Reporting a Facebook PWS Violation: Has This Happened to You?

[janetupnorth]

I asked the person who found it if she was going to or I would, but no answer to my message yet.

 

[janetupnorth]

I'll do it now...

 

[Cindycooks]

You go Janet!

 

[janetupnorth]

You go Janet!

Done, and I was very polite in my e-mail to HO, since it obviously is a new consultant that just didn't read.

I sent links to her website, Facebook and Linked-In, all in violation.

Hopefully they will be kind in calling her and she'll figure this all out.

I have some sympathy for the newbies that don't read the Policies and Procedures, but none for those who blatantly try to get around the rules and know better!

There is one person on here who gets very snippy if someone points out a violation to her then goes and does it again later anyway...that's not nice!

 

[chefcaroline]

I personally know of one former director that was fired from ever selling Pampered Chef again because of policy violations.

 

[pamperedlinda]

I personally know of one former director that was fired from ever selling Pampered Chef again because of policy violations.

oooohhhh do tell!

 

[tlag1986]

Yes do tell!

 

[chefcaroline]

oooohhhh do tell!

She was doing quite a bit of business on Ebay. From what I understand, they warned her many times before firing her.

 

[Intrepid_Chef]

Janet ... I don't think I was technically a consultant when I signed up for this board ... and there are many who have yet to ink the agreement that sign up here so I know it's not a requirement.

I've glanced at the PC consultants group on FB ... it does not have any link to any web site other than the corporate one.

Honestly, this site has much more to offer than that one anyway ....

 

[Cindycooks]

[I've glanced at the PC consultants group on FB ... it does not have any link to any web site other than the corporate one./QUOTE]
Okay BUT - on FB, the gruops we belong to are posted under our info, so if you friends see you are a member of the PC Group, isnt that announcing publically that you are a consultant and so a violation? Guess I'm just confused....

 

[chefann]

Okay BUT - on FB, the gruops we belong to are posted under our info, so if you friends see you are a member of the PC Group, isnt that announcing publically that you are a consultant and so a violation? Guess I'm just confused....

I sent that very question to HO the other day, but haven't heard back yet.

 

[heat123]

I'd like to know too! I took down my group belonging to "PC consultants" for now.. until we hear word? BUt I still have a piece of flair for HWC , next to my pink ribbon button? And I am a "fan" of PC cookware.

 

[Intrepid_Chef]

You have to look really hard to see what groups I belong to on my page, anyway. And I'm pretty sure nobody who isn't my friend can see my page ...

 

[janetupnorth]

Janet ... I don't think I was technically a consultant when I signed up for this board ... and there are many who have yet to ink the agreement that sign up here so I know it's not a requirement.

I've glanced at the PC consultants group on FB ... it does not have any link to any web site other than the corporate one.

Honestly, this site has much more to offer than that one anyway ....

What comment are you talking about here?

I reported that person specifically mentioned just a page or so ago. She IS a consultant and IS in violation of the policy on her website, Linked-In and Facebook. If I can access it on Facebook, anyone can 'cause I'm not her friend.

She has multiple links to her PWS and advertises them.

 

[Cindycooks]

Exactly - you can set your facebook to private (so your friends have to ask permission to view your page and be your friend)...or so that anyone can view your page. And if you make a group "Global", anyone can view it....and pull up everyones name and picture that is a member.

 

[PCMelissa]

Ann- she is from Madison Heights. She has her Grand Opening info on her FB page!

It looks like HO must have contacted the admin of the consultant group. I went into the group ( I had belonged) and it said that the group is now "secret" and that it will not show up in your group pages. Also, there was no longer an admin. Looks like she decided to leave the group! Interesting.

 

[breannat]

I don't understand why they would want to level the playing field? If someone is clever enough to advertise in unconventional ways- why is that bad? Who does it hurt?

If someone uses a search engine and types "Pampered Chef" it would be nice if the results were to the main official site, where their purchases would be given to someone local to them, and qualified. If someone uses myspace, FB, and online directories to plaster there name all over the internet, it takes away from all of the rest of us when someone finds that instead.

 

[beepampered]

I still don't get why I can't even say that I sell Pampered Chef in my interests. It just seems so strange that a PRIVATE facebook account can't even mention the word - like it's some forbidden fruit. My friend who sells Lia Sophia has info all over her facebook account - photos of her trips, info about her open house, specials. And I can't even list Pampered Chef as something I do. Weird.

 

[heat123]

I Totally agree... it would be able to list TPC consultant as what you do .

 

[chefann]

I wonder. I mean we have this site, can't there be other forums or groups? I wonder about that FB group though, because it is an open group, there isn't a fee to join, it's not private. Anyone can go on it and see everyone's full names and such. If they are a member of that group, then wouldn't it be listed on their individual info page? I think having it say member of Pampered Chef Consultant group would be a violation.

That's my interpretation of the policy, as well. I just sent a query to HO to find out.

I just got a note back from HO. This is what I sent:
From: chefann@xxxx
Sent: 21-Jan-2009 14:39:13
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Possible violation

Good afternoon.

It has come to my attention that there is a Facebook group for consultants. My interpretation of the policies is that belonging to this group is a violation, since anyone can see who belongs, making it akin to posting "I'm a consultant, order your stuff here!" on any website.

Is this a correct interpretation, or am I off base?

The group is at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2259998285

Thank you,
Ann

This is what I received back:

From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Possible violation [REF:476691818022]
Date: February 4, 2009 10:18:53 PM GMT-05:00
To: chefann@xxxxx
Reply-To: [email protected]

Ann,

Thank you for contacting The Pampered Chef. This would be a violation.

Xxxxx Xxxxx
Specialist, Consultant Career Solutions
The Pampered Chef®

 

[gailz2]

Geesh, I wonder if posting on here wouldn't also be a violation since "outsiders" could look us up and order from us. I agree that HO needs to be a bit less stringent about posting our websites, etc. We are in business for ourselves. I do agree that they should monitor what we advertise to keep control of appropriateness, etc.

 

[lacychef]

Ann, is this the group "Pampered Chef consultants" on FB? It's a private group so I'm confused......I agree with some that the internet policies really need to be looked over again.

 

[babywings76]

Ann, is this the group "Pampered Chef consultants" on FB? It's a private group so I'm confused......I agree with some that the internet policies really need to be looked over again.

The group got reported, so they probably have changed it to private now.

 

[chefann]

The one that I sent in was one that someone posted here, that was later indicated to be changed to "secret."

 

[PChef_ang]

I hope something gets addressed soon, I don't think this message below is what we want to be sending out to the world. This excerpt was taken from a former violation page:

"I would tell you what they are, but at this time, I’m not allowed to say what that company is. They have something against advertising on the internet."

 

[pcchefjane]

Open Source Cook - http://www.opensourcecook.com/

This is definitely a violation

Look at what she has posted now on her site:

This may seem like a weird post to have on a recipe sharing site, but there’s been some questions regarding some of the recipes I’ve been posting and whether or not I’m breaking copyright law by including them here. For the record, recipes are exempt from copyright law, so sharing lists of ingredients and directions is perfectly fine and has been done for hundreds of years. Straight from the Copyright Law website:

Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds, or prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection. However, when a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to names, titles, short phrases, ideas, systems, or methods.

Recipes are meant to be shared, that’s why they are exempt from copyright law. If someone writes up a block of text describing the “breathtaking flavor jamboree“, I am not allowed to copy that from the recipe. Likewise, people can share the recipes listed on my site, but not my comments about the recipe (although, I’m not real picky about that to be honest). The ingredients and directions are fair game. Another reference point would be this post by Schwimmer Legal citing a couple of cases regarding recipes, copyright law and recipe books.

One should distinguish between a recipe, a textual rendering of a recipe, and a compilation of recipes. Publications Intl. v. Meredith, 88 F.3d 473 (7th Cir. 1996) dealt with alleged infringement of a recipe book.

“The identification of ingredients necessary for the preparation of each dish is a statement of facts. There is no expressive element in each listing; in other words, the author who wrote down the ingredients for “Curried Turkey and Peanut Salad” was not giving literary expression to his individual creative labors. Instead, he was writing down an idea, namely, the ingredients necessary to the preparation of a particular dish. “[N]o author may copyright facts or ideas. The copyright is limited to those aspects of the work–termed ‘expression’–that display the stamp of the author’s originality.” Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 547, 105 S.Ct. at 2223. We do not view the functional listing of ingredients as original within the meaning of the Copyright Act.

As the Supreme Court stated in Feist: Facts, whether alone or as part of a compilation, are not original and therefore may not be copyrighted. A factual compilation is eligible for copyright if it features an original selection or arrangement of facts, but the copyright is limited to the particular selection or arrangement. In no event may copyrights extend to the facts themselves. Feist, 499 U.S. at 350-51, 111 S.Ct. at 1290.

So trust me on this, both Jesse and I looked into this before I started Open Source Cook a few years ago. Plus, I will always state where I found the original recipe (if I know where it came from). A good example of that is the Peanut Brittle recipe, which I found at Better Homes & Garden.

Open Source Cook started out as my recipe box. I have family and friends who wanted to see a few of my recipes and comment on the ones I’ve sent in with Jesse to work. This was the easiest way to do that. Now, a few years later, a few of my family members are also submitted recipes to this site. Those of us who are posting recipes are sharing our experiences with everyone. That’s all we’re doing.

Why am I posting this? What’s with the pedantry? Some of the recipes I’ve been posting lately have come from the Pampered Chef. They are easy and quick to make and why not share them? I thought, if I could share a Better Homes & Garden recipe, why not a Pampered Chef one? Then I started receiving comments/emails saying that the recipes were copyrighted by the Pampered Chef and I would have to take them down. I couldn’t see how this was possible since we’d actively looked into exactly this issue before we started the site to make sure we were in the legal right. It turns out the Pampered Chef is (wrongly) claiming the recipes as their Intellectual Property, despite the fact that they can’t be trademarked, copy written or patented. Hence the reason for the rant/article.

Plus, in December, I became a consultant for the Pampered Chef, and as any techie would do, I (for lack of a better word) “synergized” the two. I have recently been told that I am in violation of Pampered Chef policy, which states that no one, not even I, can link to my personal Pampered Chef site (that I have to pay extra in order to use, no less), so I’ve had to take a lot of that stuff down. I’ll still mention individual items, but I will refrain from mentioning the Pampered Chef as the manufacturer. If you are interested in any products I touch on, or would like to book a show, please contact me via email: myjaxon AT gmail DOT com.

If you (like I do), think this policy is ill-conceived (and non-innovative), please feel free to contact the Pampered Chef Customer Service and voice your concerns at [email protected].

Wonder if HO has seen this??

 

[BlessedWifeMommy]

Oh my! I can't believe she would write this.

 

[BethCooks4U]

Look at what she has posted now on her site:


Plus, in December, I became a consultant for the Pampered Chef, and as any techie would do, I (for lack of a better word) “synergized” the two. I have recently been told that I am in violation of Pampered Chef policy, which states that no one, not even I, can link to my personal Pampered Chef site (that I have to pay extra in order to use, no less), so I’ve had to take a lot of that stuff down. I’ll still mention individual items, but I will refrain from mentioning the Pampered Chef as the manufacturer. If you are interested in any products I touch on, or would like to book a show, please contact me via email: myjaxon AT gmail DOT com.

If you (like I do), think this policy is ill-conceived (and non-innovative), please feel free to contact the Pampered Chef Customer Service and voice your concerns at [email protected].

Wonder if HO has seen this??

I do believe this part of her "rant" is in violation. She mentions PC, says she's a consultant and asks for bookings.

 

[pcchefjane]

I just sent her this comment after reading the above and all the comments:And you think your hateful remarks about the PC policies are acceptable? If you don't want to be a consultant and the only reason you signed to be one was to "use their recipes", then you are not in the right business. I was using an internet daily email newsletter for advertising. I did not think about the fact she had a website and this made me in violation of HO policies. I immediately stopped advertising on it. I would have loved to continue since it was local but the contract I signed with PC says no... I personally think you are deliberately flaunting your affiliation with PC to see what more you can get away with. It's a shame you have to badmouth PC to do it. You have also said in the remarks on your home page that you will book PC shows by people emailing you! What don't you get about the internet advertising policies?She's also made this interesting "claim" in her comments post from 1/31/09:

And one other thing, the Home Office told me to write in with feedback requesting that this policy be updated to the 21st century. So anyone else out there who wants to be able to talk about their business online (and potentially get more clients and bookings), should really write in. I’ve already done it.

 

[Chef Kearns]

Ballsy!

All of this will be coming to a head really soon! I hope HO makes the best decision for everyone.