I’m not sure when ease of availability started being equated with ‘free’. However, we increasingly seem to be living in a world where no-one seems to grasp the basic fundamentals of copyright. I can cut individuals who very rarely deal with media a little slack, but (supposedly) professional publications are frequently stealing images and written content; worse, some then argue that it’s the fault of the creators for putting said content into the ‘public domain’ (i.e. online), despite the fact that the act of putting something online absolutely does not mean you no longer consider the material your copyright.

A stark example is found in the article Copyright Infringement and Me (hat tip: Adam Banks). An author is asked by a friend how one of their articles was published; the problem is the author has never heard of the magazine in question. After some investigative work, they contact the magazine’s editor and ask for an online and printed apology, along with remuneration in the form of a $130 donation (a very reasonable 10 cents per word) to the Columbia School of Journalism.

The response is both shocking and laughable (visit the original article to read it in full), with the editor—supposedly with three decades of experience—arguing as follows:

[…] 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!

[…] the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally.

[…] We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me!

No, you’re reading that right. Since someone had the audacity to put an article online, it should be considered freely available for all magazine editors to steal. The author should consider themselves lucky, apparently, that the editor didn’t remove the author’s name from the copy and also charge them for an edit that they neither requested nor authorised. Classy.

So, well done, Cooks Source magazine, in attempting to overhaul copyright laws. I look forward to your future issues in which you try to charge Gordon Ramsay for rewriting some of his content and then attributing it to Brian Ovenmitts, shortly before you’re sued into oblivion.

Update: Looks like this is more a case of ‘busted’ than unearthing a one-off error. In the comments, Eric Meyer notes that Cooks Source has reprinted material from several sources, including Sunset, the Food Network, and WebMD, the last of those with a different byline. (All links from Meyer’s Twitter feed.)

Update 2: Meyer adds that a discussion thread on Cooks Source’s own Facebook page is compiling many more infringements.