Well, if she honestly believed that copyright law…
never mind.
The important word there is “re-write”.
I own two very old cooking sites (in internet years, that is). In this specific niche I barely have any competition, and after nearly a decade, and a lot of investment into it, it’s hardly profitable for anyone to even try to compete.
I sometimes find people who re-write my recipes, it’s obvious to me what they did, but I have no beef with them.
Some people lift my recipes and copy them verbatim, even with the commentary and anecdotes I insert into them. If they link to my site, and/or credit me for it most times I consider myself a winner (except when they lift too many of my recipes, then I go after them).
And there are the ones that copy the recipes AND the pictures, going so far as to leave the watermark on them. Then I bite as hard as I can. I’ve had Google remove entire sites from their directory, and IPs drop websites. I have also been compensated when large publications use my recipes “by mistake”.
Most of the time people have the same excuse: it is in the “public domain”. I kindly inform them that a lot of the recipes and photos have been printed in book format, and have been registered.
I, for once, am thoroughly enjoying the bloodbath.
What is it with all those idiotic posts over there saying things like “Cooks Source gave AIDS to Africa” and “Cooks Source takes single socks out of your dryer. Now you know.” I don’t do Facebook…is this just random trolling, or are they trying to load up a search engine, or is it just the usual lobotomized dumbasses?
Sure, and digging up a copy of your older brother’s English 101 paper on Sartre in order to get a B+ at Podunk State is exactly the same as taking credit for someone else’s original research in high temperature superconductors, and winning the Nobel Prize with it.
Just trolling. This has moved beyond a justified complaint and turned into recreational outrage.
The only difference is the likelihood of getting caught and the ability of the rightful owner to come after you.
Think inverse Chuck Norris jokes. Instead of making up shit about how X is badass, they’re making up shit about how X is evil.
And the fact that the older brother is basically unharmed by the plagiarism, while the researcher is out a cool million dollars.
In this case, you are comparing some idiot teenager with a bunch of music he doesn’t listen to, and a supposedly professional editor who is making her living stealing articles for her magazine.
Seems to me they’re equally idiotic.
Degree of harm is merely a matter of fact to be proven. Is your argument merely a question of degree?
She’s started a new facebook page, because internetters were so mean to the old one.
I kinda think she’s not getting this.
Oh, hilarious. The tone and diction of their messages on the new page are the same as that “hacked” message on the old page.
Looks like she also managed to misspell the name of the magazine she worked for, HousAtonic Home.
Note also that she described how much editing she had to do on the stolen article, not realizing it was using medieval spellings.
:eek:
Good god.
And she thought she was fixing it by modernizing this? :smack:
Well, it does read like something the Swedish Chef would say.
“The previous regime has been removed”? I have a hard time accepting that this ditz knows what regime actually means. If they did fire the idiots that plagiarized all those articles, shouldn’t that be accompanied by a “we’re so sorry, we’ll do better in the future,” rather than “shut up and go away meanies!”?
Thisfacebook page is compiling a list of all the different articles she stole for the magazine and the original sources. They’ve also got a google docs page for people to post this information in.
It looks like she lifted content from NPR, Disney, and many other organizations and individuals…
Oh shit. She’s got “Jack Ogden from Cheltenham UK” on the case. Watch out internets!
Yes, really. Like I said, I believe it was an honest error. Somebody from a local food forum wrote an article about a local sandwich called the “mother-in-law” and “humdinger.” The first is a corn roll tamale sandwich in a hot dog bun with chili. The second is the same with cheese ladled over it. I had some pictures of the humdinger posted on the forum. The author contacted me to say the Smithsonian wanted the spelling of my name, so they could properly credit the photo in their online edition. Now, the photo had already been running, and I assume the author (a well-meaning guy who just didn’t understand photo licensing) just pointed the magazine to the online thread and there was either some confusion about the rights or nobody bothered to check. I don’t know. I just looked over the terms of the forum I posted on to make sure there was nothing saying I somehow agreed to give up the rights of anything I post, and then I just politely wrote the Smithsonian an email.
I honestly didn’t expect them to pay. I just really didn’t give a shit. Not to be arrogant or anything, but a credit in the Smithsonian Online magazine is not a big bragging point for me. But the price I gave them was more than fair, and they sure as hell ain’t going to find a stock photo of a humdinger anywhere. I expected them to just axe the humdinger photos and use the mother-in-law photos from the author as art, but they chose to keep my photos up.
Yah, I don’t care professionally either :), but the cash would be nice (since it’s the Holiday season and all…)
I actually took a photo special for them on request - probably could have charged extra for that one. Live and learn…