If it's a freebie, I seriously doubt most places will make any policy changes because some random customer tells them about an internet copyright thing.
Wouldn't it be better to trade on that ambivalence, take the whole stack, and if anyone questions you tell them it's evidence for a copyright claim? Then recycle them or send them to the author? It wastes Cook Sources' money and the advertisers money and hurts their business.
That only solves this month, though. Getting people to refuse to carry it cuts into their advertising. Apparently they steal stuff all the time and need to be stopped.
The most effective way of addressing this would be to post the given editor's name in an account of this story.
If enough people did that in their blogs then the next time this woman applies for a journalism job it would come up in a google search and she or he would be fucked.
Journalists try to change jobs all the time and it's a tighter and tighter marketplace and no publication would hire an editor with a web reputation for condoning plagiarism.
The next step is to tell Gawker about it - again once you have the woman's name. (You'd probably want to forward the entire email stream to them as well.)
Gawker with more than a million readers a day has been in a two year long pissing match with the Village Voice and makes it a hobby of theirs to trash their current and former editors (and this editor makes a point of having worked for them.)
Her name is being posted, their advertisers are being contacted, and they have stolen from SUNSET Magazine as well. It's gonna get really amusing....
Wow, Sunset is huge. This will not go on for long.
I just saw on the facebook that they also stole from Food Network. This bullshit won't last long.
OMFG that i hadn't heard!
i just fell over laughing. oh man ....
It's the best. We could all just go home now. They WILL be destroyed.
Sent to Gawker. Good idea.
I'm from New Jersey.
I'm good at vengeance.
It's now on the front page of Gawker.
Would informing the advertisers be effective?
People are doing that, too.
Step 1: Come up with a great recipe
Step 2: Create a complicated, wonderful-to-read creative
article on it
Step 3: Register
the article with the US copyright office
Step 4: Wait to put it online until you receive confirmation it is registered
Step 5: Put it online with the little (c) prominently on it
Step 6: If they unlawfully copy and re-publish it, sue for statutory damages and attorney fees
Definitely Best Practice, but we don't always do that before we put stuff on our blogs.
You can even skip steps 4 and 5, since notice isn't required and a registration is effective as of the day the Copyright office receives the materials.
You can do this, but you don't have to -- original material is legally copyrighted as soon as you've written it. If you want proof of the creation date for less than the US copyright office charges, print out the piece, seal it in an envelope, and mail it to yourself. Keep the postmarked, still-sealed envelope in your files.
No. Please don't give legal advice if you're not an attorney. I'm talking about the damages available only to registered works. You can sue in the case you describe but you'll pay more than you will receive, because you must prove damages and cannot claim attorneys' fees. Statutory damages are a very savory enabler in instances like these, but you don't get access to them without registration.
The above comment from wishiwasnt
about skipping steps 4 and 5 is actually spot-on correct, but I include those steps as a matter of presumptively establishing evidence in the face of a known likely-infringer, which can save time and thus money (outside the attorneys fees one may be able to recover).
I have no idea if it's related to these events, but the whole Cooks Source is "temporarily unavailable" at the moment.
I think they were just swamped. Parts are back up.
It's obviously a tiny outlet, which doesn't excuse anything they did; but I can find it in me to feel a bit sorry for the feeling of THE WHOLE INTARWEBZ falling down on their neck about ... now.
I kind of can't. This isn't some question of fair use where it might arguably be copyright infringement -- this material is blatantly plagiarized. If a college student did this for a paper, they could, and likely would, be expelled.
There is nothing in our set of social norms that says it's okay to take a copy of someone else's work, strip the attribution, and post it as your own. I'm glad the internet is breathing down their neck -- this is what copyright is (should be) for, not hassling high schoolers sharing music.
Look, I'm a professional writer; I live from my journalism - BELIEVE me, I feel very strongly about this, and even more strongly about the flip answer that cow gave the writer whose copy she'd stolen.
That being said, I hate Internet lynchings. Very few people deserve to be dogpiled on by tens of thousands of people, and most of them are packing rusty nails in balls of Semtex as we type.
Yes, it's a lot of internet falling on them like ravening wolves, but the fact that her apology on Facebook is so flippant and obnoxious that my sympathy evaporated.