1

A capture of the Cooks Source page on Facebook.

SUNDERLAND - Internet, thine ears are ringing.

An online firestorm involving a little-known publication in Sunderland and a blogger who says her work was used without permission has raged throughout the Internet in a fashion not seen since Al Gore claimed he invented it.

In its October issue, Cooks Source magazine, which is disseminated free to dozens of stores in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire while maintaining a vigorous online and Facebook presence, published a 2005 labor-of-love article by writer Monica Gaudio, which originally appeared in an online publication, "Gode Cookery." The article, "A Tale of Two Tarts," gave a brief history of 14th-century thinking on the use of apples, which advised that they be eaten at the end of meals to prevent foods from coming up, and then went on to give two ancient recipes for apple pie, using antiquated language like "Tak gode applys and gode spycis and figys ..."

Out of nowhere, Gaudio says in her blog, Illadore's House o Crack, she got a call from a friend congratulating her on the piece and asking for advice on how to get published.

Gaudio was floored, sensing that it was a clear case of copyright infringement. According to her blog, she wrote a series of letters and made several unreturned phone calls to the magazine, asking for an apology, including a published one, and that $130 be sent to the Columbia School of Journalism, based on a fee of 10 cents a word.

Finally, the reply from the magazine's editor, Judith Griggs, arrived via email. Griggs touted her 30 years of editorial experience, claimed to know all about copyright laws, copped to "my bad" and gave long sessions and tired eyes as the reasons for the oversight.

But then, as the late Paul Harvey used to say, came "The Rest of the Story":

"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!" Griggs continued, according to Gaudio. "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. ... 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!"

Well, Gaudio sure got steamed. "The Web is NOT public domain!" she writes in her blog. "I should be thankful because I wasn't flat out plagiarized? Don't college students get, oh, I dunno, tossed out for being caught for plagiarism? How is this a valid argument?"

Facebook and the blogosphere, as might be expected, were flooded with comments, none of them very flattering to Griggs, many calling for her firing, some calling for some medieval remedies themselves. By Thursday afternoon the story had appeared in online versions of The Washington Post and Great Britain's The Guardian, whose headline read: "U.S. Copyright Complaint Sparks Twitter and Facebook Storm." One blog, "Smart Bitches, Trashy Books," even advanced the notion of adding "griggs'd" to the lexicon, as in "I griggs'd the professor's doctoral thesis from her website and I even cleaned it up for her and told her she should give me an A, but she failed me anyway."

Cooks Source's Facebook page was flooded with wave after wave of angry comments. Its website was down for a time Thursday afternoon. Attempts to reach Griggs for comment were unsuccessful Thursday. By 9 p.m., Google Trends listed Cooks Source in 13th place, right after "Lil Wayne Released From Jail."

Legal experts say copyright laws apply similarly whether the medium is a book, recording or the Internet.

"Clearly, it's a case of copyright infringement," said attorney Deborah Basile from the Springfield/Northampton law firm Doherty, Wallace, Pillsbury & Murphy. "The means of publication is really irrelevant. As soon as words are fixed in a tangible medium, the person who created them assumes ownership.

"The Internet complicates things because it's so easy to cut, paste and publish," Basile continued, "so it's assumed to be in the public domain. It doesn't necessarily mean that someone can use these things at will.

"If she can prove authorship, she has the right to pursue statutory damages under the copyright law. It's implied that she's the owner of the work, whether or not she has a claim under federal statutes."

To pursue such a claim, the work would have to be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. But Gaudio would have the option of doing so, even at this late date, according to attorney Patrick Markey of O'Shea Getz P.C. of Springfield.

"In order to sue in federal court, she could register the work today and sue tomorrow," said Markey, who was surprised that the magazine would publish without contacting the author. "Most publications are cautious of doing that stuff."

Where it all gets a little murky is when the discussion of Facebook posts comes up. "Is a discussion in a chat room a literary work? I don't know," Markey said.

"That's a rather confusing area," Basile said. "Pictures posted on Facebook pages are not original works, but someone writing or posting on a Facebook page - it can get tricky. There has to be a modicum of artistry; if it's just stream-of-consciousness or comments made in anger, it's likely not protectable. It has to be a description of ideas expressed. How much artistic expression is found within a Facebook post - that's what you'd have to look at."

Newspapers themselves must use caution, said Basile. "It's a different issue, whether the media can utilize works of authorship to provide news. If it's published for purposes of competing as opposed to being necessary to tell a story - it's a fine line."

At any rate, Thursday's verbosity on the Internet was the stuff of legend. The cat may be out of the bag for good.