Food writers' alert: Wholesale copyright theft

Here are a few links to the many stories about Cooks Source Magazine, which has been apparently been swiping much of its content off the internet. Editor/publisher Judith Griggs told one writer who complained that of course everything posted on the internet was in public domain, and that she should be grateful for Griggs' editing.

Basic story

Some of the places they've taken content from

More

Some reaction

Hi

Via Robin Mather Jenkins, I learned someone put together a spreadsheet detailing where she lifted stuff.

Regards,

I saw that as well, and was horrified (though thrilled to find the Gode website!) especially by their response.

I can't wait until Martha Stewart's lawyers get ahold of them....

There is already a FaceBook page spoofing Cooks Source: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cooks-Sou ... 2764128073

Mhays wrote:I saw that as well, and was horrified (though thrilled to find the Gode website!) especially by their response.

I can't wait until Martha Stewart's lawyers get ahold of them....

Agreed - I saw the resopnse and thought "This should end well "

Just love reading about folks like this. Sorta gives "clueless" a whole new range.

Gypsy Boy wrote:Just love reading about folks like this. Sorta gives "clueless" a whole new range.

Yes! Talk about unclear on the concept....

Ya know, it is apparently a free publication. Someone might think about stealing all the copies and holding them for ransom...after all, they're free, right?

I shot a quick email to one of the bloggers I follow whose recipe was on the list of stolen ones (Simply Recipes) She sent me this article: http://www.edrants.com/the-cooks-source ... -on-theft/

Mhays wrote:Ya know, it is apparently a free publication. Someone might think about stealing all the copies and holding them for ransom...after all, they're free, right?

a lot of the free publications have language along the lines of "one copy is free for personal use, any further copies cost $5 each" or whatnot. if they're smart enough to have that, then you wouldn't be any better than the editor herself

gleam wrote:

Mhays wrote:Ya know, it is apparently a free publication. Someone might think about stealing all the copies and holding them for ransom...after all, they're free, right?

a lot of the free publications have language along the lines of "one copy is free for personal use, any further copies cost $5 each" or whatnot. if they're smart enough to have that, then you wouldn't be any better than the editor herself

If they were smart enough to have that, there's a chance that they might actually know something about copyright law.

On second thought: nah....

I certainly hope that the Food Network and all the other big-time, lawyered-up people whose content was stolen take appropriate action, and that this serves a salutatory lesson to others who believe that anything they find online is free for copying.

I feel for the individual writers, though. As I discovered when some of my things were plagiarized, it's tough to get any compensation unless you have the wherewithal to register every copyright (not economically feasible for short articles) and can afford to sue on principle.

LAZ wrote:Here are a few links to the many stories about Cooks Source Magazine, which has been apparently been swiping much of its content off the internet. Editor/publisher Judith Griggs told one writer who complained that of course everything posted on the internet was in public domain, and that she should be grateful for Griggs' editing.

It happens all over the place on the internet.

I was reviewing a travel site and noted that the site had copied and pasted Tripadvisor reviews onto their site. (The more proper method would be links to the Tripadvisor sites.)

LAZ, don't you at least use a Creative Commons license? While I understand that the licenses aren't the same as registering, it does at least indicate that you know your work is protected.

Mhays wrote:LAZ, don't you at least use a Creative Commons license? While I understand that the licenses aren't the same as registering, it does at least indicate that you know your work is protected.

Creative Commons licensing is only a means of allowing others to copy and distribute your work at will without putting your work into public domain. It isn't of the slightest use in protecting your work from copyright infringement.

Copyright protection applies whether or not you register and whether or not notice of copyright appears on the work; however, in order to enforce your copyright, your only recourse is to hire an attorney and sue any infringers. (According to the Copyright Office, "In cases of willful infringement for profit, the U.S. Attorney may initiate a criminal investigation," but that rarely happens, and never on behalf of small copyright owners.)

The work must be registered before you can sue. In order to receive statutory damages and attorneys' fees in a successful infringement case, the work must have been registered before the infringement occurred -- otherwise possible reparations are limited to actual damages.

Registration costs a minimum of $35, and you must submit a copy of the published work.

So in the case of a writer who is getting paid maybe $350 for a newspaper article or a blogger who isn't getting paid at all, copyright protection isn't much protection. While some of the people copying stuff online simply don't know any better, others are outright thieves who know very well that the likelihood anyone will actually take them to court is slim.

Then there are the people who believe, that as long as they change the actual words, it's OK to plagiarize content. Copyright infringement applies to verbatim wording and is a matter of law; plagiary applies ideas as well as words and is a moral issue.

For example, recipes are difficult to protect legally, because lists of ingredients are not copyrightable and even the directions require "substantial literary expression" to be protectable. So if you take somebody's recipe without permission, rewrite it in your own words and publish it as your own, you won't be guilty of copyright infringement, and probably can't be sued over it, but you will still be a plagiarist.

Recently, a blogger appropriated a holiday restaurant list of mine, and I'm sure he thought it was just fine because he revised the wording and format and gave Dining Chicago a tiny link; however, he took my research, putting all the information in his own post, and therefore giving no one any reason to click through to mine. That's still plagiarism, even if it's not illegal. The appropriate thing to have done would have been to say something like, "If you're looking for places to go for this holiday, Dining Chicago has a great list" with the link, not to copy my list.

Right - however, the Creative Commons license essentially publicly states that you are aware of your rights, and to what degree you expect compliance. Not as good as copyright, but helpful for those of us who can't afford to litigate anyway.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC-tVHLM99w[/youtube]

Mhays wrote:I can't wait until Martha Stewart's lawyers get a hold of them....

Screw Martha-I saw Oprah listed on that spreadsheet!

Buddy

Mhays wrote:Right - however, the Creative Commons license essentially publicly states that you are aware of your rights, and to what degree you expect compliance. Not as good as copyright, but helpful for those of us who can't afford to litigate anyway.

Creative Commons is essentially giving your work away for free. In theory, you can use it to prevent somebody else from making a profit on it or publishing it without credit but I believe that has yet to be tested in the courts. As far as I can see, Creative Commons is only good for giving away rights -- not preserving them.

If somebody violates your Creative Commons license, you have exactly the same recourse as if you rely on copyright alone, maybe less.

To reiterate, your work is automatically copyrighted unless you do something deliberate to give away your rights. However, how well you can protect your copyright depends on your ability to challenge transgressors in court.

I just started a new site about culinary schools and the food industry. All the content is written by me except for a small portion of one article I just posted.

http://culinaryschooladviser.com/?p=151

The quote I took is from Paul Kahan and is on the http://soapbox.restaurantintelligenceag ... pter_id=97

If I credit the source and list the site, this is fine, right? Also, the site is designed to make it easier to connect the media (I suppose I qualify is that).

I am being ethical in doing this, right?

jtobin625 wrote:If I credit the source and list the site, this is fine, right? Also, the site is designed to make it easier to connect the media (I suppose I qualify is that).

I am being ethical in doing this, right?

The answer is: It depends.

A brief quote usually -- but not always -- constitutes fair use. A lot depends on the length of the overall piece you're taking the quotation from and your purposes in quoting. For example, authors who quote single lines from poems or songs as chapter headings usually must get permission from the copyright holder to do so. A substantial quotation nearly always requires permission.

I'd say that your use is fine, but I am not an intellectual-property lawyer, Paul Kahan or the owner of Soapbox. (I would say it would definitely be fine if it had appeared originally on the main RIA site, which is definitely meant as a media-relations vehicle, but it's unclear to me whether Soapbox is meant that way. Why not ask them?)

The best course of action when you're not sure if what you want to do is fair use is to ask the copyright holder for permission.

Thanks for the response LAZ. I reached out to Ellen Malloy soon after I wrote the previous post and she thought it was fine. The purpose of Soapbox is to make it easier to reach out to connect her clients to journalists and the general public. I suppose that as long as you credit the source and not act like it is exclusively yours, it's fine to do.

Um, Cook's Source responds. Waaah.

If they had responded this way from the beginning, it's very likely that none of this ugliness would have happened. Hopefully this will be a valuable lesson for them & other aspiring "publishers".

Khaopaat wrote:If they had responded this way from the beginning, it's very likely that none of this ugliness would have happened. Hopefully this will be a valuable lesson for them & other aspiring "publishers".

This is still barely an apology, and it doesn't even address the dozens of other copyright violations by the magazine.

Seems kind of convenient to claim "hijack" this long after the fact...

When in doubt, blame it on the evil Facebook

NPR has a roundup that sums it up well. I'm certainly not condoning hacking, but it's really difficult to have sympathy for these guys; their simultaneous disregard for others's content and self-righteous outrage makes me wonder if the whole thing is really a 'New Coke' style marketing ploy.

Bologna.

First they wanted other people to write their content for free, then when someone does it for them on Facebook, they complain...

It's dead, Jim.

site now redirects to intuit.com


http://www.boston.com/ae/celebrity/arti ... ks_source/