Ithaca College  »  FLEFF  »  Blogs  »  Creating Spaces  » 

Blogs

FLEFF
Creating Spaces About this blog

Creating Spaces

Production and the Creative Spirit

« Previous

Posted by Patricia Zimmermann at 5:20PM   |  68 comments
fleff

Blog posting written by Ann Michel and Phil Wilde, coprincipals of insights International (Ithaca and New York City)

The story of Judith Griggs and Cooks Source magazine has become very big news for artists on the internet.

As some of you know, the story broke on November 3 that Ms. Griggs, the editor of Cooks Source magazine, found an article online by Monica Gudio about apple pie. Griggs  copied it and published it in her magazine without permission.

So, why are we all talking about this? Because when Monica wrote to the magazine to withdraw it or compensate her she received the following note from Judith Griggs:

“…I do know about copyright laws.…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!"

The rest of the story can be found online because Monica blogged her story in a post called Copyright Infringement and Me, the story gets better and better. Look it up.

The importance of copyright and the proper use of material are always important in terms of media production and documentaries. We'll talk about that again, but this is a perfect chance to see what a lot of people think about what can and cannot be lifted, without credit or compensation, from this very public world.

Because of this story, many people, both expert and not, have weighed in about what exactly is public domain. Many are linking people to The Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998. You should find it and read it. But look for other information at just about every college or university website under Copyright and Fair Use. The University of Maryland's is particularly good.

What do you find important about the story; what about the online attacks that Cooks Magazine is enduring now that other bloggers have found many instances of lifted material, both written word and images, at the magazine?

On a lighter note, my favorite tweet today has been: "Cooks Source never should have stolen those recipes. But let's remember that they're also a victim of theft. Someone stole their apostrophe." A tweet from RuthBourdain

 


68 Comments

The internet does make many things accessible for people to either manipulate or copy verbatim. But, just because someone is capable of doing something does not mean it is "fair game". If that was the overall philosophy then we would live in a pretty corrupt society...well a more corrupt society than we already do. Capability can not be the sole enabler; people should still adhere to an ethical code regardless of an ease or anonymity that goes into plagiarism. Not only is it discrediting to the original author or creator but it is stealing. Even if the stealing is not necessarily punishable by law that certainly does not mean its immoral, unethical or just plain wrong.
And, specifically in relation to film, infringing upon copyright laws and plagiarism can become a trite device. When found footage is used and manipulated for an artistic purpose the work becomes recycled art and can never truly be original. And what more do people want than originality and sincerity?

This, combined with the all the Wikileaks stories I think is a great indicator of where we are in society and how the global accessibility of the internet is changing the way people think about ownership. I think, in time, stronger copyright laws will be established and some of the freedom we experience now in access to music, movies, recipes, news articles - any kind of content on the internet - will be diminished. But I think in the end it will be a good thing for society. We need the push and shove to keep things from getting too out of hand either way.

The issue with the apple pie recipe will be dealt with - a lot of people have a completely distorted idea about what ownership is today, but it will change, I think.

This situation brings forward many issues about copyright laws. It surfaces the question of whether or not it is morally right to take material from the internet and other sources. This makes me question the validity of compilation films. The directors of these documentaries essentially steal other people's work to create their own film, but is it right? Can they actually consider these films original if they didn't even shoot what is on screen? Some people say that when used in art, it is ok to take other people's work and manipulate it to create new meaning, but I question this. To me, it seems quite similar to the situation with Cooks Source magazine. So, what I ask the question, are compilation films a form of copyright infringement?

I took the same standpoint as E. Sprague above. To me, it is all a question of morality vs legality. What is legal might not necessarily be moral. The internet, in some ways, provides an entirely new method of distribution of films! These films can then be taken and manipulated. Direct quotes and films are easy to obtain, and is mostly legal. Anything published is legally 'fair game', but is it really fair game?

What a ridiculous way to respond to Monica Gudio. If Cooks Source magazine is an actual, published magazine, they should be more careful about where/how they are getting information for copyrights sake. It seems strange to me that an established magazine (that doesn't know how to use apostrophes as said nicely in the tweet) fails to confirm with their sources whether it is okay to use another person's recipe! Despite whether the recipe was officially copyrighted or not, as an established magazine, I think they still have to cite where they received the recipe from and give Monica some kind of credit, but it sounds like they didn't do that at all. Maybe she shouldn't be entitled to and monetary gain, but Monica should definitely be credited in the article. I can't see how that is legal to use her recipe without citing her as the source?

This issue is quite controversial. I feel for Monica but at the same time, in my belief, the internet is public domain, especially if the work on the net was not legally copyrighted to begin with. Along with Emily Sprague, I agree on what exactly should be legitimate and not? Is found footage acceptable, because you did not technically film the desired footage? In order for it to be legal in my opinion, one would need to totally change the meaning and effect of the original footage.By just reposting and doing minor edits makes it plagerizing in my opinion.

With that said, I think the magazine should give some reconigition for Monica's recipe. Maybe not compensation or monetary gain, but at least soem acklnowledgement should do.

I agree with Becca that for found footage to be used it's meaning should be completely changed. However, I have never seen a film using found footage where this was an issue. I feel like if this happened with a film it would be more noticeable than an article that was taken and republished in a magazine.

In my opinion, it is ok to use someone else's material IF you are not using it solely just to copy the work itself. In other words, I believe it is ok to use someone else's material in addition or as part of your own work. Any college paper uses sources from others work to bolster their own work. Many films use popular music to add mood to their work (although they usually do compensate the artist to use it)? However, if you do on YouTube, you will find hundreds of videos with muted sound due to the videos using copyrighted music. If these videos are just displaying the song so people can get it for free, I am fine with muting them. However, if the videos use the music in a new or different way then its original purpose, I believe that they shouldn't be censored. I find it morally reprehensible to outright steal someone else's work. For example, if one should never use someone else's work, then Bill Morrison's Descasia film is morally wrong. He uses other people's footage, "found footage", to create the film. Yet Morrison doesn't just display the footage, but instead uses the film itself to present a stunning representation of decay. So, to outright steal work, either claiming it as your own or to use the work without the author's permission, is wrong, but to use their work in a distinct and interesting way is acceptable. Strict adherence to copyrights and ownership will limit creativity and innovation.

This controversy raises some truly interesting questions about privacy in an age where many things are completely digital. True, when publishing something online, you should be aware that it can be read, seen, etc. by essentially anyone. However, this seems to be, at its heart, an issue of morals and differences of opinion.

The magazine may argue Ms. Gudio should have thought about who she wanted to see her article before posting it, but should we really have to worry about these things? In my experience, it seems that more and more people are using the internet as an excuse for outright theft. Although we may think that it is simply common sense for one person to not use something of someone else's (be it picture, article, comment, recipe, what have you), the idea of ownership has completely changed with the rise of the internet. What one person sees as stealing, another may see as an error in judgment on the part of whoever posted the material. It is an unfortunate truth, but a certain amount of thought and self-censorship must go into posting something on the internet. Instances such as this one simply illustrate that point.

I find it ironic that Cooks Source took an article from an author without asking or without the proper accreditation. I am unfamiliar with the magazine, but guessing from the title, the magazine must have a central theme of creativity and mastery of people's recipes. Just as any great cook would feel, the author has every right to be angered by Cooks Source stealing her very own "recipe" so to speak. You would think the magazine would encourage creativity and give proper credit.

This issue isn't just exclusive to Cooks Source. I feel like everyone is sort of loosing their creativity--now that everything is on the internet, people are used to just copy/pasting information directly offline and "googling" anything and everything they can think of. Instead of coming up with their own ideas, people are now so used to just inserting the appropriate parenthetical citation and calling it a day. What's happening to the world of creativity? There is only a few of us left!

I think it was easier for people to recognize that someone's work was their own before the advent of the internet. There's something about having a hard copy of an article that's more firm, solid. It would take a lot of time to copy it into a magazine, and in the process the "thief" would likely feel at least a little guilt.

Today, with the internet, it's incredibly easy to copy a document or picture or music. Select, command-c, click, command-v and you're done. Digitized music is nothing more than a bunch of ones and zeros. It's not "real," so how can someone possibly "own" it? The same goes for a document; isn't it absurd for someone to have rights to a certain combination of letters and numbers and punctuation? On the internet, property seems intangible and boundaries are blurred.

So, what I'm saying is "stealing" others' work shouldn't happen, but it does, and I can understand why.

Bottom line, the internet is public domain, it is up to the discretion of the user to say whether something is fair game or not. Elaborating on what everyone has said about found footage, it changes the meaning of the work when assembled in a different way. Many of the films we have worked on in class (Decasia, Mongoloid, Removed) have all used found footage and changed their meaning using different cinematic techniques.
What was done to Mrs. Griggs was wrong because the integrity of he work was changed. Do people write different versions of a book because they didn't like how it ended and felt it needed "more editing?" No, the individuals work, no matter how imperfect it ma be, is still the property of the creator.

Though this story tells of a very unfortunate situation for Monica, the truth is that if there are no legal or official laws in regards to copyrights on the Internet, there is really not much she can do about the situation. Monica has every right to complain about the action, and is probably in the moral right. Cooks Source on the other hand, while maybe technically not violating any laws, had certainly had their reputation diminished. They have come out of this situation looking very unprofessional and arrogant.

The best way to look at this situation would probably be to understand the need to work towards legislation that would better outline copyright rules for the Internet. What exactly is public domain online and what isn’t? Though this is only an example of stealing from a blog post, the fact that his happened proves that similar actions are capable, possibly on much larger levels. What if video footage found online were to be stolen and used in a feature film documentary, and the maker of that documentary were to get away easy because the footage was “public domain”?

As it stands now, the debate is very controversial. Monica is morally, but unfortunately not legally right. Not yet at least.

Though I think what was done in Cooks Magazine is completely unethical from a journalistic stand point, I believe Judith Griggs might be right. The internet is indeed a public domain. Unless her blogs were copyrighted, or published, her post is merely an opinion. Unfortunately this does nothing for Monica. Copy right infringement laws are consistently broken by millions of internet users every day by way of the illegal downloading of movies and music. If torrent sites and the like cannot be controlled, we cannot expect journalistic integrity to be upheld.

The main point I need to evoke from this post is that information on the internet is for the public to be entertained and informed by but not to copyright. The reasons behind this claim are it defames the original author and also, the person that copied the work will lose respect and now is faced with internal guilt. The result of copying other's work also allows fans of the magazine to feel betrayed because what they are reading is not original material and they can now question what ever was original? The magazine now comes off as less prestigious and upheld. The most shocking part of the blog post arose from the response Griggs formulated which was characterized by a derogatory tone and a sense of snobbery. Does Griggs write with such assurance in her actions because she really believes her own reasoning or is this an action of defense to diminish the stance of Monica? Overall, I believe that this question of public domain is internally easy to answer. All work should be original yet with the constant rise of technology and sources of information over the internet, all ideas may start seeming to be uniform in the future.

Surely the issue of copyrighting is a huge complicated matter. This is also the reason why people must cite sources when quoting information that is not directly theirs. It is not fair or right to pose someone else's information as your own. Although the apple pie recipe was not copyrighted, the editor of Cooks Source magazine had no right to reproduce the recipe without permission from Monica Gudio. Although Griggs claimed Gudio's recipe was "public domain", I feel Griggs responded very unprofessional in her sarcastic note. She calls Gudio out and says she deserves to be thanked in this matter for making Gudio's work better than it was. It was wrong for Cooks Source to reproduce the article without giving any credit to Gudio herself. Gudio obviously did not want her work published else where, and Griggs should have respected Gudio's wishes. Instead a huge battle continues over one apple pie recipe. The answer is simple, you can't take things that aren't yours. You can't use information in ways that disrespects the source, and yet argue that the the right is with you instead. Despite if something has a copywrite or not.

I am intrigued by the comparison of the ethics of this story to compilation films. I always thought that when another's footage is used in a compilation film, that filmmaker must gain the rights of all of their source material. Is this not the case? If not, I have to rethink the ethics of compilation films, because I'm not sure if using footage is okay if you don't own the rights to it. I know that if it were my footage, or my article for that matter, I would not be pleased to see it used in another's work. And as for the matter of public domain, I don't think its fair to say that if something is online anyone can use it. Everything is online nowadays, legal or not. Bootlegged films, photocopied magazines, etc, its all online. Does that mean the world has rights to it? I think Monica has every right to try to protect her property.

I find what happened to Monica Guido appalling. The internet in public in the sense that anyone can find information on just about anything. However, copying an article found online and publishing it in a legitimate magazine is just plain plagiarism. In response to the discussion comparing this to compilation films, I feel that what makes compilation films acceptable and this not is:
A. A compilation film takes something previously created and uses it to create some kind of new meaning by using editing and other techniques. Guido's article is still about Apple Pie, there is no new meaning or message. Thus it is wrong.
B. Film is essentially a collaborative art form. Many people work on film sets and in editing studios to create a final project. Also, film is a visual medium where ideas are communicated via images. In compilation documentaries there is acknowledgment by many that the subject has been found elsewhere and is being "recreated" by a team of filmmakers. The written word is a completely different medium and is oftentimes created solely by one individual. When another person steals something that is written by another and publishes it giving no credit or acknowledgment to the original author it is plagiarism, plain and simple.

As an aspiring sports writer, there is no better place to get your feet wet then writing for a blog. I wrote for a blog about the New York Mets and had articles lifted several times to other blogs. I understood that because I was writing on internet, the most open space known to man, that this would be inevitable. Part of the beauty of the internet is the ability to find information from several sources. I don't believe that cooks magazine Monica Guido a penny. While her article may have been featured on the site, her blog is an open space. You run that risk when posting on the internet.

Whether the work has a copywrite or not, I think no one should reuse the work without the creator's permission. This way the work isn't used in a way that offends or upsets the creator. Not a lot of people will actually do this, but I think morally it should be done for the sake of both the creator and user.

In my opinion, Judith Griggs was completely out of line. One of the arguments she gave for using Monica Gudio's article was that people copy the work of others all the time, citing college campuses as an example. There are honestly no other words to describe that comment other than naive and utterly stupid. As students, we are taught that plagiarism, copying someone else's work, is forbidden and usually results in penalization. I'm sure Ms. Griggs would argue that her actions did not constitute plagiarism because she used Ms. Guido's name. If Ms. Griggs were to write her own article that included cited quotes from Guido's (much like a high school or college essay) then that would be a different story. However, Griggs simply copied and pasted the article without even attempting to contact its writer. Personally I believe that Ms. Guido has a legitimate gripe and could make a good case in a court of law.

I too am appalled at what happened to Guido. And as other have stated, it is easy to copy from the internet as information is getting passed back and forth all of the time. I feel that because Griggs was gathering recipes for something that would be published, she should have definitely asked permission of some sort before using the recipe. I dislike the "finders keepers" attitude that she seemed to have which she especially expressed in her note. I doubt any kind of "rule" that could be made to avoid this problem would help since the internet is such a vast space with many users.

Morally, this story is corrupt. Unfortunately, legally it is sound. By posting the recipe online Monica Gudio took a risk, while Judith Griggs just took. It is truly upsetting to hear that some people do not feel the need to even acknowledge taking someone else's ideas or crediting them in anyway. While, this case (along with countless others) is immoral, it is truly difficult to enforce. On respects to found footage used in film, if the footage promotes a new concept or idea and therefore aiding the work, it is acceptable. In Scorpio Rising, found footage is drastically used to imply that prominent figures had homosexual tendencies and thus this non-heterosexual way of life should not be hidden, but embraced like the public figures represented. In this way found footage sends a message, not of plagiarism or manipulation, but of stimulating thought and conversation.

Well,I say, "buyer beware" to Monica Gudio.

I find it difficult to sympathize with Monica and what I find to be the real catch of the story is Judith Griggs's conduct. The one gem among the muck of her reply was, "you as a PROFESSIONAL should know." Professionals know the laws of their business and if Monica wanted compensation, she should have sent her work to a magazine instead of putting it online.

After all, though I even want to ask the question, who is really trying to take advantage of the situation? It seems like Ms. Griggs but to what end did Monica publish that blog? Was it not to advance that information to the general public? And is that not what Cooks Source did?

I don't agree with Ms. Griggs's conduct at all. Her declaration to be compensated is both appalling and arrogant, but she knows the law and it is on her side. Copyright can never be extended to the internet. The internet is too vast and it cannot be controlled. The amount of petty lawsuits that would emerge would be ridiculous and could effect the legitimate domain of literary works if some blogger should decide, "Hey, doesn't Stephen King's new monster sound a lot like that thing I blogged about two years ago?"

It is really difficult to extend copyright laws to something you may randomly post on a blog or public domain site. It sounds very suspect for the Cooks Source to just completely lift an article that was so clearly authored by Monica, but I was also wondering how hard they would've had to look to find a similar article. I don't really know what the content was, but I'm assuming it was not something so incredibly groundbreaking it could not have been found on another cooking blog.

I find myself agreeing with the above comment. Judith Griggs came across as smug and arrogant, as she knows the copyright laws will vindicate her. This issue is much more complicated in this context than with other things like found footage. With found footage projects, it is understood that we are manipulating things we found. Yes, our name goes on the final project, but the original film is credited to its maker.

This story reminds me a bit of Fair Game. Is it just for Griggs to ask for compensation? Personally, I think not. The article was obviously not hers, and although she took the liberty to edit it and even post it as Guido's, Griggs obviously has no conception of proper writing etiquette, let alone copyright laws. Obviously, Guido can be at fault for not thinking ahead to copyright her work. But, by the same token, if Grigg's claimed to have had such a knowledge of these laws, maybe she should have realized that she certainly is not entitled to any money. Though this story is frustrating, perhaps it will give people a better idea of the risks when posting online and of the crazy people who will try to manipulate you and your work.

While it is true that copyright infringement is much more frequent than anyone would hope it to be, that completely does not make it "okay". It happens a lot, but that doesn't mean this woman should take part in it and use that as justification for stealing another person's work. Are we supposed to decide that certain actions are allowed simply because lots of people do it? Isn't that what every child is taught NOT to do while growing up, is join in the crowd? The internet is a place that opens up an uncountable amount of convenient portals and passageways to valuable information and great references, but when people start using it as an excuse to break laws and steal other people's work, then that's when I would say we have reached a sad point. This woman actually sounds pathetic trying to justify herself by saying that Monica Gudio "should be happy" they "didn't lift her whole article and put someone else's name on it!" How is that good luck for Monica? Why should she be thankful for you not giving her work wrongful credit? This is simply an example of people taking advantage of what they have available to them and abusing it, and Cooks Source magazine is surely paying the price for their ignorant actions and statements. The internet can be a dangerous place, and some people don't know how to handle everything that is available to them.

Cooks Magazine was completely wrong in this place. Yes the article was posted on the website, but it was still Monica's intellectual property, it was wrong for the magazine to use it without her permission and then deny compensation. This is an issue I have never thought about before. What can and can not be used? What do I own on the internet? Do I own what I post on someone's facebook? If I have an intellectual discussion with someone on facebook or even here do I own it? Or is it really public property? Since the internet is still so new and so public the laws regarding freedom of speech and copyright on the internet are still in the works. There are so many different aspects about the internet than in books. The things that are said on the internet can mostly be retrieved by the public. Who is reading what i wrote? What are they doing with it? How can we be sure who's really saying what and do they mean it?

Obviously, the internet changes the whole game of copyright infriengment, and until the law catches up with it, issues like this arise. I find Judith's response to be extremely rude, but it also makes a good point. Art is very, very rarely ever completely made with original ideas; artists have been borrowing and improving, or adding on to another artist's ideas sine the dawn of time. The internet provides another outlet for this. I don't condone the behavior of this magazine (and actually think it should lose all credibility if it hasn't already) but I do think it is an interesting example of how the internet has changed our society and the idea of ownership.

The existence of the Internet does make everything anyone posts online readily available to everyone else, but that does not mean that it should be legal - or even morally right - to copy someone else's article (or recipe, in this case) and use it in their own publication 1) without permission and 2) without giving credit to the actual author. In this particular case, Judith Griggs is clearly in the wrong. It is never okay to take someone else's work without there permission and publish it, even if that work isn't copyrighted and is located online. It's just common sense.

I believe that copyright laws should be respected. The internet cannot be considered public domain if people like magazines are going to take what they find and publish it to make money off of it. Just because the magazine edited the article does not give them ownership of it. Everyone learns in school that credit has to be given where credit is due, the magazine must have know that what they were doing was wrong and to then respond to the rightful owner and say that they should compensate the magazine for the work they did revising it is wrong as well, when they were caught plagiarizing, as they should have expected to happen, they should not have answered so rudely. I hope that out of this story comes harsher copyright and plagiarism laws and I think that the magazine deserves the online attacks that they are receiving for stealing other people's material.

I believe that people need to ask themselves: is taking this moral? It may be legal to take something off the internet but is it moral to make it your own? I think that people need to take a minute to think about the repercussions of what they are doing. But it is hard to think about this sometimes, especially with all the photo and video sharing sites on the internet. Some examples of this may be flickr or photobucket. This is where people post their pictures to show and sometimes share them with other people. But if someone wants to take the picture, there is nothing stopping them. Its just two clicks away to take something from someone and make it your own.

The whole issue of copyright is really based on respect. I'm pretty sure Monica Guido would have loved her piece place in Cooks Magazine and wouldn't have asked for money if Cooks Source magazine asked for the permission to use the article. Money in this case seems to be the factor in who is right in the situation. After reading Judith Griggs comments, I have to say that Monica should be compensated. Griggs not just stole her article but went farther to put her down.

I do too believe with a lot of the other posts that state that laws will soon restrict what goes on the web. Whether or not, I like it doesn't matter. It's a process that we are all going to accept because of cases like this.

This issue is certainly becoming more widely known now that the Internet has exploded. I agreed with the above comments arguing whether it is ethical to take material from the Internet when it isn’t yours to take. However, the Internet is worldwide and available for anyone to access. It is an individual’s own responsibility to copyright his or her work. It is then the responsibility of anyone accessing the work to respect the copyright laws.

This discussion is thought provoking and carries substantial gravity with it. Nonetheless, there are clearly visible flaws in the arguments of both sides. It appears incontrovertible that Griggs has violated any number of conventional copyright laws and breached the borders of plagiarism. However, the digital age we live in calls for a thorough restructuring of commonplace conceptions regarding intellectual property. The post specifically refers to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 as a reference point. This raises a number of questions that will produce a variety of responses based on what population answers them. In any case, it is highly questionable that a piece of legislature passed more than a decade ago (that’s several eternities in technology years) can even serve as a valid foundation for verdicts to be made on subjects like this. The evolution of the Internet throughout the past five years has been unfathomably immense which calls into question whether or not an informed decision made in 1998 can still be relevant. The movement towards one unified social Internet community has changed the norms we thought we knew completely. With the rise of anonymity and the intangibility of constitutional rights, the Internet currently exists as somewhat of a legal no man’s land, federal and legal spheres are trying to catch up to an entity with a monumental head start. Maybe the Internet should prevail as an untouchable platform for information exchange. Maybe the government should revise the Digital Millennium Act of 1998 at the expense of its catchy title in order to accommodate the innovations of the past few years.

We will always see plagerism throughout life. People should be ashamed of using such strategies to do work. It is immoral for college kids to cheat on exams and recently said on the news, a student quotes that everyone does it eventully and it is not a big deal. I still dispise my fellow peers and their behaviors. It is even more immoral that a company would do such a thing.

Piracy on the internet is a huge deal in our generation. Torrents online provide kids the opportunity to get their favorite albums and movies for free. Nearly all of my friends pirate movies and songs online which doesn't really surprise me, because it is appealing after all. Free Stuff! This by no means makes it moral which is why I stay away. Going into a media profession I know I might be creating materials to be pirated someday so I fight the appeal and remain a non-pirate

I think it's slightly ridiculous of the Judith Griggs to have such a condescending tone in the response. If it's Monica story about apple pie then it deserves to be credited and the fact that it was taken without permission makes it even more of a crime. If I wrote a short story or posted a short film on the internet and someone stole it, I would be equally as pissed as Monica is at the fact that she deserves to be compensated. Hopefully this kind of behavior doesn't continue on.

During a Film A & A discussion (after watching Crossing the Bridge, a movie about what it means to make music in present-day Turkey) we talked about A. H. Rahman and perspectives on copyright outside of the West. In creating mash-ups and remixes Rahman is truly a postmodern artist (he recognizes new ideas as myth). He wouldn't be as prolific if he lived in the United States, however.

JP Keenan has a point--Griggs is snarky and childish. We don't know what Guido wrote, however. Griggs' arrogance gives artists like Rahman a bad name--writers, filmmakers, and musicians have to let go of notions of ownership, but publishers and remixers must approach these ideas (in the form of articles, songs, or videos) from a place of respect.

I feel that copyright, like many of the things are government puts into place has good intentions but bad results. Copyright is meant to allow one to protect their work, which is a good thing. It's just not fair to have our work taken by someone else with more resources to claims as their own and make millions off of it. When it comes to an artist to artist relationship, copyright just gets in the way. It prevents communication and sharing of artwork, both printed and digital such as music or film. While copyright has good intentions it hurts more than it helps.

Obviously this is a case of a person (or, rather, group of people) who doesn't know what they are talking about. The Internet, while containing information which is Public Domain, is not all free for the copying and reselling.

In America, all published works, digital, print or otherwise is protected under copyright law, unless otherwise specified — that is, declared Public Domain. This Griggs woman obviously DOESN'T know copyright law, or else she would have understood this basic pillar of its practice. Again, it is, simply put, idiots being idiotic.

This is ridiculous. Even if it is not legally wrong for Griggs to steal someone's work it is definitely ethically wrong. When people think it is acceptable to take credit for something that is not theirs, not only can it be a violation of the other person's ideas and work, but it discourages creative, individualistic thought. In college, students can get expelled for plagiarizing work. It is a big deal. If famous directors like John Renoir, Alfred Hitchcock, and Fatik Akin took other people's work and tried to pass it off as their own they would be publicly denounced in the film world. Their work would no longer credible. No matter what profession an individual works in it is a violation to yourself and the people around you to try to pass off someone else's work as your own. It destroys your credibility.

The existence of the internet blurs the lines of copyright. As it becomes easier to steal other people's work it becomes easier for people to say "why not?". This is not only an issue with the written word, it is a big issue with sheet music, music, and videos. There are a million and one websites where one can easily download music, sheet music, and videos for free. So easy that people no longer think about the morality of it. However, when one consider's the artist, the creator of the work, when one puts oneself in the place of the artist, the tables turn. One would be enraged if someone stole their creative work, and yet they do not think twice before downloading something. Unless something drastic is done I can only see this problem getting worse with time.

Although it is in some ways a compliment that Griggs took the recipe (meaning that it was a good recipe and worthy of being printed) she could have handled herself with more dignity when dealing with Gudio. While yes it is legal that Griggs took the recipe she could have responded to Gudio letter with more understanding and generosity, and didn't have to bring the all the rest of the issues or spelling and grammar into the mix. Gudio did put she recipe online to let people have it, maybe not understanding what some people will do. The least Griggs could have done was reference Guido in the magazine, and for that she was wrong.

The idea of ownership is changing. Despite this fact, taking someone's work without their permission and publishing for your own profit is disgraceful. The conduct that Griggs had in her note to Monica was extremely unprofessional, the claim that Monica should pay her is disrespectful. In this entire message there is not one apology or request for the rights to the article. Cooks Source deserves all of the criticism it is receiving, if not just for the "lifting" of the blog, but also for Griggs lack of kindness.

It is not only disappointing but also shocking to see a response like the one Ms. Griggs gave Monica Gudio. Copyright it is a very important issue in the US, i must say. Now i can understand why. When I came to the US for college a few months ago, i found it very intriguing the fact that plagiarism was a major topic in all my classes.The main issue here is that Gudio may or may not have the power to fight for the rights of her article against a powerful and, as Griggs mentioned, WEALTHY! magazine. I wonder what is the ending of this case and what is the lesson we can learn from this episode.

I often wonder, if people truly consider all content on the internet to be "public domain," why then is plagiarizing still a punishable offense on college campuses? Most students do research for their essays over the internet. So, if the information on the web is owned by everyone, why then are students still required to cite sources? According to Griggs, lifting of what someone else has written on the internet should be permissible. You shouldn't even have to credit them; you could copy something word for word and call it your own work. If Griggs' line of thinking is acceptable in our society today, why isn't it excusable in schools? She is the editor of a profiting printed magazine. What's the difference in plagiarizing for monetary profit vs. plagiarizing for a good grade? If the world really works in this "take what you want" way, then no one's written work is their own property, it belongs to everyone.

The note that Monica Guido received from Judith Gibbs actually shocked me. Guido didn't ask for her article to be published; she certainly didn't ask for it to be re-written or for the snippy commentary she received from Gibbs. I think that the internet needs to be revamped in order to accommodate situations like Guido's; there has to be some sort of way to protect freelance work from similar magazine editors.

It's true that this Judith Gibbs is a pretty rude woman. There's no doubt about that. I mean, who wouldn't be pissed if someone just ripped off something you created and then sent you off with a snide remark? But in all honestly, Monica Guido should have been a little more prepared for something like that. Once you post anything on the internet that you haven't lawfully copyrighted, anyone can just take it and say they made it. Especially if it's a cookbook recipe. I do feel bad for her though, especially because of that incredibly rude remark from Gibbs. It's almost like she's trying to rub it in Guido's face.

I agree with others that Ms. Griggs' response was 'shocking' and wildly inappropriate at a professional level. It is true, most of the internet does not have user created content use protection; however, I think the morality of using someone else's work should prevail over what any protections or laws say one should do. Owners of online content should at least be contacted with use of their work when it is copied to another location and those who copy it should have a common courtesy right to refuse to have their work shown through someone else's medium.

I think the notion that anything posted to the Internet is public domain is absolutely ridiculous. Essays, images, movies, and music on the web are still the intellectual property of the person who created them. They are just shared for free. However, if anybody else uses this property for personal gain, that is stealing. I am allowed to watch Youtube videos containing songs by professional artists. But if I use that song in a film and make a profit with someone else's property, that is theft.

There are items on the Internet that are intended for public usage, such as stock pictures or footage. Films made up of archival footage are not stealing anything because the filmmakers received permission to use this found footage in their own projects. If someone used part of a movie that was not intended for use in someone else's work, that would be against the law. I do not know how this= story turned out, but I hope that Ms. Griggs gets into trouble with the law for this sort of thievery.

I agree with Samantha. There are plenty of things on the internet that are not public domain and many things that should not be considered public domain. For instance, downloading music from the internet is illegal and punished heavily. I think all things should be that way. It is no different then publishing in a book or other written source, it just happens to be accessible anywhere. That does not make it anyone's work though.

Although I think what Judith Griggs said about copyright is true, I still do not believe that it is right. I can't imagine that she stole someone else's article in good conscious. I think that the internet is changing the way copyrighting works, and maybe the laws should be altered. If this article was on a personal site, with Monica's name, then it is hers. Its a little infuriating that this alone doesn't protect her. Its even more infuriating that she had her work stolen by a corporation that not doubt had the means to fill this spot in their magazine. This is a lot like the posting before about "fair game"
. I think its wrong that those who use the internet are not protected under law. However, I still believe that the benefits of having an open internet space far outweigh the negatives. Although this woman's rights were violated, she was able to get her message out there and was able to be connected with a company that she might not have had the opportunity to. Although, it goes without saying this could have been handled much better.

I do not think that what Judith Griggs did was ethically sound in anyway. That said, Monica should have realized that her work would be unprotected legally when she posted the article. Ms. Griggs should have realized that lifting an article off the internet to put in a magazine is probably not a good idea. She really should have thought about her response to Monica's request, at least wording it in a more PR friendly way.

The web has created this space where, with the right technology, articles, videos, and photos can be lifted, copied, altered, and reused without the creator knowing. I'm not sure if copyright is the only issue here, but the technology we use to share ideas. I don't think Griggs was 100% correct in her reasons for using the article, but I do think that if it were for an educational purpose and she edited the piece more than just for grammar, she would have had a stronger argument. Fair Use is a very grey area and the constantly pushing the boundaries with the growing use of the internet.

I understand the controversy regarding copyright laws and the protection of associated content found via the internet. The laws prohibit plagiarism of articles found on the web, therefore, just because someone's work is more easily accessible online does not mean it should be considered "fair-game" to use as one's own. I agree that because of all of the advances in technology new ground rules need to be set up to protect artists who choose to use the internet to express themselves so their work does not get copied illegally.

Copyright issue has been raised for a long time, and it is uncontrollable. As the editor mentioned, "the internet is considered as public domain" ; massive amount of information is available for public's reference. Therefore, it usually cannot be discovered even though someone violate copyright law to copy other people's materials on the internet. In this case, since Cooks Source is such a well-known magazine, copyright issue were raised to public's justice. I watched a TV show about plagiarism in China. A principal from a school copied his student's work and published it as his article. However, nothing was done to the principal even though the student tried to sue him.
Therefore, I really hate people when they download the movie illegally. it is filmmaker's effort! If everyone can watch movie free, budget for a film production will shrink, lowering the quality of production. At the end, it is the audience who suffer apart from filmmakers. Therefore, why do you still do that?

Copyright infringement on the internet is a touchy issue because there is no clear-cut set of rules for what is and is not fair game to copy, repost, edit, or in many unfortunate cases, steal. Many people cite the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998 as a reference for how to go about using others' material online, but the fact of the matter is that the DMCA was created when the internet was still an emerging medium, and the creators of the act did not yet grasp what the internet would evolve into and the importance that it would have on today's society.

The net neutrality movement is an opportunity for us to evaluate how people's work can and should be safeguarded on the internet. If the government wants every citizen to have equal access to the internet, they will undoubtedly look for ways to regulate online content and the DMCA will eventually be amended. Hopefully then there will be a more definitive set of rules on how to properly cite or compensate other people's work.

I recently took a course in food writing and know that recipes are something that can be difficult to copyright as it is. After all, how can any one person claim the rights to apples, sugar, and flour? However, lifting a whole article and calling it your own is a more obvious copyright issue. I looked up the original article online and found that it wasn't published on a website that would be considered legally protected, so, yes, I guess it is "public domain." In this case I think that what Judith Griggs did was more of a moral issue than a copyright issue since it doesn't appear the original article was legally protected. I don't think Gaudio should have been compensated, but a request for her permission to publish the article might have been a nice thought on Griggs' part.

As an amateur musician this article greatly concerned me, and made me question some of my past actions. The current precedent for music is that musicians self publish their music for free and from there monetize it. While I have no desire to monetize I would be certainly be very angry if all the sudden I heard one of my songs used without my permission. Especially because there is simply a wealth of media on the internet. People post their art, recipes and thoughts not for money but simply because they have ideas that want others to know. To think that someone can just take someone else's work in order to make money is a very scary thought, it is as if they are treating the internet as a bank of ideas to capitalize on. This does bring to mind the Hot Topic Rageguy controversy seen here http://www.urlesque.com/2010/09/03/hot-topic-ruins-rageguy/

The internet is creating so many new avenues for expression of the arts. This can be both good and bad in several ways. While it is easier for individuals to become known for their talents, it is also easier for people to steal their work. This is a problem that requires much attention, thought, and action by not just the victims of the theft, but also by common citizen whose role is more important since the growth of the internet. Many people have made very insightful comments about the issue, which is a start to solving such a problem because it shows that there are people out there that are concerned.

The internet is a public space and it is understandable that content is so often taken and re-used by other people. As far as I am concerned, as long as the individual who is using someone else's creative content sites where it is coming from, and upholds the wishes of the original creator, then so be it. And besides, trying to crack down on this sort of thing would be impossible considering the vastness of the online community. So much of this kind of stuff is happening all the time.. it's almost a waste of energy to try and seek out another solution. Maybe there is a better way... but I dont know of it.

I find this issue fascinating.
1) Mrs. Griggs' audacity in stealing, reprinting (for profit), and jokingly asking for compensation.
2) While the Cook's Source theft was ethically wrong, I would like to imagine a time in the future when all media products are open-source - open for free access to us all.

If I got any message from anyone saying that, I'd be furious...the entire response from the editor was so disrespectful, I have a hard time believing we're looking at a professional situation.

First reactions aside, this issue seems ego-driven and not too hard to solve. Obviously there needs to be a precendent set for future cases of "lifting" material, but I know there'd be some serious reprecussions if I were to edit and improve a piece I found online without giving proper credit for said findings...

If I spent time researching and writing an article, I'd expect professional courtesy to be afforded when my article was used. Most publications have editors appointed to editing the final copy of all pieces before approving them for print, so the editors in Cook Magazine already did receive their compensation, in the form of a salary.

Overall, the magazine's argument seems weak. If we're not allowed to turn in someone else's essay in school, and if downloading movies, music and images is illegal, even prestigious media establishments like Cook mag should be held accountable for unethical use of materials, even when retrieved online.

Whats most important is where an individual can find and utilize actual proof that they wrote something. Is an email a way of proving that you owned something before someone else?

Because the internet is this vast "wild west" of the digital world, it seems as though this problem of borrowing others' intellectual ideas and musings has become rampant lately. Being that the internet is still (for the most part) a widely unregulated space, there is bound to be some controversy regarding copying, plagiarism, and other intellectual borrowing/stealing. It almost seems impossible at this stage to try and control what goes on in the world of the internet. It is so vast and large a world, how could it be possible to harness all of the activity that goes on and try to bring some semblance of order to the chaos?

I agree with what Claire has said about the difficulty in regulating and auditing what goes on with copyright on the internet. With new technology has come more and more access to information and intellectual material. But if there is access then how can we expect others not to use it? I'm not saying that other people should try and pass off other's work as their own but it is a sort of Catch-22 when you put something on the internet. You want it out there, but know that others may use it for themselves. The internet and "digital world" has become so large that it does seem impossible to regulate. I don't know what the answer is but it is a fascinating subject.

In these days of expansive and all-encompassing technology, copyrighted material is so easily transferred and copied without consequence. Because of this, the idea of copyright infringement has been loosened. It is so easy to go online and copy an entire article with just a few mouse clicks. I think we are advancing towards a time when the internet is a public domain, free from copyrights because it is such an open forum. The internet is the last frontier of digital communication and has yet to be tamed.



« Previous

You can follow posts to this blog using the RSS 2.0 feed .

You can see all of the tags in this blog in the tag cloud.

This blog is powered by the Ithaca College Web Profile Manager.

Archives

more...