I read today that a for-profit Cooking online/offline magazine re-printed a blogger's article on 14th/16th Century pie word-for word and without permission
or notice. The blogger found out, asked them for compensation, and received the following reply:
"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!"
Fascinating!
Is the cooking magazine editor correct? Of course not. There's no debate: the internet is NOT public domain. At least, not all of it.
Freedom of speech is one thing. Word-for-word plagiarism is another. I may own an online publishing company and my father is an intellectual property lawyer, but anyone knows this!
The angry blogger posted the exchange on her blog. The story's been picked up by the public and and a storm of angry comments have rained down on the cooking magazine's online site and on their Facebook page. I wonder how it will end. Legally, Cook's Source is liable. However, the publicity that this is now generating - although negative - might actually push Cook's Source's revenue through the roof. I'm betting they actually come out on top of this whole mess, financially.
In my mind, originality rests on the shoulders of what already existed.
Shakespeare's plays were heavily based on stories by authors who came before him. Van Gogh would likely have not been an impressionist if Monet and others hadn't popularized the style a few years earlier. And, to go deeper, all painters use paints, canvases, and techniques that have been copied, modified, and passed down for thousands of yea
rs. The great poets all communicate with words and languages that they did not invent (with the possible exception of Pushkin). This pop art of Barack Obama was done without the photographer's permission (copyright infringement!) but was eventually used by Obama's Election Campaign!
When is something copyright infringement and when is it just someone trying to further the cultural conversation?
Source: MediaPost
