Page 1 of 1

Food magazine blatently violates copyright.

Posted: 2010-11-04 09:27pm
by Vehrec
So what happense when you steal all the content for your magazine? How long can you get away with it?
On the last Thursday of October, Jeff Berry sent an email to his friend, Monica Gaudio. Berry informed Gaudio that an article called “As American as Apple Pie — Isn’t!” had been published in Cooks Source Magazine.

“Is this you?” asked Berry. “Is this your article? And how did you get it published? Because I’m trying to break into any market that I can.”

Gaudio, who identified herself to me over the phone as “an amateur medieval enthusiast,” went home last Thursday and discovered that an article she had written on Gode Cookery, which contained a clear copyright notice at the bottom of the webpage, had been reprinted on Page 10 in Cooks Source‘s October 2010 issue.

“They used the website that I had,” said Gaudio. “I own the domain name. Jim Matterer owns most of the content. However, that article is mine.”

The first thing Gaudio did was call the number listed at the Cooks Source website. An hour or two later, Judith Griggs — editor of Cooks Source — called Gaudio back. Gaudio missed the call. Griggs told Gaudio to contact her by email. This was the best way to get in touch with her. Gaudio emailed Griggs, pointing out that Griggs had published her article.

“Well, it was on the Internet,” replied Griggs by email. “Didn’t you want it published?”

Gaudio wondered how to respond to the email. Initially, she thought that Griggs was a new copy editor who was perhaps a bit nervous on the job. But she began to wonder if Griggs was something more sinister. Perhaps a database collecting her private information. When it became apparent that Griggs was actually running the show, Gaudio grew dismayed.

“I couldn’t believe I was explaining copyright to a magazine editor,” said Gaudio. “This is not fair use.”

In that first email, Griggs asked Gaudio what she wanted to do about this. Gaudio replied that she wanted three things: an apology on Facebook, an apology in the magazine, and a $130 donation (ten cents a word for the 1,300 words that Griggs had published without Gaudio’s permission) to the Columbia School of Journalism. She decided upon CSJ because the famed New York school was considered to be an excellent one for journalism and because it was easy to make an online donation.

Griggs replied by email to Gaudio’s request last Thursday, pointing out that the Cooks Source staff was very busy and was trying to publish an issue.

Gaudio sent additional emails to Griggs. She figured Griggs and her staff were leaving for the Halloween weekend.

Then, on Election Day, Gaudio received Griggs’s response. Gaudio’s Livejournal entry, chronicling her story, kickstarted a massive Internet awareness campaign that, as of Thursday afternoon, had counted writers Neil Gaiman and John Scalzi among the supporters. When I spoke with Gaudio early Thursday afternoon, she told me that she was afraid to look at her email.

My phone calls to Judith Griggs were not returned. But in Griggs’s email to Gaudio, partially excerpted on Gaudio’s Livejournal, Griggs suggested that Gaudio should compensate her for the time she put into rewrites.

“It was ‘my bad’ indeed,” wrote Griggs in her email, “and, as the magazine is put together in long sessions, tired eyes and minds somethings forget to do these things.” Griggs also insisted that Gaudio’s article was “in bad need of editing.”

But a Thursday investigation revealed that not only is Cooks Source in the practice of stealing articles and publishing material without permission, but the magazine often pilfers the images which accompany the content. Such was the case with two entries stolen from the website, Simply Recipes. In Cooks Source‘s July 2010 issue, the Simply Recipes entry on tandoori chicken was taken wholesale from the website, with the photo merely flipped over in print. (On the same page, a sidebar item on garam masala recycles text from the Wikipedia entry.)

I spoke with one publisher by telephone, who asked to remain unnamed for this piece, about a book excerpt that had run in a recent Cooks Source issue. The publisher later informed me that it hadn’t worked with Cooks Source before and that the magazine had never sought permission to use the excerpt.

On July 6, 2009, the website Behind The Curtain published an essay on a raspberry fritters recipe that she found in a 1942 cookbook. Not only did Cooks Source print the majority of the essay on Page 21 of its July 2010 issue, but three photos taken by Kathy Zadrozny had also been reproduced. This occurred despite the fact that Zadrozny’s About page contained an explicit copyright notice in relation to her images.

“I haven’t seen any reproduction of my articles anywhere nor have I heard of Cooks Source,” said Zadrozny by email.

The July 2010 issue also reproduced at least seven recipes from The Food Network. Shawn White of The Food Network’s Licensing Department did not return my calls, but I alerted him to the recipes in my voicemails to him. The Cooks Source issue contained the following Food Network recipes: Chicken Chopped Mediterranean Salad with Feta Vinaigrette (page 10), Blackberry Lemonade (page 10), Mixed Berry Soup with Gelato (renamed Mixed Berry Soup) (page 11), Fresh Mozzarella BLT with Pesto (page 11), the Best Burger Ever (reprinted as “Alton Brown’s Best Burger”) (pages 12-13), Napa Valley Basil-Smoked Burgers (page 13), and the Feta Sun-Dried Tomato Stuffed Prosciutto Burger (republished as “Jairs Burger”) (page 13).

On Thursday afternoon, I was informed by nutrition consultant Dana Angelo White that the legal department was looking into a Cooks Source article on page 24 taken from two of White’s pieces written for The Food Network’s Healthy Eats blog: “What Does ‘Natural’ Mean?” and “9 ‘Healthy’ Foods to Skip.”

On page 12 of the July issue, Cooks Source also reproduced this hamburger history article. The original website has a clear copyright notice from Linda Stradley at the top, but Stradley hadn’t returned my email to confirm that the article had been used without her permission.

For every reproduction that I found, I made efforts to contact the original copyright holder. And the above examples demonstrate unequivocally that nearly the entirety of Cooks Source‘s material has been taken from other sources and that, in at least four instances, Cooks Source did not obtain the necessary permission to reproduce the material. The onus is now on Cooks Source to produce the appropriate paperwork to demonstrate that it secured the release. But since Judith Griggs is uninterested in returning telephone calls, since she has demonstrated a lack of concern for copyright, and not a single writer, publisher, or organization has come forward with proof positive that Griggs has played by the rules, one can conclude from the presented evidence that Cooks Source is a magazine that profits on theft.

While big companies like Scripps (which owns The Food Network) have generous coffers with which to resolve legal matters, enthusiastic amateurs like Monica Gaudio don’t have that luxury.

“My understanding — and again I am a lay person — is that a copyright has to be litigated in federal court,” said Gaudio. “Federal court costs a lot of money. Hundreds, if not thousands of dollars. So will I litigate? Possibly. It’s so small.”

Gaudio told me that it’s “unfair” for her to spend so much money to defend her copyrighted material. Yet despite all the Internet attention and Griggs’s recalcitrance, she hasn’t adjusted her demands. She simply wants Cooks Source to make two apologies (in print and on Facebook) and donate the $130 to the Columbia School of Journalism. She’s played by the rules. She’s filled out the form on Facebook. All this would just be over if Cooks Source would own up and apologize. But according to Cooks Source‘s message machine, last contacted at 4:00 PM on Thursday, the staff is just too busy to talk.
The LA Times has a piece as well-

It's got links at the end to even more.
Cooks Source magazine vs. the Web
November 4, 2010 | 1:26 pm

Apple_pie Can every recipe or story you publish on the Internet be reprinted without your permission?

Cooks Source magazine in western New England has sparked the ire of a million bloggers with an e-mail purportedly sent by managing editor Judith Griggs claiming that everything on the Internet is in the public domain, and therefore is not copyright protected. Translation: The magazine believes it can copy and paste anything it find there -- your recipes, Los Angeles Times recipes -- into the pages of its own magazine and you can't do anything about it.

A phone call and e-mail to Cooks Source were not immediately returned. So for right now, we just have this retelling of the story:
Food blogger Monica Gaudio found out that Cooks Source published a piece that she wrote about apple pie, but did not get her permission to do so. Gaudio contacted the publication, half expecting it to be some kind of unfortunate mix-up, and asked for a nominal sum of money as compensation. That's when Griggs -- or someone using her e-mail address -- responded, blasting Gaudio for even raising the issue: "... 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 gets worse. The e-mail continues that not only would Gaudio not be getting paid, but that Gaudio should have paid her for the editing work she had to put into the piece.

If this all turns out to be as it appears -- remember, we're still waiting to hear to hear from Cooks Source -- then Griggs really picked the wrong person to mess with. Check out the comments pouring onto the Cooks Source magazine Facebook page (But do not click if offended by the occasional four-letter word).

Here's my question: Assuming Griggs actually believes what she wrote ... why would she actually put that in print?
Is this for real? Who actually does this?

Re: Food magazine blatently violates copyright.

Posted: 2010-11-04 10:26pm
by Broomstick
In 1995 I wrote a story about one of my flying adventures which was published on line. A person in Michigan, believing as Griggs does that everything on the internet is public domain, lifted my text and sent it to a small aviation magazine then based in Florida called Ultraflight and received payment for "his" submission to the magazine under my pseudonym of "Broomstick".

Imagine my surprise when several weeks later I started getting congratulatory e-mails from my friends who had subscriptions to that magazine, which I had never heard of.

I obtained the phone number of the editor of Ultraflight and called him. Frankly, I was rather surprised that this gentleman in Florida took a phone call from some broad in Chicago calling herself Broomstick, but he did. I told him that he had published one of my stories in his magazine and I could imagine him smiling, thinking I was a happy author. I then said "There's just one problem - I never submitted it to you."

There was dead silence on the line for a few seconds, then "oh...shit..."

Because THAT editor knew what the problem was. I had looked into the matter prior to calling him, and had already learned that the person in Michigan had submitted the article under false pretenses. I told the editor that I understood that he had been lied to, and was willing to settle the matter amicably rather than dragging lawyers into the matter. I supplied him with contact information for people who would confirm that it was my writing, not the other guy's, including the phone number of one of the other pilots who had been with me during the events described in the article who could confirm I was the originator. He asked me what I wanted. I said

1) An apology
2) The money that should have gone to me.
3) A discussion on possibly writing more for his magazine, as apparently he liked what he saw.

I got all three. I also got a monthly column that I wrote for some time, and that helped pay for my private pilot's license.

Let me also add that that sort of amicable outcome is fucking rare. But yes, some people DO steal things. Some people DO believe that anything on line is up for grabs. And some people DO believe that authors will be so overjoyed to see their names in print they'll forget that you stole their work and/or didn't pay them and/or took their money. This is really nothing new, but it is more blatant than usual.

I am slowly putting my flying stories on line. It's not my stolen story (I really should put that one up there with the whole story behind it) but here is my 1996 balloon ride, originally published in Ultraflight magazine as one of those monthly columns.

Re: Food magazine blatently violates copyright.

Posted: 2010-11-05 08:28pm
by ShadowDragon8685
What happened to being published? Did it dry up when you couldn't keep flying anymore, or did it dry up before then?

Re: Food magazine blatently violates copyright.

Posted: 2010-11-05 10:55pm
by Broomstick
Well, not every flight is an exciting adventure, and I eventually ran out of stories to tell.

For awhile. Eventually I got new stories. Having to come up with something to say every month in time for a deadline is harder than you might think, even for someone such as myself who never seems to shut up.

Also, Ultraflight is focused on flying ultralights. After a few years I had moved on to general aviation, so what I had to say didn't fit in with the magazine's focus anymore.

Re: Food magazine blatently violates copyright.

Posted: 2010-11-06 04:25am
by CaptainChewbacca
The internet is ripping these guys apart. It looks like they've stolen from everyone, little old ladies all the way up to Paula Dean (who's a MEAN little old lady). I predict this magazine will be going under verrrrrrrrrry soon.

Re: Food magazine blatently violates copyright.

Posted: 2010-11-06 04:46am
by CaptainChewbacca
There's now a Google Docs Spreadsheet doccumenting over ONE HUNDRED FIFTY cases of reproduction of someone else's work by Cook's Source. That's... thats gonna hurt.

Re: Food magazine blatently violates copyright.

Posted: 2010-11-06 06:21am
by Beowulf
Kinda puzzled as to why this is in AMP. It's got not much to do with Artwork, Music, or Photography. It's got plenty to do with copyrights, but that's not the point of AMP. /punt

Re: Food magazine blatently violates copyright.

Posted: 2010-11-06 02:39pm
by Vehrec
It's in AMP because those are all copyrighted things, and I had no idea where else to put it? That's basicaly the reason right there.