Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet The Media Your Rights Online

Cooks Source Magazine Apologizes — Sort Of 290

Posted by timothy
from the helping-budding-writers-everywhere dept.
taco8982 writes "Cooks Source has published a statement in response to the uproar over claiming the web is public domain a couple of weeks ago. While it does contain an apology, I'll leave it to individual readers to determine how apologetic it actually is." It also seems that the publisher has decided to cease publication entirely.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cooks Source Magazine Apologizes — Sort Of

Comments Filter:
  • Re:rtfl (Score:3, Informative)

    by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @08:10AM (#34253182)
    To both of you (and the others who made the same mistake) both parties were women. Ain't no men to balme for this one.
  • by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @08:18AM (#34253242)

    Then because she's using this money for college

    She didn't want the money for HER college. She asked that a donation be made to the Columbia School of Journalism.

    If you think copyright law should be different in regards to recipes

    Copyright law IS different in regards to recipes - they can't be copyrighted.

    That said, what was lifted wasn't a recipe, but an article discussing the history of apple pie, which happened to include two archaic recipes for apple pie as illustrations of the changes.

    Note, for the record, that the lady who you suspect jumped the gun discovered that her article had been used without her permission did so when a friend contacted her to congratulate her on getting her article published.

    Note further that checking Cooks Source on the web showed that virtually every article in the magazine was lifted from some other source without permission.

  • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @08:27AM (#34253302) Journal

    For those who forgot the story: "... I observed one of my students with a group of other children gathered around his laptop. Upon looking at his computer, I saw he was giving a demonstration of some sort. The student was showing the ability of the laptop and handing out Linux disks. After confiscating the disks I called a confrence with the student and that is how I came to discover you and your organization. ----- "Mr. Starks of Helios, I am sure you strongly believe in what you are doing but I cannot either support your efforts or allow them to happen in my classroom.... I want to assure you, if you are doing anything illegal, I will pursue charges as the law allows." continued: http://linuxlock.blogspot.com/2008/12/linux-stop-holding-our-kids-back.html [blogspot.com]

    Later when Karen received a lot of internet attention, she tried to blame others. She should have been blaming herself (stole students' property, threatened a lawsuit against Helios), but instead filed a defamation suit against Helios.

    Same applies to this woman behind Cooks. She has no one to blame but herself.
    She says the author of the stolen recipe was wrong, but it was "Miss Cooks" who was wrong,
    because of her poor attitude. She's like a thief caught at 7/11 - blaming everyone else except herself.

  • Re:But but (Score:2, Informative)

    by RJHelms (1554807) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @08:49AM (#34253488)

    But when was the Bible not translated? Ulfilas translated it to Gothic in the 4th century, and there are English and French translations from later in the middle ages. A quick wiki search shows up that the ban on translation was made by Pope Gregory IX in the 13th century, and it doesn't seem to have stopped much.

    Maybe "translating" really means "owning" and people didn't own it because it was prohibitively expensive until the printing press. If you can't afford a book, what does it matter what language it's in?

    Also, what does this have to do with TFA? I'll be quiet now.

  • by icebraining (1313345) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @09:11AM (#34253718) Homepage

    f the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party.
    But it's not, it's stuff off web sites, and we identify with producing that, so we think the infringing party is the evil doer.

    Or maybe, just maybe, it's because it was a for-profit business.
    And it may also be because the creator of such content, after finding out about the infringement, asks for a donation to a small college instead of suing for millions of dollars.

    This is (was) a two-person organization putting out a tiny little magazine that was given out for free at the grocery store, so far as I can tell.

    Yes, and they had a bunch of advertisers. Google services are almost all free for the user, too. Yet it's still a for-profit company.

    Imagine your mom and her next-door neighbor putting out a magazine, assuming your mom barely knows anything about copyright.
    This lady assumed that if it's free to get it's free to use and free to redistribute. For people who aren't hip-deep in the thing, the Internet can definitely give that impression.
    Who makes up something as goofy as "the Internet is in the public domain" if they don't think it's true?

    First, OTA TV is free, some newspapers are free. Nobody thinks it's OK to distribute them.

    Secondly, after she was called out, what does she do? Did she apologized and offered to donate like a decent person? No, she said "You're lucky I give you anything".

    I've had small businesses fail. It's like a death in the family. It's awful.
    For her, it's a tragedy.

    I'd pity her if she sounded like a decent person and did the right thing after being contacted. But she never even apologized. She deserved what she got.

  • Re:But but (Score:3, Informative)

    by s122604 (1018036) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @09:14AM (#34253750)
    No actually it wouldn't

    I believe the poster is referring to William Tyndale
  • Re:But but (Score:3, Informative)

    by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @09:18AM (#34253800) Homepage
    The New Testament was written in Greek. Fairly amateur translations into Latin came a couple of hundred years later, and then eventually St. Jerome made the standard Latin translation called the Vulgate.
  • Re:But but (Score:3, Informative)

    by eleuthero (812560) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @09:20AM (#34253824)
    He's conflating the two. Luther was buried and not later exhumed (the ruling powers in the area stayed Lutheran).
  • by milkmage (795746) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @09:21AM (#34253832)

    then pay attention now.
    this is what she said when she was initially contacted by the author:

    seems her flippant "apology" only came AFTER the story went viral

    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!"

    this would have never made it to MSM if she simply said "sorry, we'll take it down immediately." six. simple. words.

    she brought this on herself with that response. good riddance.

    whether or not you understand the internet and public domain.. she went as far as to suggest she get paid for editing.

  • by tixxit (1107127) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @09:26AM (#34253886)

    Copyright law IS different in regards to recipes - they can't be copyrighted.

    "Recipes" can't be copyrighted in that you can't sue a chef for making your recipe. However, the actual written text of a recipe can have copyrights and you can definitely sue someone for publishing, word-for-word, your recipe that you wrote. The written recipe is copyrightable, the actual proportions, sequence of steps, etc. is not copyrightable.

  • by Skellbasher (896203) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @09:34AM (#34253974)
    http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=196994196748&topic=23238 [facebook.com] They started a discussion group right on the Cooks Source Facebook page. 5 pages of links showing Cooks Source republishing content stolen from elsewhere. There's a blog somewhere else that took it further, I'll have to look for that.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @09:38AM (#34254054)

    "Copyright law IS different in regards to recipes - they can't be copyrighted. "

    From what I understand, a list of ingredients is NOT copyrightable, but the description of how to combine them is if it is an original work.

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

    * The More You Know *

  • by TheSpoom (715771) <slashdot@ubermMONET00.net minus painter> on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @09:55AM (#34254278) Homepage Journal

    The author's thoughts on the "apology" are here. [livejournal.com]

    She basically had the same reaction we all did: What a load of crap.

  • by netsharc (195805) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @10:08AM (#34254416)

    On the other hand, the name "Cooks Source" is now available, no need to worry about "copywrite" or trademarks!

    Shouldn't it be "Cooks' Source" anyway?

    Dumb biatch...

  • Summary of Apology (Score:4, Informative)

    by idontgno (624372) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @10:09AM (#34254432) Journal

    "I'm sorry...

    that I got caught."

  • Re:But but (Score:3, Informative)

    by camperdave (969942) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @10:20AM (#34254574) Journal
    The books of the bible were originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament). By the second century BC, all of the Old Testament had already translated into Greek. As Christianity spread through the Roman Empire, the bible was translated into Latin. In the early 1500s Martin Luther translated the bible from Greek (not Latin) into German. William Tyndale also starts a translation from Greek to English at about the same time. (Note: Neither translates from the Latin version.)

    Luther was not merely ostracized, he was excommunicated. However, they did not dig up his body and burn it.
  • by capnchicken (664317) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @10:49AM (#34254878)

    You know what though, Karen was handled with a lot more class. She only witnessed the gnashing of internet teeth, she did not feel their bite: http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17874 [p2pnet.net]

    Although if she then proceeded with an actual suit afterward, all fault would lie squarely on her, I didn't follow the story much after the Ken Starks defense of her.

  • by SydShamino (547793) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @11:22AM (#34255446)

    The list of ingredients cannot be copyrighted. Thus a simple recipe - one where the entire instructions consists of the list of ingredients, where the only procedure is implied (i.e. dump and mix, serve) cannot be copyrighted.

    The text of the procedural instructions can be copyrighted. However, the method cannot as you note - so if the person borrowing the recipe prints the ingredient list verbatim, but rewrites the procedures to do the same thing in his or her own words, he hasn't infringed on the original author's copyright.

  • by GasparGMSwordsman (753396) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @12:53PM (#34256866)

    The recipe as a list of ingredients and instructions does not in general qualify for copyright protection.. (This does assume United States jurisdiction.) Here is a nifty quote and link for you:

    http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html [copyright.gov]:

    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.

    You would have to include more than just a standard recipe to qualify. In this case the "magazine" is clearly in violation (assuming they did not have permission) because they copied not just the recipe but the format, style, imagery and non-recipe text included in the article.

With all the fancy scientists in the world, why can't they just once build a nuclear balm?

Working...