Post Punk Kitchen Forum

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/11/05/exc ... t-apology/

Ruh roh.

That is awesome.

I hope this makes people who take content off the internet (not just writing, people take photos, art, etc as well) without permission think twice. It would be great if that editor were the only person out there who just "doesn't get" that the internet isn't a free for all, but I imagine this hit a nerve with the online community because it is such a common problem (and because that "apology" was douchetastic).

Another non-apology and more lack of understanding of copyright:
http://www.cookssource.com/

Wow, she does not get it.

She sounds like such a drip.

That's an apology?

Apparently she made an almost passable apology about a week ago that I missed. It's not on the website anymore, but it's quoted here: http://gawker.com/5686495/parsing-the-c ... ce-apology

She wants to look like the victim but I don't buy it.

I work for a magazine. We are all briefed on copyright law, so that even the mail room people know what is good and allowed.
I cannot fathom how she, as an editor thinks this was okay. I can sort of understand her continued defense of her position (she feels pressed up against it and all). But I truly cannot get how this even happened in the first place. Not by anyone who has actually ever really worked in the industry.

yeah, they really just need to stop talking about it or actually apologize. it's getting ridiculous. this new excuse is that she was too tired to notice she was taking someone else's work? huh. ok.

Actually, I think she didn't follow the #1 rule... "Don't say anything until you talk to a lawyer". So apparently, she has had two apologies on the website, one where she admitted she did wrong and another where she wants to look like the victim. A lawyer would've most likely told her to do neither. She should be more worried about the other big names they ripped off.

Best thing for the magazine to do is close up shop and open with a new name, this time writing original articles or at least verifying articles from third parties (It is called 'google').

"Bleary-eyed I didnt notice it was copy written and reordered some of it."

Again, she shows her ignorance of copyright. As soon as someone creates a work (and that someone is not her), the creator holds the exclusive rights to the material. It doesn't have to be registered anywhere or explicitly "copy written." It's theirs, and if you want to reproduce it, you require their permission.*

*Apart from fair-use, which doesn't apply here...

So when she says "copy written" she means "copyrighted"?

It sounds like the entire "staff" is this woman and her daughter. But you'd think once this started she'd get curious and do some googling or, I don't know, call a lawyer?

Even what she says about taking articles from books is flat wrong. Yes, the publisher sent it to you so you'd write about it and give them free publicity. But I don't think taking text from the book without crediting it is what they had in mind.

I thought that she had said somewhere (the first "apology" I think) that she had years of experience in the field and that she had work for several different publications.
At any rate, she should count herself very lucky that one of the publishing houses that published those books she used, didn't sue her asparagus off.

I think it's really shitty that people went after the small businesses that advertise in the magazine. They had nothing to do with any of the mess and for them to be getting threats is crappy.

Sadly, this lady is not alone in her ignorance of copyright law. Several of my photographer friends have had their photos lifted and used in publications without their knowledge or consent.

Wow. Short version: woman bases magazine on illegal business model, gets caught, publicly whines that it hurt her business, calls it an apology? Unbelieveable.


The site got taken down, it seems. Did this get quoted somewhere?

No. That's why she's so confused! We're all talking about copyright law, while she's talking about copy wright law. Problem solved.

But that doesn't make any sense. She's talking about written words, so clearly, she's in the realm of "copy write" law!

Damn, you're write. Now I'm forking confused.

My grandfather was a copywright. He banged away on his forge day and night--pouring out high quality, handtooled copy--for over twenty years in the old country.

But then a CopyMart moved into town, and started selling cheap, mass-produced copy. Gramps couldn't compete with that, so he closed up shop and moved to America, where copy is free for the stealing.