View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
DrBiggles
Joined: 12 May 2005 Posts: 356 Location: Richmond, CA
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 8:06 pm Post subject: Illegal or Not? Copyrights, Internets and recipes. Oh my! |
|
|
Depending on who you are and what you're up to, you may or may not have thought much about posting a recipe from someone's cookbook on a forum or website. If you have, then you've surely read through and possibly participated in an online discussion about what exactly can and can't be copyright protected. Such as ingredients versus directions and methods, which can only be subject to copyright if they are "substantial literary expression."
I ran across this today and thought it interesting to find someone who'd recently come email to email with a publisher who asked to remove her much changed recipe.
http://aloshaskitchen.blogspot.com/2008/07/illegal-or-not.html
Biggles |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dilbert
Joined: 19 Oct 2007 Posts: 1307 Location: central PA
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
certainly changes my opinion about America's Test Kitchen & associated products. bleech! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Auspicious
Joined: 29 Dec 2005 Posts: 66 Location: on the boat, Annapolis, MD
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I followed the links and got increasingly dumbfounded. I'm afraid ATK has lost my business. I may continue to read CI in the library, but I'm likely to send e-mail to advertisers explaining my discontent with ATK policies whenever I'm having a bad day. <grin>
EDIT:
I just watched most of an episode of ATK on television. Not good. Too bad. At least I'm not missing anything. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
GaryProtein
Joined: 26 Oct 2005 Posts: 535
|
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That is absolutely ridiculous. If a recipe is "modified" it isn't the same recipe. The modification could be better, it could be worse. Furthermore, who is to say that someone who published a recipe didn't get it from a friend of a friend of my grandmother who published it in a community cookbook 75 years ago that has no remaining copies in the library?
Another scenario: The caveman invented the recipe for Chateaubriand. It started out "kill animal and eat" which then became "kill animal, cook and eat" which then became "kill animal sprinkle with pepper, cook and eat", then, later, "add wine and spices to sauce, cook and eat."
With all due respect to the posters of recipes here: it is doubtful there is anything totally new under the sun. All recipes have been done before somewhere by someone with modifications done by others to make the recipe a little spicier, sweeter, saltier, simpler, more complex, rarer or more well done.
If it isn't the exact same recipe, it isn't the same recipe. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
SirShazar
Joined: 30 Jul 2007 Posts: 89
|
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just look at their website. Non-members can't read recipes or articles without paying for the subscription. They give you the recipes on the show, but they won't let get a hardcopy of them on the internet, how convenient is that. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dilbert
Joined: 19 Oct 2007 Posts: 1307 Location: central PA
|
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
here's an interesting link to a court decision.
http://floridalawfirm.com/meredith.html
the court reaffirms a list of stuff cannot be copyrighted and
the court was not all that impressed with the "originality" etc of the descriptive part of the claimed rights. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
IndyRob
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 Posts: 77
|
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 2:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
As someone who sells his wares online, I have some sympathy for both camps. On the one hand, one simply can not post Tom Clancy's latest novel with 'some major modifications' and expect to be protected. On the other hand, this appears that it might be a case where a clerk level person charged with searching for infractions got a bit too involved - and where someone was too eager to submit to a request to take the content down.
If the initial request was met by an attorney's response, then I doubt we'd be reading about this. That response would've been kicked upstairs real quick. Instead, the content was taken down almost immediately, thus eliminating the need for any further substantive discussions.
I don't mean to seem to be supporting the involvement of attorneys at every level, but I think that in this case, if there's a perceived right (through Fair Use, or whatever), you have to assert that right - at least at some point before capitulating. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|