Did you ever read Cracked magazine? For those of you who don't remember, Cracked was kind of like MAD's less popular cousin. They didn't have Sergio Argonnes or Alfred E. Newman, but the stuff they printed was just as funny as MAD, sometimes even funnier. When I was a kid, I used to read both of them quite a bit. So when I found a web site called Cracked.com, I kind of assumed it was a continuation of the now-defunct Cracked print mag. Recent events have led me to wonder if I was wrong. Is it possible that these guys just picked up the Cracked name because "nobody was using it?" Because apparently they do that with articles.
Not long after discovering Cracked.com, I found out about their weekly Photoshop contest and eventually started submitting entries. I never won the $50 prize for best entry, but a couple of my submissions did make it into the top 20. So yay me. You entered the contests by posting your pictures to their forums, which (probably by design) led me to snoop around said forums to see if anything interesting was going on there. One of the things I discovered while doing this was that Cracked had a super-secret writers' forum where you could pitch ideas and, if the editors liked them, write for the mag (and even get paid). Since the site (at least in mid-2008, before they really started adding blogs) mainly did list-type articles full of dick and fart jokes and since (as QAGS fans already know) I'm a big fan of fine dick and fart humor, I asked for permission to join the super-duper-secret writers' forums.
Once I had access to the forums, I took the shotgun approach and posted several pitches for potential articles. One of these was called "X Singers Who Need Something New To Sing About." Over the next week or two the article made it to the "Stuff We're Considering," got some suggestions, and went through a rewrite or two. I can't confirm the exact sequence, but I did post a couple of the drafts to LiveJournal (locked so only select friends could see them). You can read those (now unlocked) here and here. In any case, after posting a couple revisions with absolutely no feedback, I assumed the article was dead.
Around that time, I moved across the state, got a new job, and started writing on a bunch of other sites and even occasionally for a print magazine. Since Cracked.com hadn't even given me a "thanks but no thanks" after multiple revisions, I kind of drifted away from checking in or submitting things to their writers' forums. I still read the site regularly, often passed on links to their articles, and even introduced a few new people to the site. I just didn't want to write for them (or more precisely, deal with their rather vague editorial process) any more.
Sunday evening, I opened up my Google Reader to see what kind of entertainment the internet had to offer me. Imagine my surprise when I saw this article in the Cracked.com feed.
"Well cool," I thought. "Somebody must have picked up my idea and turned it into an article that the editorial board actually liked."
At this point, I was assuming that the new and not-written-by-me version of the article would have a different structure, or at least be about different bands (one of the few pieces of feedback I got initially was that the topics I'd chosen were too common). At first, this seemed likely. The author was using my original format, but the first two musicians weren't even on my list. The next three were. Not only that, they were on there for the same reasons. And, while the author (Benjamin Dobson, who I will call "Dobby" if I need to refer to him again)had written new words, some of the ideas (and 2/3 of the chosen sample songs) matched my submissions rather closely. The choice of "Jamaica Mistaica" as the sample Buffett song really made it obvious that Dobby was familiar with my previous writings on the topic. There are a lot of songs that are much more obvious examples of the "It's awesome to be Jimmy" genre. I'd just chosen that one because it's a personal favorite.
Since I liked cracked.com, I didn't want to jump to conclusions. "I haven't been to their forums in a while," I thought. "Maybe this guy asked to take over the article and, when I didn't respond, the editorial board gave him the ok." Granted, a personal message (which would have sent me an email notification) to the effect of "somebody else wants to write (and make 50 bucks off of) the article you submitted a year and a half ago" would have been nice, but if that's what went down, I would have probably been cool with it. When I went to the forum, I discovered that I no longer have access to the super-secret writers' forum, so I guess I'll never know the actual sequence of events that led to the article's publication.
Since Dobby didn't steal any of my text exactly, I don't think what he did really counts as plagiarism. Also, most forum terms have a clause that basically says "we own anything you post here," so even if he'd swiped my words directly, it might technically be legal. Still, there's a difference between "legal" and "not douchy" and since over half of the basic ideas he writes about were from my original article, I feel a little bit like Bill Hicks at a Denis Leary show.
I like Cracked.com, and would like to keep reading it, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to without wondering "did the guy whose name is at the top of the article actually come up with this?" Maybe I can just stick to Seanbaby's blog and Hate By Numbers, since I'm reasonably sure those guys come up with their own material. I don't know. The one bit of solace I can take from the whole affair is that, based on the comments section (admittedly not the most erudite forum of discussion, but still), many of Cracked's readers absolutely hated Dobby's article. So at least I got that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Hey, I'm the guy you seem to hate. Yeah, what I did is legal and breaks no rules. See, you submitted your article, it got to "Considering" and you basically left it. Then, back in (I think) July, they decided to institute a new system to make use of the dozens of abandoned articles that were "Considering" and "Accepted" but were left for a long time. They took all the long-abandoned ones (like yours) and allowed others to take a shot at it. In fact, a few others tried to pitch it as well (as the "Abandoned Articles You Can Claim" section is a free for all until a good re-pitch comes up) and I was the best. Then I researched, refined the idea, and wrote the thing. I'm sorry you think I stole something from you, when in truth, I did no such thing.
P.S. rather than publicly post this somewhere where I'll not ever read it unless someone else points it out to me, you should have sent me an e-mail. Whatever. Have fun!
Dobby,
As your parents probably told you before the divorce, "this isn't about you." If it weren't for the Buffett part (which you pretty obviously couldn't have written in a world without Wikipedia), I could have believed that you wrote the whole article without having seen my original pitch. Hell, I stole the RHCP thing from somebody on the forums (though they did suggest it with the intention of letting me steal it for the article).
My problem is with Cracked.com's editorial process. You say I "abandoned" the article, but if memory serves I posted at least two potential revisions that never received any comments from the official Cracked reps on the forums. After a few months with no action, my assumption was that the article had basically been rejected. Generally if you submit something and it gets rejected, it doesn't get published later with someone else's byline.
If Cracked were going to open up "abandoned" articles to revision and publication, it would have been nice of them to let the people who originally submitted them have a shot. All it would have taken was a single mass email to forum users.
P.S. If my plan was to secretly bitch about this without giving you (or Cracked, who I feel are much more at fault here) the chance to respond, I probably wouldn't have posted the link in the article comments. I actually appreciate the summary of how my article became your article.
Don't call me Dobby.
I didn't read your comment, and most sensible people don't read any of them as they are filled with idiocy. I would have eventually gotten around to reading yours, but not before another few hundred people decided that I was a plagiarist. You're still publicly bitching before you tell me about your issue.
What you did was lazily abandon your article, plain and simple. They get literally hundreds of pitches a week, and there are a total of 3 people sifting through them. If you just assume they didn't get to you because it's rejected, you're forgetting that crucial fact. You may recall that you're asked to write to David Wong if your submission is not commented on, but no less than one week after the last time they commented, because sometimes it takes a while to get back to your pitch. They often miss a few pitches due to the fact that they have several hundred others to review as well.
As for informing you about your pitch...why should they? You were gone from the site. For all they knew, you were never coming back. Not only this, they had several dozen similar abandoned articles. Should they have tracked down the authors of all of them? This is a ridiculous amount of wasted time. And a mass email to 10,000 forum users, most of whom are inactive anyway, is a ludicrous waste of resources.
P.S. you were kicked from the comedy workshop for inactivity. They clear the list of inactive users from time to time. I'm sure you could rejoin and see all this for yourself.
Not Dobby,
Fortunately only nonsensical idiots will think you're a plagiaris. Of course, if you'll read a little closer, you'll see I specifically said that I didn't consider what you did plagiarism. In fact, if you'd taken the idea and written 5 new entries, I wouldn't have a had a problem with it. Also, the article would have been better--the two you wrote on your own were better than the ones of mine you "re-envisioned."
I'm not going to challenge you on the details of the Cracked.com editorial process. It's been over a year and a half since I've read them, so I'm willing to assume you're right and I should have contacted Wong when the article got no feedback.
Even if my giving up on the article after multiple rewrites and months of checking the forum counts as "abandonment," that doesn't make it their idea to do with as they please. If you don't believe me, try publishing a Buck Rogers story and see how well the "the original author isn't doing anything with it" argument holds up.
As to why they should have given the original authors a chance to return to "abandoned" articles, it's pretty much the same reason you think I should have contacted you directly rather than making the above blog post--common fucking courtesy (which I specifically chose not to give, since I had gotten none). I'm sure that there's a way Cracked.com could have mass emailed everyone with access to the writers forum without emailing every forum user. Even if that's not possible, I seriously doubt one courtesy email to all registered users (active or not) would have crashed their system.
And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that there was any kind of conspiracy to the fact that I'm no longer on the writers' forum. Since I don't have any plans to submit anything to Cracked in the future, that actually works out pretty well for me.
You pitched an article to Cracked. It became theirs, if they decided to use it. The only time that an article is rejected is if it's in the "Workshop" and has been reviewed and stays there, as opposed to going to "Considering" (or if it goes back there from "Considering"). That's the significant difference between your Buck Rogers story, and this.
For your information, those who were still active users did get asked about their pitches. Those like you, who were gone, had their ideas moved to "Abandoned" and opened to everyone (even you, if you wanted to re-pitch the idea).
Let's just be clear here: If you submit something freelance to some publisher and they like it, they buy it from you. If they like it but you don't write it for them, they can get someone else to do it. Hell, if I had used any of your ideas, you'd have shared a byline with me. Let's not mince words here: the re-written entries bear no resemblance to what you wrote. In fact, I bet that's why you don't like those ones as much as my originals.
Try sending out 10,000 emails out at once. Then try justifying that when 9,000 of those are going to people who probably don't care, and 1,000 are going to people who already know what you're going to say. You had a year to revisit the idea. You abandoned it. Get over it.
Just an addendum: Editorial cut my entry on Sufjan Stevens, saying that the complaint there was too close to the RHCP entry in nature. The rest, they either cut for them being not popular enough, or being retired, long before it got to be Accepted.
Again, I'm not qualified to argue the intricacies of Cracked's policies. I'll take your word for that. And true, if a publication likes something and you don't write it for them, they can get someone else to write it. The difference is they don't usually send the originator's treatment to the new author to pick for scraps. In fact, protecting themselves from that kind of allegation is why a lot of publishers don't accept unsolicited submissions.
You say that if you'd used any of my ideas, I'd share the byline. In my opinion, you used several ideas (there is a difference between "ideas" and "text"), but I'll be generous and give you Bon Jovi and the RHCP (since they're pretty obvious). Buffett, however, is the sticking point for me. If you'd gone with the expected "living in the islands" thing for Buffett, all would have been well. Since the idea I came up with (and you used) is not the typical, obvious complaint (like all the others), since you used the exact same example (when there are better examples to be used), and since the entry sounds like it was written by someone largely unfamiliar with Buffett's work, I kinda feel like that part wouldn't have been there without my initial attempt at the article.
I used a single example you did. However, I don't think you mentioned Margaritavile or Cheeseburger in Paradise, which I think was more crucial to the finished product than Jamaica Mistaica. And, well, people DO complain that Buffett never shuts up about the islands. I probably would have eventually thought that one up eventually, if you didn't mention it.
Two, actually--I used "Wanted Dead or Alive" in my Bon Jovi entry as well. You're right, people do complain about Buffett singing about the islands, but that's not the lyrical fixation you (or more correctly, I) chose to write about. If you'd written about Buffett's fixation with the islands, instead of Buffett's fixation with how great it is to be Buffett, I could have easily lumped it in with Bon Jovi and RHCP as something anyone could have come up with.
And you're right, I didn't mention Cheeseburger or Margarittaville, but that's because I never got around to fleshing out the article due to lack editorial feedback as to whether I was now headed in the direction they wanted.
Google Analytics is fun!
Oh, heaven forbid I use the biggest cowboy song Bon Jovi did in an article pointing out that bon Jovi sings about being a cowboy too much.
Talking about the islands is a big part of Buffett bragging about being Buffett.
Regardless, if you really think Cracked screwed you over, bring it up to Wong. Be sure to tell me how it goes.
Ben sucks
I like how Not Dobby is mad that you didn't email him directly about your problem with his article when he just as easily given you a head's up email that he was gonna use your idea. Goes both ways, dude!
I really wish registration wasn't required to view the forum thread I linked above. It was entertaining and proved without a shadow of a doubt that Dobby's kind of a douchenozzle.
I love how I'm being emailed about this years later. You know, I might have emailed this idiot if he had left his contact information.
Anyway, the forum you linked (which I can still view) doesn't prove anything of the sort. It proves you abandoned an idea, I expanded on it using some (very little) of your content. Anyway, it seems you're still really hung up on this, I've long since spent the $50 and don't care anymore. So, if you do feel the need to have the last word, go ahead. I won't reply or read your next reply.
If you can't figure out how to unsubscribe from the comments thread, ask whoever normally ties your shoes for you. They can probably help.
You seem to think I'm talking about the Cracked forum. I was referring to the Frenzyboard forum, where you bragged about the article being published, one of the other people there posted the link to this post, and everyone on the board (who presumably knew you) pretty much responded with "that's not surprising. Ben's a dick."
Of course, now that I see how defensive you are after all this time (and that you can't work the unsub), I'll be sure to post comments here whenever I get bored. Despite being a fuckbagel, you are kind of fun to troll.
Post a Comment