Today's web justice driveby: Cooks Source Magazine


112 Responses to “Today's web justice driveby: Cooks Source Magazine”

  1. Anonymous says:

    But honestly, you should be pleased about what’s happened! You should be happy that we’ve carefully sifted through what you’ve done and not just condemned your whole site to an endless series of lawsuits that will bankrupt you. That sort of thing happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially where corporations and lawyers who have to justify their large salaries are concerned. If it’s been a bad experience for you, or you took offense at our helping you in this way, then we’re sorry, but as you are a professional you should know that that your site was in very bad need of substantial editing, and it’s much better now than it was for only having original material. For that reason, we have a bit of a difficult time with your requests for patience or understanding, albeit for such a fine (and very well written!) publication. We put some time into this sifting, you should be overjoyed! We never charge editors for our advice or for pointing out plagiarism, and have many who help us…
    ALWAYS for free!

  2. SamSam says:

    Here’s an oatmeal cookie recipe that was stolen word-for-word without permission, credit, or compensation of any kind. Discovered only after this brou-ha-ha by the original creator in the comments: vs

    @tehowe: Whether or not the magazine is free to the people who read it (it has a glossy version too, so I don’t know how free it is), it charges money to advertisers, and so makes a profit from its plagiarized content (of which FB has now found many many examples). Being free has nothing to do with it.

    (Your comment about blogs doing it the time did make me thing, though. When BB posts a CC-non commercial-licensed picture found on Flickr, and yet they are a commercial enterprise funded by advertisers and their revenue is driven by people reading what they post, including such photos, is that really conforming to the letter of the copyright license?)

    • Xeni Jardin says:

      @SamSam, we generally ask for permission first, if there is any question about gray-area CC license terms, and I think you’re sort of stretching here to troll Boing Boing by lumping us in with plagiarists.

      • Anonymous says:

        I dunno Xeni, I kinda see where he’s going with this. I also consider myself quite knowledgeable when it comes to intellectual property (no expert mind) but am not sure where this sits.

        Taking BoingBoing out of the equation …

        What’s the difference between a blog re-posting an article and crediting it to the author (pretty much standard practice) and a magazine doing the same? Yes the magazine may be paid for by advertising, but so are most blogs.

        Although I also feel what this publication has done is wrong, and the assumption that all internet content is public domain is of course absurd … I kind of feel the only the thing differentiating it from what is seen on the web every second of the day is the fact that someone printed this article on to paper.

        I’d be interested to hear what makes it more wrong, legally, if anything.

      • SamSam says:

        Wow, Xeni, it really wasn’t necessary to accuse me of trolling. It was something I’ve wondered about abstractly for some time, and I was actually asking in perfectly a legitimate way, because I don’t know what it means for a photo to be non-commercial and then used in a commercial site. I would have asked when I first was wondering about it on the old “open thread” post, but that post disappeared in one of the more site renovations of the past couple years.

        Thanks for clarifying that you contact the photographers. You could have left it at that, instead of accusing me of trolling.

        • Xeni Jardin says:

          There was a huge slashdot thread not long ago accusing us of ripping off a photographer (who was in fact a friend of ours!), she released her pics under a cc license, she was a personal pal, and we ASKED — and I’m just really weary of this being brought up in an accusative way. So, if you were asking sincerely, great. But very often of late, people bring up the subject in a totally uninformed way, as if to slam us for a crime we’re not committing, just because they’re looking for some kind of gotcha.

    • Glenn Fleishman says:

      SamSam wrote: “When BB posts a CC-non commercial-licensed picture found on Flickr, and yet they are a commercial enterprise funded by advertisers”

      I hear this regularly, but there are two parts. First, the human-readable CC licenses is talking about specific use of the image for commercial purposes. That’s generally well understood to mean using the image for gain related to the image, such as reproducing in a calendar, selling prints, or otherwise creating a product in which the image is part of the goods for sale and an integral part of it. (IANAL.)

      The second is the legal contract that the human-readable CC license links to. It says very little about the commercial aspect, notably: “You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. ”

      This again isn’t about the use of the item in the context of the whole; it’s about the specific item in question. The phrase “primarily intended” makes it very clear to me.

      It sounds like a third category of CC license is needed. Commercial, non-commercial, and not-used-in-any-for-profit-endeavor-in-any-context.

      • Xeni Jardin says:

        Glenn, you are correct. And I’ve had conversations with various people at Creative Commons about this very issue – even they know that there is a big, nebulous area that needs to be clarified somehow within their licensing scheme!

        • timbearcub says:

          OT I know – but yes they were looking into this a few years back, I took part in one of the online questionaires – more specifically about charity work which might be a small non-profit or a massive entity with loads of money. The non-commercial part is a bit of a minefield as one person’s NC is another’s blatantly commercial.

          But if you approach and get permission direct the CC license doesn’t really mean much – all parts of the license can be waived by the photographer.

          • Glenn Fleishman says:

            CC probably needs to define what commercial means more specifically. It’s one of the few terms not defined in the underlying referenced legal document, bizarrely enough. In common practice, across hundreds of contacts I’ve signed in assigning rights (again, IANAL), commercial use of images was a very specifically defined right related to the use of the image to generate revenue. Let’s hope for a CC 3.0 that’s got that nailed down.

  3. Deidzoeb says:

    George Lucas, I edited your movie so they are better now, UR welcome.

    • Anonymous says:

      > George Lucas, I edited your movie so they are better now, UR welcome.

      You forgot “now you can use them for your portfolio,” which has the quality of stickiness necessary for an incipient internet meme to achieve successful propagation..

  4. Anonymous says:

    The original article was more than just a recipe, it was an article about the medieval origins of apple pie.

    The “badly needed editing” was to correct the archaic spellings of words. :)

  5. Anonymous says:

    Just a note to point out that as far as copyright law is concerned, properly crediting the original author is irrelevent. Properly crediting the author is important in academic writing to avoid plagiarism.

  6. rtresco says:

    Man I wish this joint had “Like” buttons. Hard to funtion anymore without. So many comments I want to give a digital high-five to.

  7. tehowe says:

    @SamSam Free with ads? That’s also what Google does. Rupert Murdoch has notoriously been chasing them for aggregating news (meanwhile driving tons of traffic back to his publishing empire). In the meantime, Murdoch’s enterprises have themselves been aggregating content. So to my POV, the meaning of all this is beginning to evaporate like the non-tangibles it purports to protect, but locks down in practice.

    And things are only going to get worse if the global counterfeiting/copyright treaty – presently benig negotiated largely in secret – goes through. Michael Geist, Canada’s chair on these issues, has a great blog about it all here:

  8. Anonymous says:

    We’ve found 26 instances of article duplication in various issues of Cooks Source (sic) in the group on their page. Articles have been reprinted in Cooks Source from Food Network, NPR, WebMD, Weight Watchers, Whole Living, Simply Recipes, What’s Cooking America, Recipes Today and

    Help in finding more would be gratefully received. There is a Google Spreadsheet here,, that you can enter other instances of article duplication into.

    At this time these are only articles that are duplicated. It is only once the other parties are contacted that we will be able to determine if these are also copyright violations.

    As of 22:30 GMT Judith Griggs is unrepentant. Please help us find more examples and build a solid case to force Ms Griggs to stop behaving in this way.

  9. Rick Barbata says:

    I’m interested to see how this all unfolds. Here’s to hoping that all of the websites Cooks Source has been copying will join together and sue her alongside Ms. Gaudio. Shame on Ms. Griggs!

  10. Another Aaron says:

    Hey, I’ve been (and are) on BB’s side during every BB trolling war – but I don’t think it’s a stretch to ask what’s the difference when BB does it, or for that matter, Tosh.0, or CNN, or whoever.

    If BB asks or links to the original (which they always seem to do, at least when possible), then I think that is ‘enough’.

    It is a valid question though and a very fine line. In this case, Cooks Magazine is far, far, far over that line.

    • Xeni Jardin says:

      I don’t think it’s a stretch to ask what’s the difference when BB does it, or for that matter, Tosh.0, or CNN, or whoever.

      But we’re not even talking about the same “does it.” Boing Boing does not plagiarize and then lie about it, or give people the kind of bullshit dishonest responses going down in this case. So, fine, compare apples to apples, but we, sir, are not oranges.

  11. Anonymous says:

    I just within the last 72 hours had a very similar experience with what had been an established and approved-by-their-legal-etc-dept’s web *and* brick & mortar (e.g. The Real Me, hands, heart, horses) presence.
    I empathize totally with the “situation” Illador endedup embroiled in.
    Karma works, baby =)

  12. Anonymous says:

    The Internet for the win!

  13. Anonymous says:

    HA! The CooksSouce website is down.

  14. WaylonWillie says:

    Griggs is clearly a product of a modern college education. She practically admits “This is how I did many of my college papers!”

  15. IPFREELY says:

    Ha, I sometimes put in images I meant to work on instead of images I did work on. Sorry Xeni, if you ever found out about those cat photos.. Trying to convince an entire office workplace that they are committing copyright infringement is tough too, because they pay you for your work, so they argue that they don’t even have to put your name on it. I ended up getting fired, but I wonder what would have happened if all the bugs I worked on for Activision had actually had my name on them.

    • Anonymous says:

      “because they pay you for your work, so they argue that they don’t even have to put your name on it.”

      That’s not a claim, that’s a fact.

      If you’re employed then your organisation has already paid for your services, they don’t need to credit you for it – it’s normally a choice to credit (or part of an agreement). It’s all to do with IP, it’s quite normal for an employer to own the IP of the work you produce (sometimes even extending outside of working hours).

      Don’t you ever wonder why there isn’t a huge list of names at the bottom of – for example – crediting the hundreds of people that have worked on it?

      Or the words “Made by Steve” in the corner of the latest coke ad?

      Don’t be silly.

      • IPFREELY says:

        Yeah, it’s called the credits, but it doesn’t help when they have to decide who to let go at the end of a work cycle. Amazon does have that stuff, I even get their fake names when I call them about bad orders.

  16. Anonymous says:

    They cleaned up their wall but left this great user-made spoof of their cover:

  17. spool32 says:

    It might be worth updating the original post with this link:

    That thread is one in which people have discovered at least half a dozen other instances where Cook’s Source has stolen articles to republish.

  18. hobomike says:

    Copyright law can be difficult to navigate. My understanding is that’s partly why Creative Commons was created. Still, I think more often than not, people just use things hoping not to get caught or believe that it’s easier to apologize, once caught, than ask permission.

  19. rijrunner1 says:


    102. Subject matter of copyright: In general28

    (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:

    (1) literary works;

    (2) musical works, including any accompanying words;

    (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;

    (4) pantomimes and choreographic works;

    (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

    (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

    (7) sound recordings; and

    (8) architectural works.

    (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

    In some cases, the magazine is correct in that some articles they have snagged are not copyrightable. (b) above clearly excludes recipes and even descriptions of how to prepare food. The real question is whether the added stuff this girl put in makes this a literary work. Some of the other articles they grabbed clearly were not recipes and were literary works. (Personally, I think her article is a literary work based on the context and other historical research).

    • karina says:

      From (highlighting mine):

      Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients. Nor does it protect other mere listings of ingredients such as those found in formulas, compounds, or prescriptions. Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook.

      Only original works of authorship are protected by copyright. “Original” means that an author produced a work by his or her own intellectual effort instead of copying it from an existing work.

    • PolishQ says:

      I think you’re interpreting that incorrectly. What item (b) says is that you cannot copyright the ACT of (for example) preparing a meal. The WRITTEN DESCRIPTION of how to prepare the meal can most certainly be copyrighted.

      • rijrunner1 says:

        Which I clearly stated in my last paragraph…

        • SamSam says:

          But the point is that you don’t even have to add a bunch of stuff about medieval recipes for it to be a copyrightable “literary work” — just the words you use in your description of how to make the dish is enough. “2 cups of flour” isn’t copyrightable, but “Whisk the two cups of flour into the eggs until fully incorporated, then … etc.” can be.

          Otherwise anyone could re-print 95% of The Joy Of Cooking, which doesn’t contain much in the way of anecdotes or histories, and sell it themselves.

          So take the oatmeal cookie recipe I linked above, vs Everything from “Mix all the flours together, and then add the other dry ingredients. If you have a flour sifter, you can sift the dry ingredients for an even finer flour mix” on down, nine paragraph’s worth, is copied word-for-word. That’s clearly plagiarism (since the original author wasn’t credited) but also illegal use of copyrighted material.

          • rijrunner1 says:

            I stated in my first post that I considered these articles to be copyright protected.

          • SamSam says:

            Well, what I was referring to was where you stated “In some cases, the magazine is correct in that some articles they have snagged are not copyrightable. (b) above clearly excludes recipes and even descriptions of how to prepare food.”

            What I’m saying is that this is not correct. Descriptions of how to prepare food are copyrightable, otherwise, like I said, the entirety of Joy Of Cooking would be in the public domain.

            The process is not copyrightable, but the description is. Adding two cups of flour to eggs is not copyrightable, but the words “gently whisk the two cups of flour into the eggs, taking care to stop when just incorporated” are.

            Now, if you perform the same process and put it into your own words, your in the clear. This is why we see so many recipes everywhere that say “Adapted from Joy of Cooking” or whatever, and change the words, or change the procedure a little. The ingredients and process are not copyrightable, but the words used are.

            … if this is what you meant, that’s fine. But this same argument has been made by others, and it’s an important distinction.

  20. Nashville Guy says:

    As someone who works in a library I’m intrigued by the revelation that “the web is considered ‘public domain’”. If the web–and I assume she means the WHOLE web since she was very non-specific–is ‘public domain’ the libraries and other institutions are paying a lot of money to publishers like Elsevier, John Wiley, and Taylor & Francis for ‘public domain’ material.

    And while I’m sure that plagiarism “happens a lot”, I don’t see anything in Ms. Griggs’ defense that says that this frequency makes it acceptable.

  21. angusm says:

    Memo to Cooks Source: when you’re in a hole, you stop digging. You don’t send out for a power shovel.

    The editor’s attitude makes me think of the attitude that people like Mark Zuckerberg and Eric Schmidt have towards privacy: just as they try to persuade us that we should have no expectation of privacy, Griggs seems to feel that we should have no expectation that our work will be free of plagiarism. Similar thought processes underlie the actions of spamming businesses who consider any email address that they come across ‘fair game’, and – when challenged – will offer convoluted justifications as to why we shouldn’t expect not to be bombarded with unwanted ads.

    The danger is that if we accept any of these positions then they will indeed become ‘the norm’. Which is why I hope that Cooks Source gets taught a swift and exemplary lesson that will serve as a warning to others.

  22. daneyul says:

    The FB comments were fun at first, but the sanctimony gets old, fast. Some virtuous pitch-fork welders now seem to be spam-calling the magazine’s sponsors–anyone who had an ad is getting “informed” of the issue. Over and over and over…

    When you add “self-righteous indignation” to the greater internet dickwad theory the results are not very pretty.

  23. avoision says:

    A lot of the outrage hinges on Griggs’ reply, and the words she chose in her email. From what I can gather, we’re assuming Griggs actually did write this, but I’m curious… has it been verified? I’m no journalist, and don’t know how one would go about verifying… but a lot of the hate seems to stem from Griggs’ tone.

    I am by no means defending Cooks Source. Just wanted to point out we’re all making an assumption those words are hers.

    And yikes to the numerous instances others are discovering, of CS using others’ work. Regardless of what started it, I doubt this will end well for them. I hope I never get the Public Domain mad at me.

  24. coaxial says:

    So Cooks Source “remixed” found content on the Internet? Isn’t this something BB typically trumpets?

    • highlyverbal says:

      coaxial, most of the remixing projects I have seen on here contain very different levels of attribution. I find the differences to be salient enough that B!B! doesn’t seem hypocritical.

  25. Anonymous says:

    For all the talk about respecting the original source, I have yet to see a single case where a unicorn has actually been asked their permission prior to having their picture featured in any publication or other commercial media. When will someone stand up for the unicorns?? At least offer them release forms. Jeez.

  26. Nathan Bibb says:

    I just feel sorry for 2nd Street Baking Company…

  27. donovanbeeson says:

    My friend Kathy’s article: vs. CookSources page: They took everything.

  28. spots says:

    Then I’m sure she won’t mind if I hotlink to some of those awful pics on her site.

    Better yet, I’ll redesign it – it’s atrocious – and send her the bill.

  29. Anonymous says:

    They used one of my blog posts about a 1942 recipe and republished it under another person’s name. I didn’t know about it until someone doing an article on this contacted me. Link to comparisons:

  30. dole says:

    Still going.

    from @cookssource, 22 hrs ago:
    “We’re almost to 400 followers. Each of you please send us $130 for the exposure we’re giving you.”

  31. cory says:

    There’s also now a fake @JudithGriggs asking the fake @cookssource to cease and desist.

  32. Lydia9 says:

    A quick perusal of page scans of the magazine from the Cooks Source facebook page reveals that the contents of the magazine “[are] copy-right protected, and may not be reproduced without permission of the publisher”. Nice! It’s like an Escher-work of copyright interpretation.

  33. MollyNYC says:

    Aside from being an irresponsible a-hole, if Griggs is plagiarizing recipes, it’s probable that she can’t cook her way out of a wet paper sack.

  34. Brainspore says:

    Something tells me this editor got her degree in culinary arts rather than journalism, law, or any subject that has the slightest connection to intellectual property.

  35. wavechild says:

    If only we would do this to mega-corporations that deserve it even more:

  36. Anonymous says:

    It is true that this happens all the time. One crook stole all of the content from my company’s home page, and used it for a competing company. Another bunch of crooks lifted our entire FAQ page and used it verbatim on their site! I could go on. But, believe me, one well-written letter from a lawyer will make them take it down REAL fast.

  37. esoteric says:

    I’m a couple of days late to the party, but this whole meme grabbed me on my coffee break at work. On lunch I was bored and inspired, so here’s a quick song cover based on the initial email and fb response!

    If you don’t like it, well, it’s my bad. It’s my bad. It’s my bad.

    I love the internet.

  38. Anonymous says:

    Wow – that’s a very interesting definition of public domain. Must be email order law school.

  39. ElfSternberg says:


    Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients. Nor does it protect other mere listings of ingredients such as those found in formulas, compounds, or prescriptions. Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook. (U.S. Copyright Office, Circular #1: Copyright Basics)

    So, in many cases, it’s true that you can’t copyright a recipe. But many of the examples found, including Illadore’s initial article, contained more than that. Illadore’s recipe is an adaptation of a 14th-century pie, and she discusses modern substitutions for period ingredients, translations of obscure terms, and alternative sweeteners. All of that is definitely copyrightable. Also, her description of the preparation is unique, and copyrightable.

    If Ms. Griggs had actually cooked the recipe and discussed her own experiences and modifications, she’d be in the clear to post the list of ingredients and convey, in her own words, how she made the pie. But she didn’t do that.

  40. zio_donnie says:

    Apparently she is already fired. Too soon, she will never become a meme.

  41. Unanimous Cowherd says:

    I don’t think this is turning out very well for Cooks Source Mag, is it?

    This is like watching someone slipping on banana peels. Dozens and dozens of banana peels, receding into the distance, each one leading to thousands and thousands of more slippery banana peels.

    Awesome. Pass the popcorn.

  42. rubken says:

    Please help build the list of duplicate articles in this GDocs spreadsheet,

    We have 44 so far and we haven’t even got to the images yet.

    A lot of Cooks Source material is in their FB page photos. Grab a page and try to find where it comes from.

    This documentation is important. Cooks (sic) Source didn’t just do this once, whoops. This has been going on for a long time. Help to find as many instances as possible.

    If you fancy writing an article about this sorry episode please feel free to use the sheet as a tool. No charge ;)

  43. foobar says:


    Is this the journalistic equivalent of burning a building down to collect the insurance?

  44. bardfinn says:

    Dearest Mr. Joyce,

    We here are Griggs Publishing Ltd. are so glad you submitted your work, “Finnegan’s Wake”, to us for consideration of publication.

    Unfortunately, your manuscript was badly in need of editing – thus we have taken it upon ourselves to perform the task at no additional charge to you, and have published it under your name.

    In consideration of our professional services, we have taken the liberty to assign all royalties and first publishing rights to ourselves for remuneration of services performed.

    This item will be an excellent addition to your portfolio! Be proud, Mr. Joyce!

  45. Master Pokes says:

    So…has Martha been notified yet? Inquiring minds want to know…and watch Martha’s lawyers stomp Judith Griggs into a fine paste before mixing that past with two parts hot water in a large bowl while gently stirring…sorry…couldn’t help myself.

  46. Anonymous says:

    wow. what an arrogant sod!

  47. Dave Faris says:

    Cyberbullying sucks. There are better ways to deal with this than internet mob justice.

    • bardfinn says:

      …………….. So, because of the fact that we have freedom of expression and association and are exercising those, it’s somehow wrong?

      Protests are fundamental to social justice. Don’t go dipping into the No-Spin-Zone semantic well.

      • Dave Faris says:

        Aside from the arrogant email (which we’re just taking some blogger’s word for) it just seems like a thermonuclear response.

  48. sisterp says:

    I too get a bit nervous when the reporting almost exclusively involves quoting the same source, and then one another; however, here’s a report which includes references to an interview with one of the magazine’s advertisers:

    Cooks Source looks to me like one person’s hobby rather than a more ‘regular’ publication. Don’t know, though. Part of me feels rather sorry for the editor – she sounds like a fool who got cornered. A vicious, condescending fool, that’s the problem. Can’t really pity that.

  49. Kosmoid says:

    Any chance of a meet-up in the SF area for amateur medieval enthusiasts?

    “Like my try some of that wonderful medieval apple pie before I die of the plague!”

  50. dole says:

    oops, didn’t notice @cookssource was a fake. nevermind me.

  51. MrsBug says:

    Boy, howdy, are they in a world of hurt. Judith’s condescension is going to be returned unto her, lo, 100 fold.

  52. bardfinn says:

    Latest update to the Cooks Source Facebook page status:

    “Well, here I am with egg on my face! I did apologise to Monica via email, but aparently it wasnt enough for her. To all of you, thank you for your interest in Cooks Source and Again, to Monica, I am sorry — my bad!
    You did find a way to get your “pound of flesh…” we used to have 110 “friends,” we now have 1,870… wow!

    Best to all, Judith”[SIC]

    I almost want to stop using British spelling now.

    Also, —— THE INCREDIBLE LACK OF COMPREHENSION. *bites fingers*

  53. Phrosty says:

    The editor claimed the piece desperately needed editing, because she failed to notice that certain terms were written in Middle English… on a page dedicated to Medieval/Middle Ages/Renaissance cuisine. Playing Grammar Police isn’t for the inexperienced I suppose.

  54. Anonymous says:

    So they stole her piece for their magazine, didn’t even bother to put her name on it, and said that they should’ve charged HER for editing fees?
    Are they out of their minds?!

  55. Anonymous says:

    I don’t know if the situation is different in America, but here in Australia there is no copyright in a recipe – In the sense of a list of ingredients and directions on how to prepare them.
    I can’t find a link anywhere to what Cook’s Source actually reproduced, but it would seem to me that all of the original article except for the sections headed “discussion” were certainly already in the public domain, and even if they weren’t then no copyright attaches.
    The “discussion” section seems to be the author’s own work, but there is at least an arguable case as to whether the discussion constitutes a “substantial part” of the entire work.
    On top of that, if Cook’s Source have heavily edited that section, then the part that remains may not qualify as a “substantial part” of the original.

    Here is Copyright Australia (with their copyright maximalist, borderline misleading hat on) on the subject

    • foobar says:

      If they’d just published the recipe without the discussion, you’d have a point. No matter how thoroughly they edited the discussion, it would still be a derivative work.

  56. Anonymous says:

    I love the “Now it will work well for your portfolio.”

    I guess Monica should be thankful for not having to pay the thief.

  57. IPFREELY says:

    I guess losing dates on facebook notes is a good enough punishment. Good thing I caught it after changing any unoriginal work.

  58. KWillets says:

    Wired did that to me once, although they never acknowledged it. They printed one of my comedic usenet rants in their letters section from “anonymous”. It wasn’t as deliberate, but I got a lot of similar “public domain” guff from Wired fanboys.

  59. bjacques says:

    Here’s their homepage. I just took their nice photo of some bell peppers. They should pay me for cropping it to fit my profile!

  60. dculberson says:

    [gets some popcorn]

    This should be good.

  61. sparklemotion says:

    “They published it uncredited…”

    To be fair, they did credit her (from the original author’s LJ post):

    “…I found the article with my name on it on on “Page 10″…”

    Judith Griggs & Cooks Source done goofed, but lets only hang them for what they _actually_ did.

    • Derrick says:

      I think the bigger issue is that the magazine makes money off the ads, and none of the original authors get any share of that revenue.

      Somebody’s gonna get hurt reaaal baaad.

      • Unmutual says:

        yes that is obviously the issue. She does make money from this, this is not just another blogger blogging about a blog she read.

        Now granted a lot of blogs are like this, but the content of the post is usually original, with excerpts clearly marked as quotations, and with in line or end of article links refering to the source.

        I have never seen BB post an article in full unless the entire linked piece was really nothing more than a few sentences and some pictures. And generally I like to think BB drives more traffic to its features than it benefits by hijacking content.

        Did this magazine explicitly call for readers to “check out this foodie’s blog for more recipes” or whatever? Of course not.

        Reproducing something verbatim, even if the originator is credited, and then profitting from it, is stealing.

  62. Anonymous says:

    So, Cooks Source shouldn’t have any problem if I mirror their site with my own ads? After all, it’s on the web, so it must be public domain.

  63. hershmire says:

    They seem to have stolen a lot of content. Check out this FB thread:

    • PeaceNerd says:

      i was just gonna do that.

      Looks like they’ve been lifting stuff from all over the web for quite some time… webmd, cnn, martha stewart…

      • Anonymous says:

        Whoa, they fucked with Martha Stewart? Like, as in, Martha Stewart, Omnimedia?

        That’s like tying bacon to your ass and jumping into a pit of rabid pit bulls. Nobody fucks with Martha. She’s done time, you know!

  64. SamSam says:

    It looks like this probably isn’t the first time they’ve done this — by a long shot.

    For example, their recipe for Pancetta and Green Onion Tart:

    Looks a little similar to …

    Of course, maybe that one was paid for but uncredited. But the blithely unaware line in her response

    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

    …should have set of 10000-decible alarm bells.

  65. SamSam says:

    Oooh, this one here even credits someone completely different (someone who maybe got paid for their plagiarized work?): vs.

  66. tehowe says:

    This is interesting – looking at the facts, and while dispensing required brickbats to the magazine’s silly and snippy reply, they *did* credit the author – otherwise how could her friends have found the article, which had since been silted over in the blogosphere? So this brouhaha over a web -> print repost seems overblown. This is something billions and billions of blogs are guilty of, and it’s a *free* cooking newsletter at that.

    While I wouldn’t want to suggest Cooks Source is some kind of paragon of the ‘open source’ philosophy, aren’t those the issues that this is really about? I’m now even more dubious about the legitimacy of copyright law in the way it stifles the sharing of information when no actual physical commodity is stolen.

    Interesting article in The Economist about how copyright law actually originated here – excerpted and commented upon by Techdirt, if that’s not too evil: It was originally supposed to ‘encourage learning’.

    My thoughts on copyright here, if anyone cares –

    • Anonymous says:

      You seem to place some weight on the fact that it’s a *free* newsletter. The fact that it’s free doesn’t mean that Judith Griggs isn’t making money off of it. Publications like this can make a tidy profit selling advertisements in their “free” journal. This is a business model that’s been around for quite a while.

      Charging advertisers to associate their names with plagiarized content is just as bad as charging readers for it.

      Judith Griggs is making money off of the works of others without proper attribution or compensation, pure and simple. That kind of behavior is *exactly* what copyright law is all about stopping.

    • Anonymous says:

      The difference is with bloggers us one of these practices (good practice) attribute author, (best practice) attribute author & link, most blogs are not for profit (so the spirit of the law would be to share information in most forms, no harm no foul.

      However, when you create a for profit product and act as subject matter expert without attributing to a said author then that becomes theft and infringement.

      The blogs sphere would have given a pass, but for her condescending tone of the letter. Which leave a (WTF) attitude!

  67. Boos says:

    Appalling, but not at all surprising. My friend and I had a project we had completed for a class plagiarized later by our instructors. They first published our final report verbatim in a conference, which we shouldn’t have let slide, but we did, because they included us as authors (though not as the primary authors) and we were content enough to boost our paper count without raising a fuss.

    They then asked us for help in preparing a larger journal paper, which we declined. Later, I discovered they were about to publish this paper with our results and several pages worth of our text – completely unattributed. Upon the advice of my department chair, I contacted the journal before the publication date and asked them to withhold publication.

    Not long after, I received an angry email from one of my instructors. “I am quite disturbed because of the action you took against your teachers!” He claimed that since we declined to help, that it would be ‘plagiarism’ to list us as authors. The chair told me their response meant they were either “very stupid, or trying very hard to cover their butts.” I think that’s the same case here.

  68. NorhillJohn says:

    So what’s more appalling – the editor who thought that the web was all public domain, or the Facebook user whose response is, “I need to poop?”

  69. Anonymous says:

    Looks like someone in publishing is going to be living in a tent before Xmas comes. Hope she knows how to cook camp food on a cold fire in the middle of a snowy field.

  70. Usimian says:

    I like the comment “Now it will work well for your portfolio.”

    That’s like someone stealing your car, taking it for the weekend to Vegas, returning it and saying “You should be happy because I washed and put gas in it.”

  71. Anonymous says:

    Tweeted an hour ago by Judith Griggs @cookssource

    “Please don’t steal our content and use it as your own.”

    The problem here is: you can’t argue with an ignorant person. She doesn’t see anything wrong with what she said or did because, obviously, she is completely nuts. And arrogant. And…just tweeted “Here’s to hoping this has all blown over by tomorrow!”

    I hope it hasn’t.

  72. kc0bbq says:

    Until I see the birth, in person, with DNA testing of all those involved, GPS coordinates backed up by astrolabe readings, and full medical readings proving that I wasn’t drugged or dreaming, I refuse to believe anything other than the TRUTH that the president was created in a lab deep under Antarctica by genetically enhanced penguins.

    In summary, plagiarism sucks, penguins created our president because they actually feed by absorbing partisan politics from the collective unconsciousness, and not on fish as some would have you believe.

  73. allegedlyyours says:

    the internet is a little bit bigger than 4chan. sure, 95% of the time when you see a story like this, it’s got anonymous written all over it, but the general population is starting to catch up. it was read by BB’s readership, and facebook is a powerful tool. just a different audience, that’s all.

  74. bardfinn says:

    I dare you to go there and say that to the author who was ripped off.

  75. Brainspore says:

    i’m not buying any of it until i see a hardcopy of the mag.

    You sound a little like one of those people who refuse to believe that Obama was born in Hawaii.

  76. bardfinn says:

    The many advertisers — who are now pulling their ads — are also part of the setup?

    There is a point at which it just is perverse to believe in the conspiracy theory.

  77. Dave Faris says:

    Well, you must admit, all of these back issues online at facebook seem to indicate either it’s legit, or it’s an elaborate hoax of epic proportions.

Leave a Reply