The issue of free content on the Internet took an interesting turn last week when a food blogger was told that “the web is considered ‘public domain'” by Cooks Source magazine. As reported by the Los Angeles Times Daily Dish blog, food blogger Monica Gaudio discovered that the magazine had reprinted a piece that Gaudio wrote about apple pie. When Gaudio emailed the magazine, assuming there had been a mistake and requesting a small fee for use of the piece, she received a harsh response from the email account of the magazine’s managing editor. Among other things, the email states:
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!
As Boing Boing reported, Cooks Source has received a large amount of criticism for its view. One interesting issue to examine is the question of “free” versus the “public domain.” Some Internet thinkers have analyzed the issues of free content online; other scholars have analyzed the use of public domain works by private and individual creators.
It’s important to note the difference between “free” and the “public domain.” Just because something is free, it may not be in the public domain. One example might be the Articles and Notes you find on the MTTLR site – just because we don’t charge for downloading doesn’t mean that they’re in the public domain. Public domain documents – like your favorite Dickens or Austen novel – can be reworked, reused, and reinterpreted by anyone (unlike MTTLR content). That’s how we end up with contemporary classics like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies – the author added new material to Pride and Prejudice, creating a new derivative work.
Many advocates of free online content might shy away from taking the extra step that Cooks Source took and deem online content as free for reuse and reworking, by virtue of all online content being in the public domain. But there can be more of a spectrum between “free” and “public domain” – Creative Commons licenses are one way of creating more variations. Had Gaudio marked her content with a Creative Commons license allowing for commercial reuse, Cooks Source might have been in the clear. Creative Commons even allows for public domain marking of online content. Let’s hope that Cooks Source takes care to look for the PD mark next time they’re looking for articles.
I wonder if Monica was concerned that the same person who wrote that e-mail was responsible for “editing” her piece. Obviously they don’t “put some time into rewrites” of their e-mails!