar and all) is amazing.
also, although she says: "Winters are bleak in Western New England, and as such they are bleak for Cooks Source as well." in her shutting-down post, I would like to point out that the tiny little Massachusetts town I share with Ms. Griggs was looking very pretty yesterday in the sunshine, and with Cooks Source gone, it definitely feels brighter too.
Judith Griggs is absolutely delusional I feel bad that you have to go through this still, and that she goes on and on with her virulent brainfarts. You seem like a decent, humble person who genuinely cares about what you do, and Judith Griggs is a mean spirited bitch.

I wish I could shake your hand, give you a hug, and thank you for being a decent person in a world where Judith Griggs can prosper and go on unpunished.
What a load of hooey.

Her "Here's how it happened" does not explain how she accidentally ripped articles off of NPR, Paula Dean, etc.

It's not like NPR sent her a book of their website.

I think you should post your e-mails. You can always write a synopsis explaining what you're responding to and add some fair-use quotes from her e-mails.
I'm sure Ms. Griggs has received letters from the legal dept at NPR and Paula Dean. If she closes down the magazine, those legal depts are more likely to shrug and let it slide.
She never talks about any stolen article except yours... anywhere. At this point she's written enough words on the issue that she ought to have gotten around to that. Does she think there is anyone left who doesn't know?
Oh. My. God.

At first I couldn't figure out what you were talking about, and then I went to and read the brand new piece of horse crap that Judith Griggs just posted. What amazing gall.

She ought to have learned a lot of life lessons in the last few weeks, but one she clearly hasn't learned is "When you find yourself in a hole, Stop Digging." She should have left the previous apology up, lame as it was, but no, she had to stir the pot again.

And the best part is that since she took her Facebook page down, she doesn't have to see the hate mail that crap will prompt unless people take the time to hunt down paper, pen, envelope and a stamp.

She can try to paint herself as the victim all she wants. No one believes anything Judith Griggs has to say at this point. As infuriating as it is, you're right, Monica, you need to walk away.

Big hugs to you.
As always, Arianna, you are the voice of reason.
Thank you. :)
The current apology posted at Cook's Source is nothing but spin. There is no excuse for stealing works from anyone. Even if you have every intention of securing permission later, stealing is stealing. Exhaustion is not an excuse. Bleary-eyes are not an excuse. Even the noble acts of highlighting small towns, (so you can sell ads in your magazine), is no excuse. Ms. Griggs was, that night, a thief.
Your actions were reasonable and should not be called into question by Ms Griggs. I find it shallow that she tries to paint you as a villain battling her do-gooder publication. She earns no points with me when she uses stories of those recently unemployed to justify her acts of thievery against you.
Don't let her make you feel responsible for the demise of Cook's Source. Everything that happened to her was triggered by her actions, not yours. She is the one who stole from you. If that shuts down the magazine, it is because of what she did.
I am inspired by your courage. Take heart, you will continue to be supported out here in the 'nets.
Mendacity really does need to be measured on the Cook's Source Scale.

100 Cheneys for that one.
Sweet baby cheeses. Flabbergasted but not surprised really. That woman is a douche and utterly clueless. I'm really pissed off for you right now. I would definitely post up my side of the story and use fair use quote like someone said above.
What a sorry sack of lying liar Judith Griggs is.
Please post the emails. I think that it is going to be he said she said until we get the whole picture.
Yes. Please do.


9 years ago


9 years ago


9 years ago

You should ask someone about that...


9 years ago


November 16 2010, 18:48:57 UTC 9 years ago Edited:  November 16 2010, 18:52:35 UTC

I'm really looking forward to seeing the fallout of when Paula Deen, NPR, et al. get around to really getting a hold of her.

It's clear she doesn't 'get it', in that the internet isn't a quaint little corner of the world. When the big guns get focused on her... well, like I say: looking forward to hearing about it.

In sadder news, I can't recall the last time I saw someone that much older than me act like such a victim.

In regards to this part:
For the record, I will happily post all the email exchanges between myself and Ms. Griggs if Ms. Griggs gives me permission.

What expectations legally are there for this? Why couldn't you 'publish' the back and forth?
Lawyer says this is not a good idea. Ms. Griggs' emails are copyrighted by her. (Or at least, that's what the advice I have been given is and what the research I have done also concludes. More or less. It is a grey area and I am not a lawyer.) I can post short comments from them as fair-use but out and out copying her emails would infringe on her copyright.

And it would be entirely hypocritical for me to infringe on Ms. Griggs' copyright after I've been pissed off about her infringing on my own.

Deleted comment


9 years ago

Re: Copyrights on emails


9 years ago

To: Monica Gaudio
From: The Internets
RE: Judith Griggs

Monica, please don't feel that you owe any further explanation. Many of us have seen the spreadsheet (created by a wonderful group of people on Facebook) that details all the stories Ms. Griggs has borrowed from other sources. When Paula Deen and the Food Network are discussing matters with lawyers, Judith's "Oh it was only once and I was tired!" crap falls flat.

We know she's full of it. She knows she's full of it. She's casting you as the bad guy to try and save face. It's not going to work, and I (and many others) will enjoy hearing about the lawsuits presented against her in the future.


Thank you. ;)
"Bleary-eyed I didnt notice it was copy written"

...she still doesn't really understand copyright, does she? Is she under the impression that if you hadn't put that © at the bottom, it wouldn't have been under copyright?
She's lying and backpedaling; I believe the previous version of this claim was that a trusted writer submitted it and she didn't check it out because she was in a hurry, and honest, she'll never take stuff from that guy again.

She ignored the copyright notice, as she ignored the notice on the many other pages she copied, because she was under the assumption that copying things off of the Internet is no big deal and she could get away with it.
... but she still doesn't get it. When Disney, Martha Stewart, et al. get through with her, maybe she will.

This quote from their web page makes me cringe and laugh at the same time. "I was able to show him all the promo books and articles we receive, all the photos we take and the "clip art" that is free for everyone." -- no, honey. Promo books and articles are not free for everyone. And sometimes clip art comes with fees and restrictions!

also while people were looking for the writing, I started in on the photos, because it was more challenging and I'm a geek. I found pictures from Real Simple (that was actually the trigger pic; the wine poached pear pic was so beautiful and striking that I had bookmarked the article, and knew the pic as soon as I saw it in Cooks Source), Hallmark Magazine and Everyday Food. Then I went on and found several copyrighted pictures from professional pumpkin carvers who patently did not give permission.

So if she showed the journalist such things, and he believed her....ugh.
She spelled the first word wrong. Literally, it took all of one word for this person to showcase zero writing or editorial skills. "Its sad really." It's = it is.

No well-schooled adult, not to mention someone who is an editor, could possibly make that many mistakes. This person botched plural words, punctuation, tense, verb structure, etc. And the continued typically non-American spelling of "apologising" sure makes it seem like this is just someone having fun with all of us. Am I crazy? Or is she just that awful? Is there any chance this is just some hacker/joker who wants to feed the fire? I enjoy drama and would like this to actually have been written by Judith, but it seems just too improbable.
Judith's message to Monica (But honestly Monica!) was written in a similarly horrible fashion. I'm convinced that Judith has never undertaken any sort of study that would qualify her to be an editor. I think it's safe to say the only reason she can claim to be an editor is that she created the magazine and appointed herself to that position.
← Ctrl ← Alt
Ctrl → Alt →