[Sca-cooks] Missing Artes Draconis

[Gaylin Walli]

As the guest editor of the "missing" AD issue, I feel obligated to address a
few mistaken assumptions of fact and intent.

Jakob Baker wrote:

How many copies should we print? If you want one speak up!
>

I recommend against this, sir. Instead, I recommend contacting the authors
separately for copies of their articles.


> Minor problems and some issues? We've seen the actual issue! What happened
> in this case is the Chronicler, Editor and Special Editor (all the
> responsible in charge people) always intended this special issue to be an
> exact copy (the format, style, essential makeup. fonts and spacing, regular
> columns, etc.) of the excellent and well known Cooks Illustrated magazine!


Untrue, sir. I'd like to direct you to the relevant information on the
website of the federal government that pertains to the concept of "homage."
Most people mistakenly assume that it goes hand in hand with the concept of
"parody" which it does not. For reference, you may wish to read the
following information online:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
(The United States Copyright Office page on fair use)

http://ori.dhhs.gov/policies/plagiarism.shtml
(The Office of Research Integrity, US Department of Health and Human
Services)

You may also be interested in the following link that is pertinent:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html
(An overview of the "four factors" of fair use in copyright published by
Stanford University)


> It was never a mistake either! It was always intentional! They set out to
> copy Cook's Illustrated! Was this ever a great idea? Did they ever stop and
> think 'this might not be a good idea?' Did the authors withdraw their
> articles? Did anyone say no? They plowed full steam ahead. They didn't care;
> they were so proud; they even bragged and blogged about their intentions!


Your assumptions of intent are mistaken. The concept of homage is not a
foreign one and is well covered by copyright law, which we consulted, as
evidenced by the afore mentioned links, among other research. Had we not
cared, we would not have done the research at all and merely forged ahead.
At no time was this homage hidden from any of the contributors and at no
time did we every communicate this otherwise to anyone who asked.


> They even admit it in print in the issue.
> They actually state: "This issue is modeled after the modern cooking
> magazine, Cook’s Illustrated." Modeled? Come on, it was a rip-off from the
> start!
>

That, sir, is a matter of opinion and where the idea of copyright and homage
come into play. You may wish to visit the aforementioned links as a starting
point for your research into the concepts. I recommend also your local
library as these links won't provide you with some of the most recent legal
theory being developed around the topics.


> Everything proceeds along until the folks at Cooks Illustrated noticed and
> demanded the SCA take down the issue and make it disappear. (Did they not
> think their ripoff would ever come to the notice of Cooks Illustrated? The
> web can be a small place.)
>

There was never any intent to "make it disappear" as you mention. At the
time the request was made for copies, the response by Kingdom was true.
There were some problems with the issue. We were complying with a request in
order to work through any possible legal ramifications. Once those were
worked through, the intent was always to reissue the AD or place the
original back online. The idea that it would never be spoken about again is
patently false. It wasn't until the recent board minutes were released that
we were allowed to begin speaking of it in order to comply with the spirit
of the uniformed sanction proceedings that are part of the SCAs policies and
bylaws. Did we want to speak of it? Yes. Could we without hopelessly
muddling the issue? No.


> What happened next is typical SCA!This was an official kingdom approved
> peers and apprentices of the realm project. Did all those
> OL/OP/Baroness/Countess folks who were so happy to claim credit for the
> issue ever own up to why the issue is gone? Not a word! It's a deepest dark
> secret and cannot be mentioned. We can talk about felony child abuse and
> embezzlement tangles, but we can't mention peers being caught ripping off a
> commercial magazine! Why not? Why is this issue being treated like child
> porn?
>

To equate the issue of secrecy with serious issues like child pornography or
abuse and felony does a disservice to the Society as a whole. As I mentioned
previously, in order to comply with SCA policies, the parties involved were
simply not allowed to speak of it until the issue was fully investigated.

Should anyone have questions about them, call me on the telephone and I will
speak with you directly about it and answer any questions you might have.
You can call my house telephone at 248-582-0533 any time before 10pm
Eastern.


> Have these chroniclers, editors, associate editors, and authors been
> punished or even shamed? Have they even lost their Blackfox awards? Some
> members have commented privately (hush, hush, in whispers) that had the
> publication been released with an AoA only editor, he or she would have been
> banished immediately with a revoked membership. Such behavior by a non-peer
> would never have been tolerated!
>

When the editors or authors have done nothing wrong by the law, the idea of
punishment is moot. Were this to have happened to an editor who held only an
AoA the process would have been the same and the result would have been the
same. See for reference the aforementioned uniform sanction procedures in
our governing documents of the SCA. That's why they exist.


> Why is it the BoD covers up and silences activities like this one and
> doesn't make examples of the people involved?


They don't speak of the activities during any investigation, similar to how
the real world operations. To do so would compromise the investigation.


> Possible litigation? Nasty legal take down notices? Do they mean anything?
> What would be wrong with banishing all of them --- authors, editors,
> chroniclers included--- for the next year or even forever? How many rules
> and laws did they break? Why was wholesale copying ever rewarded?
>

The sanctions were imposed at the Society level and then reviewed by the BoD
as per the sanction procedures, with banishment as a possibility. The
charges that provoked the incorrectly applied sanctions were deemed baseless
after consultation with legal counsel and long deliberation determined that
no laws were broken.


> Why doesn't the Board say something? Why can't we talk openly about this
> matter? Why isn't this being used as an example as what not to do?
>

The Board did say something in the meeting minutes they recently released,
per their standard investigation procedure. Should you wish to talk about it
openly, please do so. My telephone number is above as I mentioned and I am
happy to discuss with you the facts and also my opinions on this matter. As
for using it as an example of what not to do, no laws were broken. Would
there be things that I personally would do differently as guest editor?
Sure. As there would be with any project I worked on.


> So ask yourselves when your dues once again increase to pay for more
> expensive insurance and more legal help, why the Society continues to
> tolerate such activities and stupid errors?  Who put the entire Society in
> jeopardy? Ask yourselves why are these people still members in good
> standing? Hush, hush, we can't talk about it or tell anyone these peers
> screwed up! Hush, hush, indeed!
>

The legal activities that are engaged in by the Society are far greater than
this one and usually related to felonies or embezzlement. Should you like a
breakdown of the costs of that legality, I suggest contacting the Society
Exchequer for more information. Have a law firm on retainer is part and
parcel with any large organization's activities. Any more expensive
insurance had nothing to do with this issue and was well in the works long
before this idea was a twinkle in anyone's eye.


> Excuse me, again what were they thinking? Why aren't they at least
> embarrassed? Where are the apologies?
> Jakob (returning to lurking mode) Baker and Brewer


We were paying homage to Cook's Illustrated and the ideas of accessible,
creative food investigation that they promote. One of the things that you
did not mention in your commentary was the fact, yes fact, that Cook's
Illustrated asked us for more information about what we did as food
researchers. They expressed a sincere appreciation for what we had done in
the Artes Draconis issue, stating that they loved it. If you would like
exact details of the conversation, I suggest you contact the Kingdom
Chronicler, Katarina Peregrine, as she was the person who spoke directly
with them about this issue to begin with.


Antonia wrote:

If you're so outraged by the copyright violations and the anger to the
> Society, maybe circulating this isn't the cleverest idea.


I would agree with you, m'lady. Again, anyone interested in receiving copies
any of the articles in the issue should strongly consider contacting the
authors of those articles. If you would like a list of those authors and
their articles, please let me know and I will send along your request to
them directly so that they can contact you personally and work out an
arrangement.

Kiri wrote:

> I do know that BoD has chastised the parties involved to a point that they
feel is sufficient.

A correction, good mistress. We were not chastised by the BoD. We were
sanctioned by the Society Chronicler, investigated by the BoD, and those
sanctions were lifted by the BoD when they proved baseless and it was
confirmed that no laws were broken.

Cordially,

Iasmin de Cordoba
Guest Editor of the Aforementioned "Missing Issue"