Okay -- I thought I was done.

[illadore]

Johnny pointed out to me today the newest update from Cooks Source and from what I've read, I am portrayed as a big meanie. I should, really...like 100x really... just ignore it and move on with my life as arguing with people over the internet -- lame -- and yet I can not seem to help myself

Comments

[mr_mxyzptlk13]

I'm really looking forward to seeing the fallout of when Paula Deen, NPR, et al. get around to really getting a hold of her.

It's clear she doesn't 'get it', in that the internet isn't a quaint little corner of the world. When the big guns get focused on her... well, like I say: looking forward to hearing about it.

In sadder news, I can't recall the last time I saw someone that much older than me act like such a victim.

In regards to this part:
For the record, I will happily post all the email exchanges between myself and Ms. Griggs if Ms. Griggs gives me permission.

What expectations legally are there for this? Why couldn't you 'publish' the back and forth?

[illadore]

Lawyer says this is not a good idea. Ms. Griggs' emails are copyrighted by her. (Or at least, that's what the advice I have been given is and what the research I have done also concludes. More or less. It is a grey area and I am not a lawyer.) I can post short comments from them as fair-use but out and out copying her emails would infringe on her copyright.

And it would be entirely hypocritical for me to infringe on Ms. Griggs' copyright after I've been pissed off about her infringing on my own.

[illadore]

That's true.

[ext_311719]

To: Monica Gaudio
From: The Internets
RE: Judith Griggs

Monica, please don't feel that you owe any further explanation. Many of us have seen the spreadsheet (created by a wonderful group of people on Facebook) that details all the stories Ms. Griggs has borrowed from other sources. When Paula Deen and the Food Network are discussing matters with lawyers, Judith's "Oh it was only once and I was tired!" crap falls flat.

We know she's full of it. She knows she's full of it. She's casting you as the bad guy to try and save face. It's not going to work, and I (and many others) will enjoy hearing about the lawsuits presented against her in the future.

Best,
Ysabiau

[illadore]

*grin*

Thank you. ;)

Paula Deen, Food Network, etc.

[ext_322495]

I keep hearing people say things like the above ("When Paula Deen and the Food Network are discussing matters with lawyers..."), and I have to admit I'm not convinced that Judith is facing a flood of lawsuits. For one thing, I doubt she has very deep pockets, and it looks like Cooks Source is going down the tubes.

I could see them all issuing cease-and-desists and demanding that the offending issues be pulled from circulation, along with any copyright-infringing articles on the Cooks Source web site (assuming it doesn't just disappear completely), but I don't see them suing her into oblivion.

Or am I missing something? Monica, do you have any insight?

Re: Paula Deen, Food Network, etc.

[thespian]

a lot of them will just let it drop, but The Mouse likes to make and example of people. Even if the suit is a dead loss on costs, they consider it very much worth their while to kick people until they stay down.

From cookssource.com

[histocrat]

"Bleary-eyed I didnt notice it was copy written"

...she still doesn't really understand copyright, does she? Is she under the impression that if you hadn't put that © at the bottom, it wouldn't have been under copyright?

Re: From cookssource.com

[mokie]

She's lying and backpedaling; I believe the previous version of this claim was that a trusted writer submitted it and she didn't check it out because she was in a hurry, and honest, she'll never take stuff from that guy again.

She ignored the copyright notice, as she ignored the notice on the many other pages she copied, because she was under the assumption that copying things off of the Internet is no big deal and she could get away with it.

Re: From cookssource.com

[ebneter]

Also, it's not "copy written," it's "copyrighted."

Re: From cookssource.com

[ext_316248]

Copy written means someone sat down and wrote out an article. Copyright is the fact that that article belongs to the person who wrote it the second it is written and that copyright remains with the writer until they sell the rights to someone else. Jeez we know she can use Google, but can't seem to check any article on copyright even after firmly establishing herself as the most famous copyright violator in a long time. If 50,000 people bombarded me with messages, I had to disconnect my phone, reporters came knocking and my business folded I'd want to check out why everyone thinks I did something wrong.

I'm glad that it's all over

[florentinescot]

... but she still doesn't get it. When Disney, Martha Stewart, et al. get through with her, maybe she will.

This quote from their web page makes me cringe and laugh at the same time. "I was able to show him all the promo books and articles we receive, all the photos we take and the "clip art" that is free for everyone." -- no, honey. Promo books and articles are not free for everyone. And sometimes clip art comes with fees and restrictions!

*sheesh*

Re: I'm glad that it's all over

[thespian]

also while people were looking for the writing, I started in on the photos, because it was more challenging and I'm a geek. I found pictures from Real Simple (that was actually the trigger pic; the wine poached pear pic was so beautiful and striking that I had bookmarked the article, and knew the pic as soon as I saw it in Cooks Source), Hallmark Magazine and Everyday Food. Then I went on and found several copyrighted pictures from professional pumpkin carvers who patently did not give permission.

So if she showed the journalist such things, and he believed her....ugh.

Re: I'm glad that it's all over

[florentinescot]

nods. I don't think that she said he actually believed her -- she just said that she showed him the stuff. If he's a GOOD journalist, he's looked at the FB page ... just to see, and then he should know. I have to admit, I'd like to see the piece that he writes!

But yeah, I'm a photographer too -- she infuriates me!

Re: I'm glad that it's all over

[doire]

I'd like to see the piece that he writes!

Judith speaks out to the press.

“I feel so bad for anybody now who has bad publicity because people can be so horrible,” Griggs, 59, said in her first interview about the matter.”

That can't possibly be a real apology

[anonymous]

She spelled the first word wrong. Literally, it took all of one word for this person to showcase zero writing or editorial skills. "Its sad really." It's = it is.

No well-schooled adult, not to mention someone who is an editor, could possibly make that many mistakes. This person botched plural words, punctuation, tense, verb structure, etc. And the continued typically non-American spelling of "apologising" sure makes it seem like this is just someone having fun with all of us. Am I crazy? Or is she just that awful? Is there any chance this is just some hacker/joker who wants to feed the fire? I enjoy drama and would like this to actually have been written by Judith, but it seems just too improbable.

Re: That can't possibly be a real apology

[ext_311719]

Judith's message to Monica (But honestly Monica!) was written in a similarly horrible fashion. I'm convinced that Judith has never undertaken any sort of study that would qualify her to be an editor. I think it's safe to say the only reason she can claim to be an editor is that she created the magazine and appointed herself to that position.