Caveat emptor – Cold River Review

I’ve heard recently that a second writer of my acquaintance has had work republished in Cold River Review. Hurrah for them, you might think – but it’s not.

You see, neither writer had given permission for their work to be used, or even been contacted to ask if this use was permissible. Their work had been stolen and used without their knowledge.
It happens a lot, although it’s usually plagiarism not reprint theft, but for one journal to keep doing it like this is unbelievable. I wonder if Charles Bukowski and Robert Frost gave their permission for the works which appear in Cold River Review? I rather doubt it, because I suspect that those august writers would object to featuring in a magazine that can’t spell deppression (sic) or catch a typo like issusues (sic).

You can pay for Cold River Review by paypal, but I think you’d be a fool if you did. Theft is theft, whether it’s a wallet or a poem. To pay to be robbed would be foolish indeed.

Later … TJ Forrester says that the Bukowski and Frost works have been removed since I posted this blog article – perhaps the cold light of publicity is all this site needed to put its house in order … we’ll see.

13 Comments

  1. Annie Wicking and Loman Austen
    27th July 2007

    Thank you for letting us know.

    I shall be back, what an interesting blog you have.

    Best wishes

    Annie

    Reply
  2. Kay Sexton
    27th July 2007

    My pleasure – it’s never nice to have to point the finger at people, but writers have to protect their own interests and the interests of the community.

    Reply
  3. Linera Lucas
    27th July 2007

    Thanks for this posting. This is why it is a good idea to run a google search/alert every week.

    Reply
  4. William Sandoe
    27th July 2007

    Rumor is rumor. I have been accused of stealing work by someone who obviously has not seen the magazine nor is certain what she is talking about. She accused me of printing Jai Clair’s story and it was not printed. We did mistakenly print Xujun Eberlein’s story with out permission but not for lack of trying or on purpose. We tried to contact her and later over-looked the fact that we had not followed up on this. “Kay Sexton” could contact me by e-mail but instead leaves nasty comments on the web site. There are always people who like to spread rumors and defame behind someone’s back. Please visit The Cold River Review’s page copyrights at http://www.riverreview.org/copyyrights.htm. Thank you William Sandoe-Editor.

    Reply
  5. Kay Sexton
    27th July 2007

    Actually William, I didn’t mention any names, so I am fascinated to discover that you do think you know whose work you published without permission, and I note the stories by famous writers have suddenly disappeared from your site.

    I find it interesting that your business model is to PUBLISH work WITHOUT CONSENT and then take it down if you get a complaint. That’s like eating somebody’s dinner and apologising for the empty plate when they point out they got no food. Writers get into trouble if they sell rights that are infringed by publications like yours; in other words THEY take the rap for your bad business practice. As I say, caveat emptor.

    Reply
  6. Ann M.
    27th July 2007

    One might be a little more sympathetic had your little oversight with Xujun’s work not been a duplicate of your recent peccadillo with Jai Clare’s.

    You need to understand that the way to get quality submissions is to develop a quality reputation. You won’t do that by copying without permission.

    Reply
  7. Linera Lucas
    27th July 2007

    Mr. Sandoe is not making any friends in the writing community by this behaviour. Thanks, Kay, writers need to watch out for one another.

    Reply
  8. William Sandoe
    28th July 2007

    I guess it must be fun to be so judgmental. We ask for no sympathy but understanding is always nice. If you see that we have been a voice for local artists in our community, if you read our interviews, and look at what we are trying to do you might be less eager to lynch a young publication that is working for artists and writers. We are young, and have made mistakes but intent is also important. What is the intent of those who just malign without ever seeing the magazine?
    Once again we did not publish Jai Claire’s story.

    Reply
  9. Kay Sexton
    28th July 2007

    You know William, I am trying to see your side of the story here, but it’s difficult for me, and a lot of other writers to understand your intent when you use other people’s work without permission. Now when a writer has a google alert set up to tell them when their name, or the titles of their works are used, as you obviously do for CCR, and that alert announces to the world that CCR has published their work, it really doesn’t matter if the work can be found in your pages or not – what matters is that to the world, it appears that some kind of rights have been transferred from that writer to you and those rights cannot be transferred elsewhere according to the rules of many other publications that PAY their writers – in other words, your actions deprive those writers of the chance of income.

    To make the mistake once is fair enough … but twice? What I’d like you to have said is ‘Shit, we messed up again, we’re really sorry.’ What you said was that I defamed you behind your back. Defamation is telling lies and you’ve just agreed that you claimed to have published the work of at least two writers without their permission – so where’s the defamation, and given that I did it in public and even publish your comments on my blog, where’s the ‘behind your back’?

    Come on, we all make mistakes and we can all be forgiven them, but first you have to recognise them, and then you have to ensure you never make the again. Do that, and I’ll sing your praises, I promise you.

    Reply
  10. Liesl
    28th July 2007

    Greetings Kay,

    Thanks for bringing this to folks’ attention.

    Pointing the finger is unpleasant, but it is necessary when writers perceive their work has been stolen.

    I trust the journal will find ways to remedy this, as well as ensure such misunderstanding are avoided in future.

    Liesl
    South Africa

    Reply
  11. katrina
    28th July 2007

    Thanks for the alert, Kay. Printing work without the writer’s consent is not professional no matter how young, old, well-intentioned, or not, the journal is.

    I hope this journal, which looks like a potentially good one, will adopt a more traditional and respectful manner of acquiring material.

    Reply
  12. Anonymous
    29th July 2007

    you’re a liar and an opportunist and it’s obvious you are forging these other comments because you have nothing better to do if you were really interested in the truth you would’ve approved my comment but i see it was too close to home. that’s okay i’ll post it on my site and it’s already been forwarded to others listed on yours. you can’t make judgements and then not let both sides of the arguement be seen. l.s.

    Reply
  13. Kay Sexton
    29th July 2007

    Okay, this is getting ridiculous – I don’t post anonymous comments on my blog from ANYONE but I’m posting yours because, honestly, I don’t think anybody can do you any more harm than you’re doing to yourself.

    Mr Sandoe’s comments have all been posted, yours haven’t simply because you haven’t given your identity; that’s the beginning and the end of it. I’m sorry you’re so twisted out of shape but I can’t help you with your world view. Grow up, whoever you are, and post your name, then you’ll be treated like everybody else who posts to the blog and – by the way – the reason anybody with a brain can tell I’m not forging comments is because each and every one has a name and identity and ISP that can be checked, that’s why, oh anonymous person, I don’t post anonymous comments. I think I’m being remarkably forbearing in allowing you to call me a liar and a forger without attaching your name to your rather offensive statements, but as I say, I don’t think anybody can harm you more than you’re harming yourself.

    That’s the end of this discussion as far as I’m concerned. Let’s move on …

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Anonymous

Cancel Reply