Maybe she should go into business with the woman who’s all pissed off that her store closed because people didn’t want to support her by buying overpriced crap that they didn’t need or want.
Surprising things I learned from the Cooks Source statement:
-
The editor does not have any concept of proper punctuation and grammar. (OK, maybe this isn’t so surprising.)
-
They only got 400 hate emails. Really? That seems orders of magnitude too low to me.
For someone who has been in the business and has edited four publications, she has not the first clue how copyright law works.
Plus, heh at “copy written” instead of “copyrighted”.
Even as she “apologizes,” she protests that she improved the article - while she makes many grammatical errors in her apology.
The alleged apology has a predominant tone of “poor me,” not “I’m sorry, I screwed up.”
She continues to demonstrate her total (now willful) ignorance of copyright law.
But best of all, this person who has been lambasted for being a pompous asshole ends her apology with “FIN.” I freaking laughed my ass off.
Didn’t this woman claim to have thirty years of experience as an editor? Because in the new apology, she claims that she republished someone’s article and intended to contact the writer later (presumably to discuss payment). But as little as I know about publishing, I don’t think that’s how it works. Don’t you start by by contacting the author or the original publication for the rights to republish the content, not after already having done so?
Its (sic) sad.
I will piss on their black shroud.
Yeesh:
A woman who doesn’t want her work stolen has an ‘agenda’?!
Seriously, someone kick this woman in the head.
Yes. And her lying-ass apology is still pretending it was an accident. And the other 100 plus articles she stole? And the pictures (cunningly mirrored to disguise them!)?
A deeply repugnant, stupid and unrepentant (no - being sorry about getting caught doesn’t count) woman who has earned every bit of shit heaped on her.
Well, yeah, that’s the point, or one of them.
Really, both are wrong. The first one is incorrect terminology/spelling, and the second one implies a conceptual misunderstanding of copyright law. Copyright law protects an original, creative work as soon as it is fixed in a perceivable medium. Whether something has been “copyrighted” is not the operative question.
Mail from here is slow, give it time.
I love the apology: “I am sorry you people were mean to me for doing something I shouldn’t have done. You suck”.
Perhaps I’m picking on her bones, but she also says, “But one night when working yet another 12 hour day late into the night, I was short one article… Instead of picking up one of the multitude of books sent to me and typing it, I got lazy and went to the www and “found” something.” So she was planning on typing in something that was published in a book? Doesn’t she realize that that would also be a violation of copyright?
The impression I got from that was that it would have been one of the books that had been sent to her by a publisher with permission to reprint excerpts.
But still, she’s 10 quarts of clueless in a 5 quart crock pot.
The last sentence:
Uh, she DID give you a chance.
If Cooks Source had said “ZOMG, I truly didn’t know this!” instead of “YOU should be THANKFUL that I’m HELPING you!!!1!!!” none of this would have happened.
She dug her own grave. Nobody dug it for her.
This whole thing is so sad and funny. Part of me wants to write to her but most of me knows it wouldn’t matter so I won’t. Maybe that’s why there have only been 400 hate mails–people like me who are too lazy to bother.
I expect it’s because most people who’ve heard about this have a Facebook account and did their hating on the magazine’s wall rather than send oldschool hate mail.
Guys, nobody’s Spidey Sense is tingling after reading that “apology”?
I don’t buy it for a second. I think her website was hacked. There’s just WAY too many errors in there–terminology, grammar, spelling, capitalization. And she wasn’t asked to make a donation to a “University”–it was the Poynter Institute.
I think it’s complete BS, like the Facebook apology.
No, the writer of the article said that she “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” not to the Poynter Institute.
Ah. Don’t know where I got Poynter from. Anyhow, I’m still not buying it. It doesn’t pass the smell test for me.
ETA: Although, upon re-reading, it can go either way. Perhaps she really is that frazzled and stupid. Hard to tell.