Does Cooks Source Editor Claim Web is Public Domain?

[IndyRob]

Wondering how prevalant this is, I've been doing some shallow investigation. I grab a unique looking sentance from deep within the one of the infringed articles and google it looking for exact matches. I found quite a few pretty quickly. Sometimes it does look like fair use. In other cases there is attribution but no indication that is is used with permission. But it seems like in around half the cases, it seemed a willful (or naive) infringement.

In one case, a slideshow was converted to a static web page and used both the text and images. Interestingly, most blog posts on this site were in another language although this one was posted in English. It occurred to me that the devious thing to do would be to target non-english sites (say, the French goosto.fr) and do a google translation and clean up the grammar.

I won't post examples since there could be cases where permission was granted but it isn't made known. But if anyone has a relevant blog and wants to follow the trail(s) to the end, it might be a useful way to contribute to the larger issue (and get some hits in the process).

I'm reminded of a story I saw a few months ago (posted in the cocktail copyright thread I think). It was about a newspaper that had a standing relationship with a legal/IP firm. The latter would monitor the web for infringement of the newspaper's articles. When it found one, it would buy the rights to the article and then go sue the infringer (or probably in most cases, settle).

At the time, this arrangement seemed a little bit chilling. But I'm sure they would bring up a case such as this in their defense. The newspaper avoids involvement in a lawsuit and is immediately compensated for the infringement. The legal firm does what it does.

I must admit that I'm warming to the arrangement in this context.

[ETA after reading the intervening posts]Although I found some recipes copied with some very specific instructions, notes, or other borderline content, I quickly eliminated these and focused on things like health advice articles. It was still pretty easy to find some.

Edited November 5, 2010 by IndyRob (log)

[djyee100]

Whew, what a fascinating controversy. I'm not going to bandy the difference between plagiarism and other kinds of copyright infringement. The bottom line is, if you copy and use other people's copyrighted material without permission, you may find yourself slammed with a lawsuit. Attribution doesn't matter if the protected material has been copied and used without permission, and the re-publication of the copyrighted material does not fall into the fair use exception.

I looked up the apple pie article on the Cooks Source online mag, and while the intro page of the article seems to be missing, the jump for the article, on page 24, is still up there. Complete with the apple pie recipe that appears to have been lifted word for word from Gaudio's website. It's possible that every online view of that webpage can be considered a re-publication of the copyrighted material without permission. Even at a penalty at one cent per view, given the publicity surrounding this controversy and the number of people checking out the mag, the total penalty might be...well, a pretty penny.

Of course you still have to get money from Cooks Source mag (or Griggs--if she can be held responsible as an individual), and neither may have much money to sue for. The lack of adequate legal remedies for online copyright infringement is another big issue.

When searching for material on the net I always check first to see if the website is copyright. If it is I ask permission to use any material.

Under U.S. copyright law, a copyright notice is not necessary in order for the work to be copyrighted. If I write an original poem on a cocktail napkin, I have the copyright to that poem. I have reduced my literary inspiration to tangible form--written words on a cocktail napkin--and copyright automatically attaches.

I suggest that you assume the material is copyrighted, and request permission for reprint, unless the website specifically says that the author releases the material to the public domain, or otherwise grants permission for reprint.

As far as I am aware you can quote up to 70 words from any text without permission as long as it is credited.

I don't know of any rule like that under U.S. copyright law. The U.S. courts use a balancing test, with multiple factors, to decide if a re-publication of copyrighted material falls under the fair use exception. If you copy the critical 70 words in an article without permission, you could still be in trouble.

I was noodling around on the web just now, and this website has a good explanation of U.S. copyright law basics, if you're interested:

http://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightBasics/exceptions.html

Edited November 5, 2010 by djyee100 (log)

[IndyRob]

Judith Griggs has finally done an interview. Not as probing as I would have liked, but it's something.

[nakji]

The author was interviewed on CBC's As It Happens on their November 5th program, as well.

[IndyRob]

The author was interviewed on CBC's As It Happens on their November 5th program, as well.

Clarification in case it's needed. I thought this was another Griggs interview I had missed. But what I missed was the word 'Author'. Judith Griggs is the Editor and Monica Gaudio is the author. Ms. Gaudio has been interviewed many times, but the link I posted is the first case I've found where we have the words of Ms. Griggs outside of the infamous e-mail exchange and the subsequent Facebook posts.

Edited November 15, 2010 by IndyRob (log)

[jmolinari]

Griggs said ""I'm beyond words sorry, and it's not just because I got caught. It just wasn't right," "

I think she's full of it. She's sorry because she got caught. If she truly believed it wasn't right, she wouldn't have written the email that spawned the hatred.

If she truly believed it wasn't right, she would made the apology, paid the $130 and be done with it. Instead she wrote what has to be the most jackass-ish email of 2010. THAT'S what cost her. And i hope it costs her greatly. I feel no sympathy for her in the least.

20 or even 10 years ago she would have won this battle and no one would have known the story. Today that doesn't work anymore. She's a relic of the old guard soon to die off.

Article also says "Griggs said she's no expert on the finer points of copyright law:. Apparently she thinks she IS an expert. Proclaiming everything on teh web as public domain.

Again...what cause the backlash is not the screwup of taking the content...it was the derogatory, snarky email that followed...

Edited November 16, 2010 by jmolinari (log)