[KissTC]

Originally Posted by oldschool1982

So let me get this straight. If the copyright laws are as Kiss states then the Azzholes at the Big Tree Inn or more specifically Campus Auxillary Services (that's who they were at the time) in Geneseo NY owe me for keeping my recipes when they terminated me? Even though I notified them by registed letter that the recipes were mine and they had no right to them. Now this is been almost 9 yrs that I've held on to it becasue of so many, many, many reasons. PM me if ya want to know some of them but they terminated me while we were on vacation and by certified mail to boot. Anyone interested in a client and 9yrs worth of back sales royalties?

The Copyright Office states this -

How do I protect my recipe?
A mere listing of ingredients is not protected under copyright law. However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a collection of recipes as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection. Note that if you have secret ingredients to a recipe that you do not wish to be revealed, you should not submit your recipe for registration, because applications and deposit copies are public records. See FL 122, Recipes.

So because you have a "collection" of recipes, they may be Copyright material. You should seek some proper legal advice.

You should also note that the Copyright Office says that for you to start legal action, your Copyright must be registered. That is the part which may or may not be legal...But that is for Americans to sort out.

For example, if a person stole your car it would not matter if the car was registered or not, it would still be theft. To demand that a registration fee be paid before the police will take action to recover your car, could be considered almost blackmail...

Yet the U.S Government is doing exactly that when it comes to Copyright. They will not recognise, at Law, your automatically granted copyright ownership unless your first pay them a registeration fee. No other country, that I know of, does that.

I hope that is of help.

[DMT]

Originally Posted by oldschool1982

Anyone interested in a client and 9yrs worth of back sales royalties?

Not really, Oldie, I'm sort of more interested (in a non-legalleze sense) in whose bowl of Wheaties has the greater amount of pizz in it...

I'm thinkin' BDL's is pretty dry...

[oldschool1982]

Too phunny DMT!!!!!!

Well Kiss, Guess we ain't gonna know since to get any legal counsel would take a great deal of what we're still trying to recoup from that whole fiasco. We had to close two 401k's to dig outta that hole.

[KYHeirloomer]

Oldschool there are two issues involved.

1. Whether or not your instructions and explanations constituted a significant literary expression. If not, the recipes are not copyrightable in the first place. An IP judge would have to make that decision. Your certified letter claiming ownership is, in this case, meaningless.

2. Whether or not the recipes you created while in their employ fell under the work for hire concept. If they did, then they own them whether copyrightable or not. In the absence of specific contract provisions to the contrary, I suspect that if this got to a court the judge would rule that work for hire does apply. Case law tends to support that view.

[Nicko]

This topic has really grown and I wanted to clarify ChefTalk’s stance on posting recipes, articles, book reviews, etc. It really isn’t a question of what is right legally to ChefTalk it is more a matter of being courteous and showing respect to another owner’s property and website.

Here is the skinny on the fat. ChefTalk like many other website works hard (tries to anyway) to get unique content that we think is interesting to our members. It is truly a slap in the face when ChefTalk posts an article such as “An Open Letter to Gordon Ramsey” and it winds up word for word on anther site. No one asked our permission they just copied the entire article and posted it in their forums their site etc etc. Possibly they think they are saving their friends a trip. The truth is they are hurting the site that posted the article.

Here is what happens next. ChefTalk posts some content based ads with our articles, forums, recipes, etc which help keep ChefTalk alive. When someone else posts our content whether it is an article, recipe, book review etc the search engines index that content. Now a web users searches for a keyword in that article and they not only find the article link on ChefTalk but also find the other site that copied the content. The web user goes to the other site (not ChefTalk) and gives the other site their traffic (often which helps a site determine ad rates) and they possibly click on a content based ad there. So ChefTalk has taken the time to post the content, promote it through our newsletter and forums and some other site stole the content and is now making an income off it and getting our traffic.

So in summary it really is all about courtesy and respect. When you read a NY Times article help that site out by posting a link to the article not by copying and pasting the article on ChefTalk. Links to content are actually one of the most beneficial ways to help a site instead of reprinting their content. Unless you have the original author’s permission to reprint their article, recipe, book review etc etc then the only thing you should do is post a link to it.

It is really important for people to understand how their actions can greatly impact a site and the revenue they generate. Even something as simple as posting a link. It truly does have a ripple affect on the internet and it is important to think before you post.

I leave the legal aspects to the lawyers.

[boar_d_laze]

Originally Posted by Nicko

I leave the legal aspects to the lawyers.

Thanks. Just what we always wanted. Do you want fries with that?

BDL

[Nicko]

Why??? would I want that...