Cooks Source 'Apology' Really A Rant Blaming The Woman It Copied For Daring To Tell People
from the not-very-convincing dept
It appears that Judith Griggs, the editor of Cooks Source magazine doesn't quite understand when to stop digging. As you probably already know, Griggs was the editor who simply copied a bunch of online stories into her magazine, and when confronted about it, not only declared all of the web as the public domain but told the complaining woman, Monica Gaudio, that she should have paid Griggs for all the hard editing work she had done. Over the weekend, we saw that Griggs had given an interview where she said she was likely to shut down the magazine, but still seemed to be playing the victim.She's now posted a "final goodbye" message on the Cooks Source website, which is incredibly passive aggressive against Monica. It goes back and forth between apologizing to Monica and blaming her for Cooks Source shutting down. It suggests that Griggs still has not come to terms with what happened here. Not that I'm one to complain, as I make this mistake frequently, but the entire letter starts off with a grammatical error, using "its" instead of "it's." I know that happens, but for someone who claimed she was such a good editor, you would think she'd be a bit careful about that stuff. Anyway, here are some snippets from the letter:
Its sad really. The problem is that I have been so overworked and stretched that when this woman -- Monica -- contacted me, I was on deadline and traveling at the rate of 200 mile a day for that week (over 900 in total for that week), which I actually told her, along with a few other "nice" things, which she hasnt written about.Note the use of the rather pejorative phrase "this woman." And, again, note that rather than kick off with an apology, the letter kicks off with Griggs playing victim and giving excuses, while also complaining that Monica somehow hid part of the story. It doesn't matter what nice things Griggs told her. The issue was her actual response to the situation.
I was stupid to even answer her that night, her email to me was antagonistic and just plain rude and I was exhausted. But I got suckered in and responded. She doesnt say that she was rude, she doesnt say that I agreed (and did) to pay her. It was my plan to contact her after deadline and have a good discussion about it.Still no apology. Still blaming Monica.
The complicating issue was that one of the businesses we worked with had closed without notice, just a sign on the door -- leaving several people, including a chef who had relocated to this area from Florida -- out of work. I do not offer this as an excuse, but that, when she wanted money for Columbia University, it seemed ironic because there were all these people in this small town going into the holidays with no jobs, and no, well, nothing.If you're not offering it as an excuse, then why are you offering it as an excuse? Also, I don't think that's what irony means. There's then another paragraph where she complains that Monica called her late at night while she was in bed, and she didn't have a chance to call back because she had to go off the next morning to deliver the magazines. That may be true, but the next paragraph is the real kicker:
I really wish she had given me a chance to respond to her before blasting me. She really never gave me a chance.I'm sorry, but that seems sort of rich, doesn't it? Considering it was Judith Griggs who never gave Monica Gaudio "the chance" concerning asking permission to republish her work, and when confronted on it, never gave her the "chance" to get paid or even get an apology. And accurately describing what happened in their exchange is not "blasting" Griggs. It's telling the world what happened. Griggs goes on to play the victim some more (so many angry emails! so many upset advertisers!) before again lashing into Monica:
If my apology to Monica seemed shallow it was because I was angry about the harm she has inflicted on others on behalf of her own agenda.Her own agenda? And what might that have been? To stop getting Griggs to position her magazine as if she had the approval of writers whose work she just copied? It certainly wasn't to get money, since all she wanted was a donation to a journalism school.
Anyway, finally, finally, finally, six paragraphs down -- with much of those paragraphs spent bashing Monica -- do we get an "apology":
So let me say this now: Monica I am so sorry for any harm I caused you. I never ment to hurt anyone, and I think I did a nice job for you, but the fact remains that I took this without asking you and that was so very wrong. Please find it in you heart to forgive me. I sent the check to the University and also, because so many people really need help, serious help, I am sending one to Food bank of Western Massachusetts (sorry, I got the name wrong the first time, even tho we did write an article on them).Even in the apology she has to suggest Monica was wrong, because "I did a nice job for you." Then Griggs goes right back to excuses, explaining how she regularly has authors who want to be included for free, and how she helps them out of the kindness of her heart. She then explains how "this" happened:
But one night when working yet another 12 hour day late into the night, I was short one article... Instead of picking up one of the multitude of books sent to me and typing it, I got lazy and went to the www and "found" something. Bleary-eyed I didnt notice it was copy written and reordered some of it. I did keep the author's name on it rather than outright "stealing" it, and it was my intention to contact the author, but I simply forgot, between proofreading, deliveries, exhaustion.You would think that someone who has already been told she doesn't understand the basics of copyright law on the web would have taken some time in the interim to learn the basics. You don't "notice" if something has a copyright on it. While that actually would be a better system, by now you should know that content, once published, automatically gets a copyright under US law.
She goes on to explain how this is almost certainly the end for Cooks Source, but that if she did go on, she'd hire a real editor. Then she concludes with one more attack on Monica:
Thank you to all our readers, thanks to all our advertisers and writers... and to everyone who has been supportive and who has been a part of Cooks Source. To one writer in particular, Monica Gaudio, I wish you had given me a chance.Again with the "giving a chance" bit. It's kind of difficult to take Judith seriously when she didn't give Monica much of a chance.
Monica, for her part, has done one final response, noting that she contacted Griggs five times before she posted her story -- which she considers a reasonable "chance." She also notes the snarky language that Griggs used in response to her requests.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: apologies, copying, judith griggs, monica gaudio
Companies: cooks source
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A chance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A chance?
jesus, how does an idiot like this get to be an editor of anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A chance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Victim?
Judith Griggs, a victim? In the immortal words of John Pinette "I say Nay, Nay."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And, shit, Ray Lewis KILLED a guy....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
(I say this not to correct, but to share! I only recently learned it myself)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
karma's a biatch
she may as well have said "please blame the person who called me out for the downfall of a magazine" because it's going to point pretty clearly at Griggs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: karma's a biatch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judith Griggs is "sorry I got caught".
There's a big, big difference. Until she learns it and stops acting like a petulant child who didn't get her way - and thanks her lucky stars she and the rest of the Cooks Source staff aren't embroiled in a few copyright infringement lawsuits - Judith Griggs will simply keep trying to play the victim to no avail.
She should have known better. She should have been a better editor. Now she's got this hanging over her head like the Sword of Damocles, and she's going to blame everyone else for that while ignoring the fact that she's the one that stole content, showed a complete misunderstanding of copyright law, and acted like an entitled brat.
This situation is one of her own design. She can whine all she wants about it, but in the end, she has nobody to blame for this failure but herself.
In the words of Jigsaw: "Game over."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
She got caught and is not sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know, I know! It's terrible to be a grammar Nazi, but I just couldn't help it.
Sorry, for real. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who needs the Justice League...
I am glad she is shutting her doors since she absolutely refuses to man up and take full responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
really talented journalist
Someone please do her the favor of editing this and posting it on their own website, without permission of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meh.
Now, there's a point where 'recipe' ends and 'narrative expansion' begins. Judith obviously crossed that, and violated copyright laws in doing so.
And if you bore down to what was "taken" and what benefit anyone recieved, Monica seems to have done rather well.
Color me jaded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meh.
Judith Griggs wants to play the victim when she isn't one (the Internet backlash notwithstanding).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meh.
How jaded would you be if you created a recipe, published it on the web, then I took it, republished it on my website, didn't credit you, and then when you protested I told you to eff-off? Pretty darn jaded I bet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Meh.
How jaded would you be if you created a recipe, published it on the web, then I took it, republished it on my website, didn't credit you, and then when you protested I told you to eff-off? Pretty darn jaded I bet.
;-p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Meh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Meh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meh.
Instead of focussing on Griggs' bad writing and attitude, we might point out that this fairly innocent act of infringement shut down a magazine. Copyright destroys progress in the useful arts, it does not ensure it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sociopath...
As for her letters the only two I've read that appear to be confirmed as from her come across as condescending, all the while trying to play the victim, quite poorly I might add. She really comes across in her letters as some kind of sociopath that not only blames everyone else for her own ignorance, but is unable to see the point of this whole internet kerfuffle. Which just makes the rabid internet following this story froth at the mouth from the guile this woman has...
Wait just a tick.... Oh My God, I get it finally... she's possibly one of the best internet trolls I've ever come across. Well folks, lets give a big round of applause for this weeks hall of fame internet troll Judith Griggs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forced excuses are worse than lame ones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boo-freaking-who.
God if she thinks writing a magazine about chefs is hard, then "Hey love, try being one for a few years!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember this about persistently clueless people.
Persistently clueless people have the additional burden of being clueless about their cluelessness. La Griggs clearly falls into the latter category. And she appears to have made it so of her own free will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Remember this about persistently clueless people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judith on "It's Me or the Dog?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"FIN" indeed
I'd be very in favor of the entire internet population going even further in vilifying you and roasting you up big-time...
...if I wasn't even more in favor of you just drying up and blowing away. Forever.
You are too old for this new media business, and too selfish and conceited to just admit when you are wrong. That's just one of the benefits of the Internet; it has a way of exposing the truly slow and ignorant, and boy did it expose you.
I hope you learn from this. I actually doubt you will, but I hope so. Just for shits and giggles, here's what you should have done:
When Monica contacted you, and you were in effect totally busted, you should have written back:
"Dear Monica,
I must admit a complete lack of respect for your work and copyright. If I could offer an explanation, it would be that I was terribly overworked that week, and at deadline I made a poor decision to take a shortcut in order to get the issue out the door. I know this is not an excuse for what I did, but I'm asking you to give small consideration to this and forgive my actions.
I very much enjoyed your article; your writing is thoughtful and easy to read and I thought it would be a very nice piece to have in our issue. Again, taking it without your permission was wrong, but I would like to speak with you about using some of your work in the future with proper notice, attribution and payment.
I want to thank you for your kind offer to clear this issue up. I am glad to not only apologize to you but also to our readers for using your piece without permission. That is the least I can do.
I am also impressed by your selfless decision to donate the payment you rightly deserve to an organization that helps writers. I will gladly make the donation in your name, and I thank you for your generosity.
I hope this draws to a close our unfortunate first meeting, and that you are satisfied with my response. I do look forward to working with you in the future, and I wish you the best in the continuance of your writing career.
Sincerely and with Kind Regard,
Judith Griggs
CooksSource.com"
- I'm telling you Judith: If you had simply done that, none of us would have ever known who you were.
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "FIN" indeed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A substitute for the "two minutes hate" in Orwell's "1984".
My other thought, not entirely contradictory, is that Griggs is probably just taking opportunity of the tax advantages of closing the business. Same will emerge soon with a different name and website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A substitute for the "two minutes hate" in Orwell's "1984".
And you might want to score some better acid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A substitute for the "two minutes hate" in Orwell's "1984".
Out, high priority doesn't mean only priority.
It's okay for women to fight for equal pay in America instead of, or along with, fighting for the right to work in other countries.
It's okay for students to fight for their free speech rights instead of, or along with, fighting for the right to an education in other countries.
And it's okay for people to focus on this instead of, or along with, the terrible excesses of our national security programs.
Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She's sorry allright....
From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sorry
sor�ry (sr, s�r)
adj. sor�ri�er, sor�ri�est
1. Feeling or expressing sympathy, pity, or regret: I'm sorry I'm late.
2. Worthless or inferior; paltry: a sorry excuse.
3. Causing sorrow, grief, or misfortune; grievous: a sorry development.
One is inclined to think Ms. Griggs falls under definition 2 for sure and possibly even definition 3. But most certainly not definition 1!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is only one instance in a long list
The best article I've read so far was by Edward Champion
http://www.edrants.com/the-cooks-source-scandal-how-a-magazine-profits-on-theft/
I hope Ms. Griggs has a backup vocation. Here I thought they just 'reprinted' an article or two and she got called on the carpet. From the above article, they've 'borrowed' images, articles, and basically the bulk of their content. Granted that they had 'some' permissions but wow.
Maybe the RIAA is looking for an editor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Emails now public
http://illadore.livejournal.com/32999.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ms. Griggs' Misdemeanors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ms. Griggs' Misdemeanors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ms. Griggs' Misdemeanors
...and to think that the mob mentality began when a single individual threw a hissy-fit by taking a private matter and turning it into a public one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ms. Griggs' Misdemeanors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ms. Griggs' Misdemeanors
Interesting... especially considering just the other day you were praising us for "siding with copyright" in this case (even though we actually didn't).
I'm curious, though, considering that you always seem to support it when copyright holders "throw a hissy-fit by taking a private matter and turning it into a public one," if you would mind if I point back to this comment every time you do so in the future?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ms. Griggs' Misdemeanors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ms. Griggs' Misdemeanors
First, the "hissy-fitter" is the holder of a copyright on an article she apparently published in 2005, but never registered with the Copyright Office. Under the circumstances the option of seeking statutory damages is foreclosed.
Second, no one has presented any analysis of the supposedly infringing publication and the original article to determine if more than just elements not eligible for protection under copyright law have actually been misappropriated.
Third, the totality of the contents of all the communications that were exchanged have not been disclosed. I am always suspicious whenever this happens because it provides no means by which to determine if what has been disclosed accurately reflects the context in which communications were made.
The above should not be read as comprising the totality of my concerns. They are merely exemplary. However, even just the few items noted above lead me, based upon my experience in matters such as this, to believe there is much more to the story than has been presented publicly by the copyright holder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ms. Griggs' Misdemeanors
I'm curious as to how you have decided she is throwing a "hissy fit." She published a rather calm explanation of what happened.
Second, no one has presented any analysis of the supposedly infringing publication and the original article to determine if more than just elements not eligible for protection under copyright law have actually been misappropriated.
You can't be serious.
However, even just the few items noted above lead me, based upon my experience in matters such as this, to believe there is much more to the story than has been presented publicly by the copyright holder.
Again, you cannot be serious.
You are the guy who 100% of the time defends the copyright holders in the most asinine of situations. Yet this time, when we're supporting the copyright holder, you suggest that she's "throwing a hissy fit" and withholding details, even though (contrary to your claim) she has published all of her communications with Ms. Griggs.
Rest assured, I will remind you of your statements here the next time you blindly support your buddies in the copyright industry.
You are the same guy who insisted that no one should complain about ACTA when it was totally done in secret, because you were positive that whoever was involved was making sure it was a fine, fine document. You're a sick individual. You need help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ms. Griggs' Misdemeanors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ms. Griggs' Misdemeanors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ms. Griggs' Misdemeanors
Copyrights are not like trademarks or patents. Where trademarks and patents require regisration with their respective authorities to legally be recognized, copyright does not. Further, if no copyright is explicitly invoked, along with no license, then it defaults to a "use with permission" basis of usage.
Because Monica did not explicitly use a license such as creative commons or any sort of share-alike license on her work, Gibbs did NOT have permission and therefore was not authorized to reproduce the article. Period. It doesn't matter if Monica was throwing a "hissy-fit" or not. If anything Monica had legal justification to do just that.
To sum up, unless a work is explicitly licenced under "copyleft" such as the GPL (For software.) or creative commons (For any other kind of work.) you can't touch things like an article without permission. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reply to Anonymous Coward
After reading articles and comments on this and other sites, I now completely understand why "hearsay" is met with skepticism in a court of law.
...and to think that the mob mentality began when a single individual threw a hissy-fit by taking a private matter and turning it into a public one.
=======================================
My previous post wasn't based on hearsay, but on other people's investigations. Go to the website mentioned below for more information.
From Edward Champion's Reluctant Habits at http://www.edrants.com/the-cooks-source-scandal-how-a-magazine-profits-on-theft/
[QUOTE]But a Thursday investigation revealed that not only is Cooks Source in the practice of stealing articles and publishing material without permission, but the magazine often pilfers the images which accompany the content. Such was the case with two entries stolen from the website, Simply Recipes. In Cooks Source�s July 2010 issue, the Simply Recipes entry on tandoori chicken was taken wholesale from the website, with the photo merely flipped over in print. (On the same page, a sidebar item on garam masala recycles text from the Wikipedia entry.)[/QUOTE]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem really is how she handled the whole thing, first I do believe everyone have a right to recognition, but I wouldn't want a law for that, society can deal with that. Now when you come out as a jerk nobody is going to stand for you, have the lady just apologize and put credits on it I doubt this thing would escalate the way it did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copy written?
Dear Ms. Griggs, it's not copywrite, it's copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
List of "lifted" articles...
I'd check with her past employers as to her duties and what her separation status was..I think that would be fascinating.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AmTaIPHPnkSedGFhbHo1d1FIR2oxNWJLaDZLeXhEVEE &hl=en#gid=0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copywritten?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]