|Okay -- I thought I was done.|
Okay -- I thought I was done.
Nov. 16th, 2010 @ 09:01 am
|Date:||November 17th, 2010 05:09 pm (UTC)|| |
Well, if Ms. Griggs has done anything for her long-term rememberance, it has been to increase the likelihood that her name will be transformed into a verb that refers to the act of re-using copyrighted works without permission.
Example: Blast! One of my articles got griggsed again."
As to supposedly not realizing that the content she found was copyrighted, it is either utter hogwash or an admission of total editorial incompetence. In the United States, everything is presumed to have copyright protections automatically, though registering copyright is still the best way to document proof of ownership. I cannot imagine how anyone could wind up in an editorial position (no matter how small or obscure the publication) without understanding Copyright 101.
As to Ms. Guadio's decision not to publish the correspondence, it is, perhaps, the safest choice. Personal correspondence has typically been viewed as the property of the recipient, as there have been many examples of individuals publishing correspondance from companies, government officials, or other entities to bring to light a wide range of issues (e.g., poor customer service, denying responsibility for defective products, exposing crass or rude communications). I applaud Ms. Gaudio for taking the high road, even if it was only on the advice of an attorney.
|Date:||November 17th, 2010 05:11 pm (UTC)|| |
Re: Neologism: Griggsed
Oh, and by the way, I believe Cooks Source is only closing shop out of the hope that the authors (or, as some have suggested, photographers) of any other griggsed content might not try to sue a publication that is no more.
|Top of Page
||Powered by LiveJournal.com|