Cooks Source managing editor Judith Griggs has just tanked her career with great energy and enthusiasm.
For folks who don't want to wade through the sea of links above, or the many more below, the basic story is this. A writer named Illadore on LJ (whose post is the first linked above, under "managing") wrote an article on the history of how apple pie has developed, which was posted on a web site for historical reenactors, back in '05. Recently, a friend pointed out that the magazine Cooks Source had the article, and asked her when she'd sold it. Illadore went, "Huh?" She figured she'd contact the Cooks Source folks and straighten this out:
So. I first phone the magazine then send a quick note to the "Contact Us" information page, asking them what happened and how they got my article. (I thought it could have been some sort of mix-up or that someone posted it to some sort of free article database.) Apparently, it was just copied straight off the Godecookery webpage. As you can see from the page, it is copyrighted and it is also on a Domain name that I own.
After the first couple of emails, the editor of Cooks Source asked me what I wanted -- I responded that I wanted an apology on Facebook, a printed apology in the magazine and $130 donation (which turns out to be about $0.10 per word of the original article) to be given to the Columbia School of Journalism.
Sounds reasonable to me, particularly since she wasn't asking for any kind of cash restitution for herself, but rather as a donation to a school which, presumably, teaches its students about copyright law. [cough]
Ms. Griggs responded (in part) thusly:
"Yes Monica, I have been doing this for 3 decades, having been an editor at The Voice, Housitonic Home and Connecticut Woman Magazine. I do know about copyright laws. It was "my bad" indeed, and, as the magazine is put together in long sessions, tired eyes and minds somethings forget to do these things.
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!"
So... right. Not only is anything posted to the internet automatically public domain (?!?) but Illadore should be paying Ms. Griggs for the editing! After all, Illadore now has a nice piece for her portfolio, so Illadore's come out ahead, right?
I think it says something about Ms. Griggs's knowledge of English and her editing skills (or research skills, since this is easy to look up if you can't tell from the context) that she was unable to recognize through a reading of the actual article she stole that the recipes were from 14th and 16th century cookbooks, and their language was perfectly appropriate for their time, and for the historical reenactor audience. Instead, it apparently just looked wrong to Ms. Griggs, bad writing that Illadore should've thanked her for fixing. Wow.
But seriously, this is a woman who is taking a paycheck for her work as a magazine editor, and she honestly -- really?? -- believes that anything posted to the internet is in the public domain? She's so sure she's right that she feels comfortable taking a patronizing tone with someone she's ripped off. Clearly it couldn't possibly be Ms. Griggs who's in the wrong here; that's completely outside the realm of possibility. Right? Right?!
This woman is in dire need a a few good smacks with the cluebat. Luckily, the internet is giving them to her.
Aside from the above links, on Making Light (in a nearly useless link because it's an open thread and only a few of the hundreds of comments are on this topic, and there's a sidelink but I can't link to that, but anyway) there are reports in comments of Ms. Griggs also having plagiarized Martha Stewart, Weight Watchers, The Food Network, CNN and WebMD (per James MacDonald, citing a Facebook page), Martha Stewart (again) and Cooks Illustrated (per Tom Whitmore, citing the Washington Post), and Disney (per Jon Meltzer).
Paula Dean (linked under "career" above) has been notified on her Facebook page of a recipe theft and has said that she's forwarded the matter to her legal department. You don't mess with Paula, folks, seriously.
I've also seen mention in several places that Neil Gaiman has Twittered about this, but I couldn't get his page to come up when I tried the link. Seems Mr. Gaiman's feed is even more popular than usual today for some reason.
Massive stupidity, seriously. This isn't some newbie webzine we're talking about here; Cooks Source is available online but it's also a paper magazine, supported by ad revenue, distributed on newsstands. How did someone this ignorant of copyright get to be the managing editor? And just how much do the people who hired her for that job regret it right now...? [Ahh, found out the answer to the second to last question at least -- Ms. Griggs owns the magazine. Well, there you go.]
I have to include the title to John Scalzi's post (which is linked under "tanked" above): The Stupidest Thing an Editor With Three Decades of Experience Has Said About the Web Today." Also BoingBoing's (linked under "energy"): "Today's Web Justice Driveby." Incisive commentary right there. [wry smile]
How about a quote from Judith Griggs's Twitter feed: "I don't know why everyone is so angry." Umm, yeah. That's kind of the problem, hon. [EDIT: Cindy Potts has pointed out that this Twitter feed looks like a spoof account. All I can say is it sounded like her. [wry smile]]
And the Bitchery has declared a Googlebomb of their definition of the new verb "to griggs" -- Judith Griggs. I'm contributing a link, because when you've been in the business for thirty years you get zero sympathy from me for not having yet learned the most basic laws that govern your industry. When you take money for your work, you're declaring yourself to be a pro and it's your responsibility -- nobody else's -- to have all your ducks in a row. Especially when you get snotty at other people over their supposed ignorance. [eyeroll]
Any bets on how long before Cooks Source is going to be out of business? If it were owned by some conglomerate, they could just fire Ms. Griggs, replace her with someone who knows what copyright means, and move on after some groveling. Given that it's completely her enterprise, though, I don't see it surviving. Maybe if it were only a bunch of blogs griping, but with the LA Times and Washington Post and who knows what other mainstream news sources picking it up, they're doomed.
Not that I'm crying over it. This is an example of blatant ignorance and arrogant stupidity. Good riddance.