Copyright follies

[nihilistic_kid]

A friend of mine has a story to tell-her article on early modern apple pies of interest to medieval recreationists was copied wholesale and published in the ad-driven, newsstand-distributed, for-profit magazine Cook's Source without permission or payment

Comments

[viggorlijah]

A magazine to never ever buy, and an editor to never work with. *hilarious*

[nihilistic_kid]

The magazine is a "pick-up"; distributed for free. So if you needed something to wipe with...

[luagha]

Where can one pick this up? I am in continual need of burmese python cage bedding.

[nihilistic_kid]

Western New England!

[vschanoes]

Holy shit. Seriously?

Does your friend have any recourse? I would love to smack such an asshole with a lawsuit ("I never charge young writers for advice" my ass). Though it probably wouldn't be worth your friend's time and energy.

[nihilistic_kid]

Well, there are potential statutory damages-from $750 to $150,000, but time is always a bother. Griggs did also just win the case for Monica too with that correspondence.

But you know, if this news were to get out on, say a blog everyone in the publishing industry reads...

[starcat_jewel]

Such as Making Light, where I just linked this?

[illadore]

Link, please?

[pantryslut]

"Now it will work well for your portfolio."

I boggle. I didn't think I could be boggled at this point, but this did it.

[nihilistic_kid]

You should be paying her for giving you something to boggle over!

[pantryslut]

I'll edit it right back and then we'll be even. Then I will "lift" it for my new West Coast cooking newsletter project. She won't mind. Anything left on the benches in coffeehouses is considered public domain.

[pixelfish]

I too am boggled. Seriously. WTF?

Also did she really think the spelling was at issue?

[vintagehandbag]

The whole thing is so profoundly offensive. The only excuse for thinking everything on the internet is public domain that I can conceive of is being, say not understanding what the internet is. That's not even a good excuse, it's just the only situation in which I would find this plausible. But, given that the magazine is online, well ...

Wait, can we just copy the parts of the magazine that are online and use them as we please?

And, my understanding with regards to those e-mail disclaimers about privacy is that they don't hold water, and that courts have largely ruled that correspondents have no reasonable expectation of privacy when using e-mail.

[zeborahnz]

This isn't the first time I've seen that mistake. I think people reason thusly:

1) The internet is a domain which is public.
2) Therefore it's a public domain.
3) "Public domain" is a legal term that means that anyone can use it.
4) I'm too stupid to realise that there's a difference between English vernacular about where something exists and legal terminology about who owns it.
5) Therefore if it's on the internet anyone can use it.
6) QED.

[crssafox]

I've seen this happen too. One such instance was an IT manager saying that images found on Flickr were okay to use in printed advertising materials sent to customers. When I brought up an issue that could potentially get the company in trouble, the manager cropped off the copyright information on the images and basically said, "There, I fixed it." I'd done what I could, but seeing as that employee was above me in the hierarchy, there wasn't much more I could do about the issue.

[codeman38]

The worst thing on that one is, if he had only used the advanced search options on Flickr, he could have found plenty of images that the photographers had licensed for free commercial use!

Of course, I think that probably muddies the waters some too, with respect to Flickr. "Some pictures on Flickr are free for the taking, so clearly, all of them must be!" ::headdesk::

[solarbird]

This is truly awesome levels of fail. I will forward appropriately. XD

[sexi_squidward]

your icon is mesmerizing and going well in rhythm to the song on the radio atm lol