HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >

Discussion

Cooks Source Magazine's insanity

http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.co...

I don't even have words for this one yet.

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. Much ado about nothing? By the way, everyone should be on the lookout for the publication of my new book, "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer." I'll be following it up with a sea-going tale "Moby Dick." This authoring thing is easier than I thought.

    1. Hoo, boy. Writing on the web is not "public domain," as alanbarnes explains here:

      http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/7442...

      I write for a website, and a couple of years ago a new editor decided to start re-posting some of my old stuff under her own name, perhaps thinking I wouldn't notice, or care. I noticed and cared, and she is no longer employed at the site. I have no idea whether that was the result of my shit fit, but I like to think it was at least a contributing factor.

      The Cook's Source website is down. I hope it stays down.

      1. Alexandra Petri, one of the WaPo opinion writers, had a little fun with it:

        http://voices.washingtonpost.com/comp...

        quite a response on the Cooks Source FB page as well:

        http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cooks-S...

        5 Replies
          1. re: trolley

            They get more and more hilarious. I almost, but not quite, feel bad for them.

          2. re: goodhealthgourmet

            The FB comments had me chuckling for part of the afternoon yesterday, which is why I've still got a stack of grading to finish today!

            1. re: goodhealthgourmet

              yeah, i needed to go to bed so i couldn't read them all last night. should be good for an afternoon chuckle break later :)

              1. re: goodhealthgourmet

                That washington post blog is the best yet.

              2. There have been recent discussions here on Chowhound about food bloggers that regularly lift content as well. I wonder whether any of this publicity will give them pause for concern.

                I read the following piece on copyright infringement with interest:

                http://howpublishingreallyworks.com/?...

                1 Reply
                1. re: Breadcrumbs

                  The reason that Cooks Source could be in real trouble is that it is an "ad-driven, newsstand-distributed, for-profit magazine," which means they are exploiting other people's work for commercial purposes. Some blogger lifts your content and although it's illegal and unethical, there are no concrete damages and the best you can do is get them to take it off their site, but this could bankrupt the magazine, not to mention that the editor has now shown herself to be a total idiot who if any prospective employer bothers to google her will never have a job in publishing (or maybe anything else) again.

                2. Another report and more instances of plagiarism by Cooks Source:
                  http://www.edrants.com/the-cooks-sour...

                  1. A FB page listing articles and sources as they turn up

                    http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid...

                    Including a mention of chow

                    1. The comments have taken on a life of their own and are pretty funny

                      1 Reply
                      1. re: damonster

                        The comments are way better and smarter than the magazine!

                      2. Apparently, the same editor has other magazines (about non-food subjects). I imagine they will now be getting the same close scrutiny, given that people are identifying dozens of lifted-verbatim apparent and confirmed copyright infringements, from both bloggers and mainstream magazines in Cooks Source alone.

                        4 Replies
                        1. re: Caitlin McGrath

                          It boggles the mind that an "editor" with several magazines is so completely clueless about copyright law. It's a by-product of the digital age where anyone can set herself up as a publisher without the slightest bit of training or oversight.

                          1. re: Ruth Lafler

                            i'm not so sure she's really that clueless about the law. my guess is that she knew exactly what she was doing, and is just stupid enough to believe she could get away with it.

                            1. re: Ruth Lafler

                              what's even more boggling is that she shows 0% remorse for what she's done. instead, she's condescending and looks down on everyone else. i think that's what really gets people and had she been apologetic, then it would probably have died as quickly as it surfaced. i think she likes the attention as well. clearly suffers from NPD. sad for bloggers that people like her exist.

                          2. https://spreadsheets.google.com/lv?ke......

                            Sweet benevolent Cthulhu. 136 (allegedly) lifted articles/recipes and counting.

                            1. Wow, the stuff on FB still hasn't stopped on ANY of their what, 3 pages now?

                              1. To the list of things Cooks (sic) Source does not understand how to do (honor copyrights, pay writers, practice damage control), we can now add - issue apologies. WTF is this?

                                http://www.cookssource.com/

                                It is not an apology. It *is* a festival of lame excuses employing terrible grammar, but I expected no less. My favorite part is the whining about their Facebook page being "hacked," which I believe the editor thinks is the term for "a lot of people posted negative comments on our wall." My second favorite part is the complaint about others using "Cooks Source issues and photos...without our knowledge or consent." Because yes! That is an awful thing to do. What sort of miserable, clueless, immoral organization would do such a thing? Oh, wait.

                                7 Replies
                                1. re: small h

                                  LOL! What a collection of self-serving half-truths.

                                  1. re: Ruth Lafler

                                    Here's a comment from the Facebook page that's devoted to documenting and reporting all the other stories whose copyrights they violated: Ashley Grubb writes "...
                                    We're up to, what, entry number 165 on that spreadsheet? That ain't the result of a "tired, overworked staff" making an "oversight." This is a veritable deluge of plagiarized writings and photos, and I'm wallowing in the Schadenfreude like a pig wallows in muck!"

                                  2. re: small h

                                    hacking? is she serious? terrible and lame!

                                    1. re: small h

                                      «We have cancelled our Facebook page on Thursday, November 4th, 2010 at 6:00PM.»

                                      And Judith Griggs has the temerity to call herself a copy editor? Four errors in the first sentence alone: (1) the present perfect ("have cancelled") instead of the simple past ("cancelled"); (2) an ordinal number (November 4th, 2010) in the date instead of a cardinal number (November 4, 2010); (3) the missing comma after the year; (4) the missing space between 6:00 and PM (not to mention that the latter is usually written "p.m.").

                                      The hacking allegation is ludicrous. They're digging themselves in deeper. If the magazine doesn't ax its current management team, it deserves to die.

                                      1. re: carswell

                                        Not that I'd ever defend this clearly reprehensible person for a minute, but it IS entirely possible (as said in the horribly-written "apology") that someone hacked into her Facebook account and started responding under that account, pretending to be the editor.

                                        Will refrain from repeating any instant karma-related comments about the hacking or severe backlash she rightfully received, though. :o)

                                        1. re: yfunk3

                                          Yes, it's possible to hack into a Facebook account. In this case, however, the hacking claim appears to be an outright lie. See, for example, http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid...

                                          1. re: carswell

                                            Oh, I haven't been reading the FB page, just a blog post here or there and this thread, so I didn't know she was lying even more. Whoops.

                                    2. Presented without comment. Because it would just be too easy.

                                      http://www.cookssource.com/

                                      8 Replies
                                        1. re: LauraGrace

                                          Is it possible that this is not truly the work of Ms. Griggs, but of an actual hacker? I would sort of like to think so. Only because I don't want my faith in humanity shaken any further. And my eyes hurt from rolling.

                                          1. re: small h

                                            Sounds like her (except the grammar is a bit better than some of her earlier posts). But she still -- STILL -- thinks that anything that's "free" is public domain. Just because someone sends you a book doesn't mean you can reprint more than a properly attributed "fair use" excerpt. And even if Monica hadn't specifically indicated that her article was copyrighted, it was still copyrighted! Poor Judith -- she has enough time to rewrite Monica's article, but not enough time to ask her permission.

                                            1. re: Ruth Lafler

                                              I hereby renege on my promise to present without comment. But I am simply astonished that one of Griggs' complaints is that Gaudio didn't give Griggs "a chance to respond." Doesn't Griggs' first snotty brush-off count as a response? If I get a snotty brush-off from someone, how long am I obligated to wait before concluding that hey, I've been snottily brushed off? Seriously, this could come up for me at some point. I'd like to know what the rules are.

                                            2. re: small h

                                              I would sort of like to think so too! But if not, hoooooo BOY, that is some bad writing.

                                              1. re: LauraGrace

                                                And this from a woman who wanted kudos for cleaning up someone else's (according to her) sub-par piece. Maybe she's possessed.

                                                1. re: LauraGrace

                                                  Think I'm gonna fix it up, post it on my site, and send her an invoice.

                                                  1. re: ratbuddy

                                                    She can then use it for her portfolio! You, sir or madam, are a giver.