Yes, Virgina, there ARE idiots editing magazines. [EDITED with MORE STUPID!]

[seawasp]

As mentioned by james_nicoll , the mighty John Scalzi has this wonderful article about a stupendously idiotic editor who committed the gravest sin in publishing -- taking and publishing someone's material without permission or payment -- and then tried to excuse the conduct by, in part, the following stunningly condescending statement (taken from the LJ of the writer in question):

"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!"

The name of the magazine in question is Cooks Source, which at first glance would seem to be a wholesome mag which wouldn't even have the interest or reach to steal other people's stuff. But they apparently have a world-class self-important idiot in the editor category.

Let's be clear: EVERYTHING I, OR YOU, OR ANYONE ELSE WRITES ON THE WEB OR A FORUM IS COPYRIGHTED. No, you do not have to FILE copyright. No, you don't have to hide it in a vault. The Berne Convention is inarguably clear on this point.

What this person did is wrong legally, and wrong morally, and their self-congratulatory condescension above makes my teeth grind -- and I'm not the person from whom they stole the work.

Anyone who thinks "On the Web" means "public domain, I can take it and use it without permission", I cordially invite to go to this site and take any of the images thereon -- let's say that one with the smiling cartoon mouse. Put that up on your website or use it on your letterhead. And then, when The Mouse's legal team comes for you, tell them "it was on the Web, it's public domain!". I am sure that Disney will instantly apologize for troubling you and leave you to your mouse-covered stationery.

NOT.

[EDIT] It appears that most, if not ALL, of their articles have been plagiarized -- some from sources including Sunset magazine, NPR, and (dear God Above have mercy on her soul) Disney itself. Welcome to Hell,

Comments

[j-v-lynch.livejournal.com]

I'm a friend of the original poster.
It's fun watching this go viral in her favour.

[johnkzin.livejournal.com]

Cooks Source is on the internet.

An editor at Cooks Source just declared that everything on the internet is in the public domain.

The proper spin here is: an employee at Cooks Source just gave away all of their intellectual property. That's what we should be telling everyone.

[seawasp]

Well, yes, but do they have anything we WANT?

[baronger.livejournal.com]

So not only does the editor admit wrongdoing, but puts it in writing. The lawyers are going to have a field day.

Though I wonder if its a case of, "copyright isn't for the little people syndrome."

[shsilver.livejournal.com]

I am sure that Disney will instantly apologize for troubling you and leave you to your mouse-covered stationery.,/i>

Not only will Disney instantly apologize, but they will also be grateful and pay you large sums of money for improving the appearance of the mouse and helping spread the word of the mouse's existence.

[seawasp]

This is a cooking magazine that's marketed to and focused on the northeastern USA. Magazines in general are small business; this? It's a niche niche. I'm amazed it HAS an editor, as in, isn't a one-person show.

[martianmooncrab.livejournal.com]

mouse-covered stationery

mouse droppings covered everything.

Well, That's My Dose of Stupid for the Day

[tamahori]

To quote Shlock Mercenary, "I'd punch them, but I'm worried I'll get stupid on my fist."

Seriously though, wow ... ah well, just goes to show that some people have a really screwy idea of the law. I'm assuming this magazine editing team is a very small operation, (3-5 people) and the editor doesn't have any previous experience working for a larger company along these lines where they might have picked up even a passing understanding of law and correct behaviour in a professional environment.

Yes, I know that major orgs make the same kind of stupid mistakes, or ones almost as bad, on occasion, let me keep my illusions. :)

Well, if the victim can be bothered suing over this, if the lawyer the magazine gets in is even remotely competent, they won't even bother trying to fight it. Though given the apparent size of this, I could see them trying to defend themselves.

Would this be a 'small claims court' affair, or something larger? If larger, then it's probably not worth trying to go legal ... I expect the fees would cost more than the magazine has.

-- Brett

Re: Well, That's My Dose of Stupid for the Day

[seawasp]

See my just-done edit. Apparently this is far, far, far from an isolated incident. The entire MAGAZINE may be plagiarized from various sources.

Including The Mouse.

Re: Well, That's My Dose of Stupid for the Day

[tamahori]

*head-desks*

Ah well, I just hope for the editor's sake they still have a house and clothing by the time The Mouse has finished legally nuking the area from orbit.

-- Brett

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

*pops popcorn*

*sits back to watch*

[kengr]

Alas, given the degree of theft involved, this is a good place to point out one of the more "fun" bits of the change in copyright law back in the 80s.

Not only do you no longer have to file for a copyright or mark your material as copyrighted (unless you are going to sue someone about it), but *because* the copyright notice is no longer required, you can be sued for using material *explicitly marked* as "public domain" if the person so labeling it isn't the rights holder.

Which is pretty much the case here.

Re: Well, That's My Dose of Stupid for the Day

[kengr]

Given that the law changed something like 25 *years* ago, and that if you "borrow" enough stuff to reach some figure ($1000?) it becomes a *felony*, this is something that should be getting taught in school.

Though as someone noted in an article I read a few months back, several TV shows (most notably Glee) have characters engaging in behavior that would get their school or other organization sued to death, so we know where *some* of the bad info is coming from.

[ross-teneyck.livejournal.com]

Disney, eh?

Well, that means the original author no longer has to sit around pondering, "I wonder if this is worth the expense and hassle of hiring a lawyer, just to teach them how the law works?" It seems likely to be... redundant.

If I were the magazine staff, I'd just liquidate the whole operation right now and mail all the proceeds to Disney; it would save time.

[kayshapero]

For some reason, the Monty Python "How not to be seen" sketch has come to mind... The part where someone stands UP. I'd comment to their facebook but I don't see a comment box, which suggests I'd have to friend (ugh) them first. Fortunately I obviously do not NEED to; they're getting enough free information to keep them busy for a long time. :)

Re: Well, That's My Dose of Stupid for the Day

[lilfluff.livejournal.com]

I halfway think anyone sued by Fox, for such stuff, should be allowed to point to Glee and argue entrapment.

Ice cube's chance in a volcano in hell, but it would be terribly amusing to see their lawyers have to actually argue about why it's okay to run a show showing people doing the things the people on Glee do without one word about 'Gee, aren't we committing felonies by this point? Aren't we by this point looking at bankruptcy for our families, jail for our teachers, and time in juvie for us?' and to then turn around and sue people for doing the same thing.

It would be kind of amusing if someone did a parody comic in which the cast goes silent after trying to get even a single song licensed. "This is going to take more than a candy bar sale."

Although at least the cast on Glee don't say, do a near identical remake of a Madonna video and then claim that, "Really, what gall for her to sic lawyers on us, we made her video better for her, for free!" :p

[ghostwolf.livejournal.com]

This is the sort of people we don't need in any position of authority, in any venue, under any circumstances.

The sheer unadulterated, condescending gall of this "editor" (probably self-declared) is the sort of "nobility without proof" attitude seen in too many places, and with absolutely no justification, other than an "I'm not only right, I'm better than you" smugness that demands at minimum a slap in the face.

Let's hope someone provides it, but with the severe hole in the wallet they so richly (heh) deserve.

[roycalbeck.livejournal.com]

I'm in a lawsuit right now, dealing with the company that bought the company that swiped some original work I did and published it via their own website (one of their webmasters asserts my work was in fact "copypasta'd" directly from my site to theirs).

The original company I caught in the act, and we cut a deal for them to use a new version of my work --- which I created and provided. Both works included material copyright to the company, which they had no problem allowing the inclusion of and made no complaint about for the several years they used the whole work on their site.

Now, the current company's lawyers are insisting I gave over all copyrights to my work MERELY BY SUBMITTING THE NEW VERSION. They claim this gave them "right to refuse", thus taking "control of the submission".

I swear, LAWYERS... -:F

[ghostwolf.livejournal.com]

"Fair use" applies, but only in one direction, eh? Perhaps you should ask if they want to continue using it, as (and I don't claim to know a thing about this) it seems you have what might be considered as the "ultimate" intellectual property rights as originator of the work.

Some people will always still try to steal, even when they have no reason to.

Lies

[urban-terrorist.livejournal.com]

What's even better, is that the editor from Cooks Source lied about doing editing (http://madhatter.ca/2010/11/05/corporate-copyright-scofflaws-0007-cooks-magazine-plagiarism-scandal/). Remember the 'You should pay us for the editing', well, they didn't edit.

Oh, and someone Downfalled them (http://madhatter.ca/2010/11/07/corporate-copyright-scofflaws-0007a-cooks-source-magazine-plagiarism-scandal-revisited/). Note the complaint about Neil Gaiman, I think it really when viral when @neilhimself retweeted it, he has 1.5 million followers...