Cooks Source magazine vs. the Web

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?

Here are some threads to help you follow the unfolding controversy: Gaudio's retelling: Copyright infringement and me; from How Publishing Really Works: Copyright Infringement And A Medieval Apple Pie; Nick Mamatas' pithy putting-it-all-together; Poynter Online's take and Boing Boing's Today's web justice driveby: Cooks Source Magazine.

-- Rene Lynch
Twitter / renelynch

File photo -- apple pie -- by Glenn Koenig / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[4d ultrasounds]

it is very good spot.thanks my dear friend i will come next time.

[Tubal Reversal surgery]

i am really hungry now to see this beautiful dish...

[3d ultrasounds]

She looks beautiful :) Pics are awesome...we can't wait til she gets here!

[kayak fishing]

Thanks author for your marvelous title Cooks Source magazine.

[3D ultrasounds]

Nice posted article you've shared to your readers like me. Anyway, the blog you featured is really nice and it has also a good interesting topic to read and learn. Good luck on this blog.

[Pat]

(That is, any posted without attribution. I understand this one at least had the author's name included.)

[JadeDragon]

The second official statement was posted and than removed (site points to host). The whole statement, with comments, is saved on my blog. Amazingly Griggs still does not understand copyright even after the firestorm, since she refers to it as copywriting in the second statement. We know she can use Google to find stuff, but it seems she can't check out copyright principles online.

[Pat]

She should rename the magazine Crook's Source and publish one final issue with attribution for all plagiarized articles.

Proof positive that there truly is no end to justifying one's own behavior, no matter how appalling.

[Vincent]

In your own capacity, can investment with you be profitable? Due to the present world economic situation and my critical health condition, I intend to diversify my investments to other lucrative areas. Are you willing to be a partner,capable of receiving funds and managing investments in your country?

I feel quite safe dealing with you in this business proposition having gone through your remarkable profile on the internet and as one of the leading profit oriented companies which I intend investing part of my money into any profitable business you will introduce.

Your earnest and carefully considered response is important.

Regards,

Vincent

[JadeDragon]

Next she posted another strange attack/apology on the Cooks Source homepage. That came down on the evening of Nov 17 but it is preserved on my blog - linked through my name.

[Shannon]

"as Judith should have simply explained that the magazine does not have the money to pay writers."

Seriously, Jackie? Then she shouldn't have a magazine, let alone a magazine that profits from advertising like this one.

[LaRee]

Remember that the real authors name was in fact printed on the article in the magazine. I probably would have done the same thing, except I do not charge anything for booklets I print, ebooks or online content that has anyone elses' work in them.

The Cooks Source Mag needs to learn how to deal with people better I think. What she was asking was not that hard to do, I think the only reason they reacted that was because they were in fact in the wrong, and didn't want to get other people demanding $$ for all the rest their ill-gotten articles.

[Bad Home cook]

...let them skim something from a Disney site and see what happens....hah!

Is a little attribution and link love too much to ask for?

[cmholm]

If in fact Cooks Source has been lifting entire cooking articles from other on-line sources, there is a cheap and relatively straight forward recourse: a "DMCA takedown notice". If CS responds with a counter-notice, the copyright holders would still have to resort to the courts.

However, if I'm reading the law and analysis correctly, it's possible that as a repeat offender, CS could be yanked off-line by its ISP well before any attorneys became involved.

[Matthayichen]

jqp: "I find it thoroughly amusing and hypocritical that a bunch of people who very rarely if ever pay for content (go ahead tell me how much you all are willing to pay to read stories online) are now jumping on a bandwagon to pretend to be pissed off about a magazine plagiarizing a writer's work without compensation."

Okay, another crazy.

Dude, if you can't tell the difference between (a) taking something offered to you for free and (b) profiting on unlicensed intellectual property that belongs to someone else, you shouldn't be allowed to roam alone on the internets.

[Elisabeth]

WOW. I've never heard of that magazine, and now, I'll never buy it! That so-called "editor" should be shown the door. There are too many decent human beings that are qualified to do her job, but don't have one. Let her know (the hard way) that bad behaviors have repercussions.

[Gumby]

I'd leave a comment here, but I'm afraid Judith Griggs would steal it.

[Rick Barbata]

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!

[aa915]

A work does not have to be registered with the copyright office in order to be copyrighted, nor is it legally required to carry any kind of copyright notice, though it's wise to do both. It also does not have to be published. The law only states that it exist "in tangible form"--i.e., not just as an idea in the author's head, yet to be put down in some form. Copyright itself is automatic, but registration does expand your legal options in the case of plagiarism. (BTW any publishing professional knows this full well, which makes me wonder about this Griggs person. Is she really on the staff of Cooks Source--which also exists as a print magazine--or a freelance, self-described "editor" that CS had the misfortune to hire on a project basis? Is she really *that* ignorant of such a basic fact of the publishing business, or was she bluffing/lying?) The basics of copyright are covered well , in nonlegal, layman's language, at www.copyright.gov.

[Deborah D. McAdams]

Remember, anyone can publish a magazine, or call themselves an "editor," a "publisher" or "Dr." for that matter. It would be nice to know a little more about who and what is behind "Cooks Source," what they claim to be subscription numbers versus actual circulation; and how many of their contributors are nom de plumes for this person who believes herself to be an editor.

[Russ Parsons]

That was phrased that way because we hadn't actually been able to speak to the author to confirm that the correspondence was accurate. This is the Internet, after all.

[Ford MF]

It's also important to mention that saying she "asked for a nominal sum of money" sounds like she just wanted a couple bucks. She actually asked the magazine donate a nominal sum to Columbia's journalism school. Not to herself.

[Anne-Marie at This Mama Cooks!]

It is my understanding after talking with newspaper food editors and cookbook authors that it is technically OK to reprint recipes as they aren't covered under copyright except for their special descriptions (such as "I love serving this on hot summer days."). However, it is standard practice in the food writing community (both online and in print) that you MUST use terms like "based on," "from such-and-such cookbook or website," or "inspired by" to give attribution.

[Greg Bulmash]

The interesting thing is that most people can get away with stealing a blog post because of 2 things.

1: Most blog posts are only protected with a copyright statement, but not an actual registration.

2: If you do not register your post for copyright (meaning providing a deposit copy, proper forms, and fees to the copyright office) within 90 days of first publication, you cannot seek statutory damages (the big $150,000 per infringement), just actual damages. And I'm not sure, but you may not be able to recover attorney fees.

Essentially, if you have not registered your copyright, it will usually cost you more to enforce it than you'll recover. And if you really want to go to trial, it can take years.

About the only thing you can do is shame the thief, which in this case seems to have been successful... unless you buy the argument that there's no such thing as "bad" publicity and that Monica Gaudio has actually done the magazine a favor by getting its name in front of thousands of people who would have otherwise ignored it.

[Bill H.]

Makes me wonder if Ms. Griggs got her Editing credentials in the same manner.

[jqp]

I find it thoroughly amusing and hypocritical that a bunch of people who very rarely if ever pay for content (go ahead tell me how much you all are willing to pay to read stories online) are now jumping on a bandwagon to pretend to be pissed off about a magazine plagiarizing a writer's work without compensation.

Was it unethical? Yes? Are you all any better with your unwillingness to pay authors for their work by perhaps ohhhhhhhh subscribing to it? No. Hypocrites in ivory towers.

[Jackie]

I have been following this story through various blogs, postings, articles, etc. and am on the side of the writer who was plagerised, but there are two things which bother me slightly. First, I have yet to see the original email which was sent to the magazine. While I expect that Monica wrote a well-worded letter, I still would like to see what words she used. Secondly, many small publications do not pay their authors, so it actually may be impossible (due to lack of money) to donate as Monica suggested. This of course doesn't excuse the nastiness of the response email and an apology should have been published as requested (many authors of articles would be delighted to be published, if they have been asked in advance), as Judith should have simply explained that the magazine does not have the money to pay writers.

[Susan P.]

Not all material copied has been recipe based. Others are pure text and narrative style recommendations. I cross compared one CS article with an earlier piece it was taken from (vis another source) and all CS did was to remove original references to the business that first published the piece and, where those mentions were removed, CS added a little text. This has been whole scale ripping of material and I believe this magazine and editor will be incredibly lucky not to wind up in court. But, I believe they should face what they have done and make reparation for the same. Any experienced editor knows the laws and if they don't, they act cautiously. The 'let them eat cake' (pardon the pun) response shows arrogance to the extreme.

[Susan P.]

Please note that individuals have now listed ALL the articles and images allegedly 'ripped' by Judith Griggs. Look in the discussion section of the CS FB page. There are a myriad of them. One begins to wonder if any article published by CS was original. Pieces allegedly taken from Disney, Foodnetwork.com, WeightWatchers and the list goes on.

[celtcwrtr]

the air of annoyed entitlement - with an accompanying appalling lack of ethics - displayed by the editor is mind-blowing.

what was the business model for this venture - "let's steal content off the web to avoid paying those who created it?"

who's the publisher? from what city?

[JD Monge]

Funny. You have to like the page to comment. Everyone is feeding the frenzy. Great PR stunt.

[PlagiarismSucks]

She even plagiarized an article from About.com under her own byline!!! Look at the evidence below. This is so unbelievably unethical. You can't copy and paste articles into your magazine that aren't yours and then sell ads around them!

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=414305006748&set=a.414304386748.194402.196994196748&pid=4725563&id=196994196748

vs.

http://housewares.about.com/od/canningpreserving/a/canning101.htm

[Tim]

Ann On: "it's technically legal to copy recipes as they are not covered under copyright"

Not true, according to the U.S. Copyright Office: "Copyright law does not protect recipes *that are mere listings of ingredients*" -- but this case is apparently not a mere listing of ingredients, so copyright can apply. Combined with the Berne Convention (almost every country in the world is a signatory), this means that this recipe was indeed under copyright.

You may be able to legally copy a recipe under "fair use" statutes in some countries (like the United States), but that does not mean that it isn't still under copyright.

[Rene Lynch / Los Angeles Times]

Thanks to everyone who has left a comment on this blog posting. I appreciate it. Thanks also to those who point out the Monica did not ask for compensation for herself -- she asked that the nominal amount be donated. Finally, I wanted to address a good point made by Bill: I have no doubt that Monica is telling the truth. I used the phrasing that I did to stress that I could not reach Cooks Source for any kind of reaction or confirmation. (And Bill, you did indeed detect an incredulous note -- I am still wondering why anyone would write an e-mail like that!!!) Thanks again, everyone.

[Dee Fraser]

This is my understanding: the confusion between which recipes are protected by copyright and which recipes aren't lies in the particular sense of the word _recipe._

Yes, it's legal to reproduce this recipe--that is, the particular combination of the ingredients and the method used to make the final product--if you write your own description.

No, it is not legal to reproduce this recipe--that is, someone else's description, of the same dish. The description is protected by copyright.

Unless ... it really is in the public domain, which in most cases means published before 1921. And even then, it's plagiarism to claim it as your own writing. If the editor had lifted only the medieval descriptions of the apple tarts, provided they were original descriptions and not modern translations, her position may have been defensible.

If she had demonstrated less arrogance when caught, not to mention ignorance, or simply owned up and paid up, the writer might have let it go.

But no, she got all het up and defensive when in the wrong, like a spitting cat with milk on its whiskers. Now much bigger entities, with many lawyers at their disposal, are looking into the practices of her little local magazine.

I'm an editor, and I have a question for her: who is your oath-mother?

[Bren]

She did NOT ask for compensation - she asked that an amount roughly equal to a low end contact (ten cents per word) be donated to the Columbia School of Journalism. Subsequent communication from Briggs was both snarky, unapologetic, and referred to the School as "wealthy", as if that were a good reason for her not to acquiesce.

[Lara K]

Ann On: wrong. While the ingredients list itself isn't protected by copyright, all of the rest of the wording is. The specific wording of the instructions are copyrighted to the author, along with any additional written material. Several other lifted articles have now come to light, including one genuinely plagiarized from WebMD (credited to an entirely different author than the doctor who actually wrote it). At least one of the authors who was stolen from has verified that she was unaware until now that her article had been taken and has referred it to her company's legal department. And there's now at least one photographic image in the mix. This magazine hasn't just "borrowed" from small-time bloggers; one of the articles was taken from a Disney site, so this thing is about to explode all over that editor in ways she can't even comprehend. You don't mess with the Mouse (or his recipes).

[Patrick]

To clarify, the original author, Monica Gaudio asked for $130 to be donated to the Columbia School of Journalism, not money for her self as compensation.

Also, though the original recipes would be in "public doman", having been published in the 14th and 16th centuries, what Monica did in her article was to "redact" them. That is to take a sentence or phrase for a food item that might be like "Tak gode Applys and gode Spycis and Figys and reysons and Perys and wan they are wel ybrayed colourd with Safron wel and do yt in a cofyn and yt forth to bake wel, " and translate it into modern language that can be baked and end up with more or less the same thing as the original recipe.

"Cooks Source" magazine copied her words. They could have, if they wished, taken the original medieval recipe and made their own translation of it and used that. This they did not do, instead publishing Monica's original words and "fixing" the old language claiming that it needed to be "edited".

[Chieze Okoye]

You forgot the part where she edited the original article because of its use of obsolete spellings -- spellings that were directly quoted (and properly cited) from medieval English texts on making Apple Pie.

[Lisa Spangenberg]

It's worth noting that the stolen piece includes recipe information from an historic recipe in archaic English, with archaic orthography--something Ms. Griggs was apparently too larcenous to notice in her editorial eagerness.

[Amy]

A minor clarification: Monica requested a donation be made to Columbia's journalism school. Hence, no actual compensation was asked to be given to Monica for writing the piece. Rather she requested a bit of philanthropy on the part of the magazine for 'lifting' her piece and was snubbed. For the price of two written and printed apologies and a $130 donation the matter could have been dropped. Bad form all around (and sounding their own death knell) on the part of the magazine in question.

[Masterminx]

My blog is copyrighted through Creative Commons. So, I don't care if it's a recipe, a haiku, or directions to the toilet from my living room. If someone lifts it, I'm going after them. My recipes are original written works of my own creation.

[Rob Baldassano]

Thank you for posting your article.

One thing to note is that Monica, and thousands of others of us out there like her, belong to a re-creation group that does research on every aspect of the middle ages.
Monica had done the research for the article in question for a competition back in 2005.

the other component of this is that Monica wasn't seeking compensation directly to herself, she was asking for a donation to a non-profit organization (a mere $130) for the right to reprint the article.

I know Monica personally, and don't think there is a vindictive bone in her body, the "Millions" of commentors on Facebook have brought out a lot of information, that could prove to be not just scandalous but disastrous for the magazine.

[hello!]

As this story is being re-told through the media, the utter absurdity and gall of the Cooks Source editor is being lost. Read Monica's original article and the short write-up done by her friend Nick (both linked to above).

[Lazlo Toth]

John:

I beg to differ. Punching an aggressor BACK is not bullying.

[Tottigol]

While your article does cover the facts, you did miss out on an important one. Monica wanted the compensation ($130) to be donated to an organization, not to herself personally.

[C(r)ooks Source]

@Ann On:

Agreed, recipes are not subject to copyright generally and can be reprinted.

The same cannot be said for entire articles - almost word for word, such as Monica's - which contain a recipe. Not to mention the additional plagiarisms of her 'Travel Magazine' and blogs such as NPR which have nothing to do with recipes.

[digger]

sorry, LA times/Rene Lynch, a list of ingredients for a recipe cannot be copyrighted or trademarked.

The instructions for baking/cooking said list of ingredients can be copyrighted, but only the wording.

Anyone is free to copy and distribute lists of ingredients, even those found in the LA Times.

Copying a whole article, however, is a violation of copyright.

[Lisa]

Gaudio didn't even ask for the money for herself. She asked for an online apology, an apology in print, and a relatively small donation to a journalism school (Columbia, IIRC). To me, that sounds like the apologies are the important part.

[Sandra D. Coburn]

"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." http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

Most recipes are not mere lists of ingredients but have instructions describing the procedures. If you cut and paste these from the New York Times or Food Network, then post in on your blog or publish them in a cookbook without permission, you have violated copyright.