ow ow ow ow ow

[lederhosen]

Found via James Nicoll's LJ:

Monica Gaudio wrote an article on the history of apple pies. Some time later, she discovered that the piece had been republished wholesale by Cooks Source magazine, a commercial venture. She contacted the editor requesting a published apology and a $130 donation to Columbia School of Journalism...

"Yes Monica, I have been doing this for 3 decades, having been an editor at The Voice, Housitonic Home and Connecticut Woman Magazine. I do know about copyright laws. It was "my bad" indeed, and, as the magazine is put together in long sessions, tired eyes and minds somethings forget to do these things.
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! I never charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written pieces, and have many who write for me... ALWAYS for free!"

More comment here and here. Starting with "you ought to sue but lawyers are expensive", and moving through to "so, she also used content from Disney".

I recommend not looking in that direction without protective glasses.

Edit: For bonus points, the 'bad need of editing' seems to be because the author was quoting 14th-century sources in their original spelling.

Comments

[kutsuwamushi]

It really is entertaining to watch as the internet wipes the insufferable smug off her face.