Cook's Source Apology

It seems that Cook's Source has finally realized they just might have erred. Their apology, here, is, however, not quite as satisfying as one might wish.

Last month an article, “American as Apple Pie -- Isn’t,” was placed in error in Cooks Source, without the approval of the writer, Monica Gaudio. We sincerely wish to apologize to her for this error, it was an oversight of a small, overworked staff. We have made a donation at her request, to her chosen institution, the Columbia School of Journalism. In addition, a donation to the Western New England Food Bank, is being made in her name. It should be noted that Monica was given a clear credit for using her article within the publication, and has been paid in the way that she has requested to be paid.

Well it's all well and good that Ms. Gaudio's payment was donated, but I'm not quite buying the "error...oversight...overworked staff..." etc bullshit. An overworked staff might have put the recipe in the magazine, yes. An overworked staff, however, did not accidentally send an email so arrogant as to claim that the internet was public domain and that Ms. Gaudio was lucky to not be charged for having her work stolen.

Besides which, I'm finding their appeals to Intellectual Property Infringement with regards to the facebook vitriol being hurled at them HILARIOUS.

The entire statement is written with a we're all victims sentiment, but that's not true at all. Cook's Source is not a victim, and if they were slammed for their actions it's no more than they deserved. The absurdity of their pity-pleading mindset is driven home by the conclusion of their statement, which begins with two paragraphs of how Cook's Source will reform itself:

-we now request that all the articles and informational pieces will have been made with written consent of the writers, the book publishers and/or their agents or distributors, chefs and business owners.

-Therefore, we will no longer accept unrequested articles, nor will we work with writers or illustrators unless they can prove they are reputable people, provide their sources, and who, in our estimation, we feel our readers and advertisers can trust and rely on for accuracy and originality.

-All sources will be listed with the articles, along with the permission, where necessary.

and so forth. But, uh, wait a minute. Aren't those all the bare minimum of the expectations here? There's nothing incredible in that list, just the steps that any magazine could have been expected to be performing from the word go. Yet Ms. Griggs doesn't see it that way, it seems: To say this has hurt our business is an understatement. Yeah, not stealing people's work for your own benefit is a bitch. Forgive me if I don't cry with you, though.

Stealing's Okay if You're Online

It seems that, as long as you're publishing online, everything you do is perfectly liable to be used, improved, and abused by anyone who feels like it, at least according to editor Judith Griggs (Cook's Source magazine). After pilfering an electronically posted recipe, Griggs has the gall to go so far as to say the author's lucky to not be charged for the improvements made to her piece. Would it be ungracious to retort with something along the lines of: "I won't charge you for the paper my lawyer uses to print your court summons on?" Either way, the story's been taken up by Nick Mamatas, facebook at large, Dazed Rambling, Smart Bitches Trashy Books, Neil Gaiman, John Scalzi, and the Guardian, a host of other newspapers, and others.

Griggs did respond, saying:

Hi Folks!

Well, here I am with egg on my face! I did apologise to Monica via email, but aparently it wasnt enough for her. To all of you, thank you for your interest in Cooks Source and Again, to Monica, I am sorry — my bad!
You did find a way to get your "pound of flesh..." we used to have 110 "friends," we now have 1,870... wow!

...Best to all, Judith

Well, okay then, you said you were sorry. No harm done, right? Besides being condescending, rude, and outright thieving - from Monica and others - but whatever.

Night Shade Books Screws Over Author

Generally, large presses are viewed as corporate monsters, while the small guys are always, without a doubt, in it for their love of the genre. Well, situitions like this just got to show that just about everyone is in it for the bottom line, big and small.

Seamus Cooper, author of the hilariously titled Mall of Cthulhu, has been ripped off and deceived by Night Shade Books:

I was paid my advance for this book, but I have no confidence that I'll ever know if I'm owed more money. If I were to be owed money, I have no confidence that I'll ever be paid. Night Shade's business model appears to be disappearing for months at a time, offering elaborate apologies, and then disappearing again.

There seems to be little he can do, short of prohibitively expensive court battles, but that doesn't mean that the whole situation should just fade away. The Speculative Scotsman brought the issue to my attention on his blog, and I agree with him when he says that readers in general should email Night Shade at info[at]nightshadebooks[dot]com.

If you're one of Cooper's readers, or are interested, you can get some cheap-to-free fiction, as well as support an unjustly treated man, out of this whole thing. Cooper has made the kindle version of Mall of Cthulhu available directly through him, for only three dollars, and that's in addition to the free version here. If you've read Mall of Cthulhu, and are eager for more, Cooper is publishing the beginning of the sequel on his website, with a paypal option for those of you who are in a generous frame of mind.

Even if you've never heard of Cooper before, this is a good chance to both check his work out and support him with an email.