Magazine Editor Shows How to Anger Net

[Guest]

Editor of print magazine insists that the web is “public domain”.

Magazine Editor Shows How to Anger Net : Read more

 

[beans4you]

funny

 

[Kaiser_25]

Judith Griggs should have to pay, for the offense itself, and her general stupidity.

 

[Guest]

Judith Griggs gets what she deserves.

 

[NuclearShadow]

Seriously what the hell is wrong with this woman? To even have the nerve to say this...

“We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me!”

If she doesn't get fired and if Monica Gaudio doesn't receive any compensation then I hope
the entire magazine goes down hard.

 

[mlopinto2k1]

Cause and Effect. Plain and simple. You don't understand the rules, you get burned.

 

[mauller07]

This is ridiculous, the internet may be a public domain but no more so than a shop or other privately owned but open to the public premises.

Also there is plenty of copyrighted and original works on the net created by people, the woman has every right to claim compensation for the use of her article, edited or not, if it still contains the same information and layout of her original then it is still nothing more than a copy of the original and should require the magazine to compensate the writer.

 

[Gin Fushicho]

Sweet, idiocy is finally getting what it deserves. Plagiarist B***h

 

[f-14]

i'm not positive on this, but doesn't a work have to be copyrighted before it's published inorder for it not to be abused/copied for use by some one else for profit/credit with out plagarism being cited?

 

[Guest]

This is [sic].

 

[Hupiscratch]

Who reads this magazine, anyway?

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]f-14[/nom]i'm not positive on this, but doesn't a work have to be copyrighted before it's published inorder for it not to be abused/copied for use by some one else for profit/credit with out plagarism being cited?[/citation]

not exactly, it really depends.

i believe that every work online, unless stated otherwise, is public domain to some extent. look at creative commons, i believe its basically that you own the rights, and allow non comertial use of your work or something like that. you must be credited in some way though. i know thats how video works.

for just text, i believe that it would have to be stated on site that its copyright other wise it is public domain, and you dont need to credit.

is it a complete dick move? yes,
is it legal? i believe so
will there be a backlash? it depends, in this case yes.

 

[cookoy]

well she's famous now. make that infamous - how fast news travel on the Net, like a tsunami

 

[skittle]

Why dont we go "lift" her "articles" then? The "internet" is "public domain"

 

[Chrys]

Copyright, at least in the us is automatic. If you create an original work, you own the copyright. Proving it is usually the hardest problem. With all works though, there is fair use that is intended for people to be able to review your work or make fun of it if they want. There is a limit to how much you can directly take from somebody else though.

 

[thegreathuntingdolphin]

for just text, i believe that it would have to be stated on site that its copyright other wise it is public domain, and you dont need to credit.

is it a complete dick move? yes,
is it legal? i believe so
will there be a backlash? it depends, in this case yes.

In the US copyright is automatic as Chrys says. You do not have to put the copyright symbol on it and you don't have to register it or anything. The copyright exists the moment you make the work. As Chrys said, proving it can be difficult; however, that is not the case here. There are fair uses for copyrighted material but that is for reviewing, quoting, for education uses, etc and NOT writing, lifting, passing off as their own, etc.

What Judy Griggs did is blatantly illegal. Monica Gaudio could sue that magazine out of existence easily; after all, Judy Griggs has already admitted to violating Monica's copyrighted work.

I can't believe how dumb Judy Griggs is. She thinks the web is public domain? This is what happens when people who have no inkling on legal matters think they are an expert.

 

[Guest]

In answer to a question that was put up, everything you think of is technically YOUR intellectual property. If she wrote that article first, then it belongs to HER, officially copyrighted or not. The main reason people will go to a patent office or other institution to patent or copyright ideas and items is to put the stain of legality on it - you wouldn't just have a document proving when you came up with it, that document would come from an indisputable official source. That said, just the date on Monica's article is more than enough to roast Griggs alive. And good riddance. The internet 'public domain' my ass!

 

[mayne92]

I had to log on to facebook just to see their wall...wow talk about some funny stuff!!!! They can't delete the comments fast enough!

 

[False_Dmitry_II]

@Peregrine2976

Supposedly a cheap way to prove when is to mail you stuff to yourself. Then the postage is proof of when what is contained was done.

I don't know how true this is.

 

[Khimera2000]

Wooo... i think as an artist ill go over there and see if i can leave a word or two if the magizen wants to take copywright material and use it without creators consent then they should go down it showes a lack of responsability and integraty, and not to mention alot of stupidity since the person worked for a magazine company, and should of known that a peace is automatically copyrighted in the US once the idea is commited to a medium.