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.

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!

@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?)

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

http://www.godecookery.com/twotarts/twotarts.html

Somebody’s gonna get hurt reaaal baaad.

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.

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: http://bit.ly/pORvf

Help in finding more would be gratefully received. There is a Google Spreadsheet here, http://bit.ly/dDoxxP, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://cookssource.com/index.html

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.

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.

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