UPDATE 7: The official Cooks Source webpage now features a rather confusing statement on the saga, apologising to Monica Gaudio and saying they have made the donation asked for. The page claims that their Facebook page was “cancelled” and “since hacked”. It’s not clear what they mean by these terms as the original Facebook page is still up and, clearly, could not be hacked if it had been “cancelled”. They may be referring to the duplicate Facebook page which also claims (falsely) the original was “hacked”. In addition the statement says they have “cancelled” their website – but as the statement is published on their website it may be that by “cancelled” they mean all previous content has been removed. This discussion thread picks out further inconsistencies and omissions.
UPDATE 5: The magazine’s Facebook page has now been updated with a message from editor Judith saying she “did apologise” but “apparently it wasn’t enough for her”, shown below:
UPDATE 2: Reddit users have been digging further into the magazine’s use of copyrighted content. They’ve also identified a planned sister magazine, whose Facebook page has also been the recipient of a few comments.
UPDATE 6: Edward Champion has chased down the copyright holders of both text and images found in Cooks Source which appear to have been used without permission.
UPDATE 4: A list of mainstream media reports on the story is also being maintained on the magazine’s Facebook page.
***ORIGINAL BLOG POST STARTS HERE***
For much of today people have been tweeting and blogging about the magazine editor with 30 years’ experience demonstrating a by now familiar misunderstanding of copyright law and the ‘public domain’.
To the writer whose material they used without permission she apparently responded that “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!”
What makes this of particular interest is how the affair has blown up not just across Twitter and Reddit but on the magazine’s own Facebook page, demonstrating how this sort of mistake can impact very directly on your own readers – and stockists and advertisers:
Meanwhile, others were suggesting investigating the magazine further:
It all adds up to a perfect lesson for magazine editors – not just in copyright, but in PR and community management.
UPDATE 1: It seems that users are going through the latest issue and suggesting where the content may have been taken from.
UPDATE 3 On a separate topics page on the Facebook page the details are being collated.
Online Journalism Blog 
I also found some photos swiped from a pro pumpkin carver’s site and told him about it.
http://is.gd/gIxpd
Thanks – the photos may prove to be a worse case of copyright infringement than the text.
The Facebook comments are going too far and degenerating into cyber bullying.
Cook’s magazine does not do advertisements. That’s why it’s slim and only published bimonthly (6 issues per year).
A more appropriate response is to widely disseminate the recipes in their magazine, but this is already done with abandon.
Oops, I confused Cook’s with Cook’s Illustrated. Sorry.
And everyone else is confusing Cook’s with Cook’s Source, apparently.
No, L.E.B, only you.
The screencapped facebook comments above are quite stupid. The magazine is free and given out in area businesses. Your mom does not “buy” it and neither do your “12 friends” in “the midwest”. This lady is digging her hole deep enough without you lying about “canceling your subscription”.
@Emily:
They make money from advertisements they publish in the magazine. If few people acquire the magazine, advertisers will stop paying for advertisement space (or they’ll pay less). So if people stop getting the magazine, the magazine will loose money.
It may be inaccurate to say people buy the magazine, but it’s true that less readers = less profit.
As for the lady digging her hole… I’m of the opinion she’ll have dug it deep enough once the magazine goes bankrupt. I’ll gladly help her until she gets there.
The mag in question is a tiny one or two-person operation. No doubt the woman in question will see her career ruined, but I doubt if the mag makes enough money to support her exclusively.
Yes it’s true that the mag makes money off advertisers. That doesn’t mean it makes any sense to claim that your “2 dozen friends” in the midwest are readers. It’s very silly actually. The circulation of this thing is 20,000 – that’s *nothing* in the publishing world. A friend of mine used to be one of 2 total staffers (1 editor, 1 ad salesperson) on a local magazine that had a 68,000 circulation, and it is not a magazine you’ve ever heard of, or every likely will.
Thanks – it is always difficult to tell how genuine the ‘my fellow readers’ messages are. The key thing here is that all of this is taking place on the magazine’s own ‘territory’ where its readers and advertisers will definitely see it.
Surely you don’t have to have ANY legal knowledge at all to know that it’s wrong to take someone else’s copy, from anywhere, print or web!
Can someone say NAPSTER. These businesses need to understand that intellectual property has value. Cooks Source should know that. Stop stealing music, movies and now blog material.
Hey Thanks a lot for the info!