Copyright follies [Nov. 3rd, 2010|09:00 pm] Nick Mamatas A friend of mine has a story to tell—her article on early modern apple pies of interest to medieval recreationists was copied wholesale and published in the ad-driven, newsstand-distributed, for-profit magazine Cook's Source without permission or payment.



Monica contacted me and I suggested that she just write to the magazine. This sort of outright plagiarism is fairly rare—generally it's either some kook or even a prisoner looking for some side income who runs a minor scam in this way. I suggested that Monica write the magazine and ask for like, $100, which a regional publication with ads and such could handle. But oh ho, we indeed have a winner! Here's what Judith Griggs, managing editor of Cook's Source said, in part, to Monica, after claiming "three decades" experience in publishing:





But 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 happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally. Now it will work well for your portfolio. For that reason, I have a bit of a difficult time with your requests for monetary gain, albeit for such a fine (and very wealthy!) institution. We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me! I never charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written pieces, and have many who write for me... ALWAYS for free!"





Hilarious! At this late date, I'm sure I don't have to tell anyone that the web is not considered public domain and indeed even public domain material often retains some vestige of the moral right so one can't just put one's own name on, say, Pride and Prejudice. Funnier to me is the implication that Griggs thought the obsolete spellings from the recipes Monica quoted were signs that the piece "was in very bad need of editing." Oh, what a maroon!



I saw a big hunk of the email exchange. Griggs even dared end her email with, "There, now. I have gone on enough. Thank you for allowing us to use your (improved) article. the only piece of advice I have to offer is that I would watch your email content, it was very offensive, what you sent"



AND



Griggs' email had the following .sig:





This electronic message may contain information privileged for the addressee only.

Please be advised that the Cooks Source email addressee is not intended to be transferred to any other addressor, and any copying, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.





Well then, better not just copy that and put it the sort of publication that has tens of thousands of readers. Oh, whoops!