Copyrighted materials - Read First Before Posting

[Nicko]

Copyrighted materials -- including recipes and photos -- are not allowed to be shared on the ChefTalk community forums without the express consent of the author and/or publisher. Postings that violate this policy will be removed immediately. Please note this is a violation of the ChefTalk community forums guidelines.

Continued posting of copyrighted material will result in automatic banning.

[shel]

How does one know if a recipe is copyrighted?

Shel

[Free Rider]

If you copy it out of a book or magazine would be a start, Shel.

[Nicko]

For instance the Paula Dean recipe you just posted you cannot post without her express permission.

[Joyfull]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Copyrighted materials -- including recipes and photos -- are not allowed to be shared on the ChefTalk community forums without the express consent of the author and/or publisher. Postings that violate this policy will be removed immediately. Please note this is a violation of the ChefTalk community forums guidelines.

Continued posting of copyrighted material will result in automatic banning.

I have a question about this. If the recipe that was posted did not have a "source" would that be permissable?

As an example..
The meatloaf recipe that was posted (which probably got this going) is a basic meatloaf recipe. It just happens to be out of someones cookbook.
I'm pretty sure many people add the exact same ingredients to their own meatloaf recipes, and have never read the book that's mentioned.

I do that constantly. I read a recipe then I add or subtract ingredients till its to my likeing.

What I'm trying to get at here is, if I posted a recipe from a cookbook that I have adjusted/revised to suit my/our tastes, is it permissable?
Thank you

[Free Rider]

I can't speak for Nicko, but I'll give you the idea from an author's point-of-view (I have friends who are published authors who complain about copyright violations, so I've heard quite a bit about it).

If someone is trying to make a buck or two from selling their recipes, you shouldn't give it away for free after buying/reading the book. That someone can't sell his/her recipes if others are taking them and giving them away on the internet.

That said, if you take a recipe and change it, it is no longer that someone's recipe. You have made it yours. Because it is yours, you can give it away for free. Just don't tell everyone how you changed the original so that they can tell what that was.

Also, some recipes are "public domain" much like a cliché would be. How to make a basic créme anglaise, for instance, can't be copyrighted. It is already general knowledge, just like the cliché "soft as silk" can't be copyrighted as it is already in general use.

[foodnfoto]

Hey Nicko
I was about to post some of my work in the photo galleries. I've been given the right to use them for my portfolio by the owners, my clients. This is an agreement that often occurs between stylists, the photographers and the clients.

I just didn't want post them just to have you remove them.

What should I do?

[Nicko]

If it is your work and you have permission we won't remove it. Just so you guys are aware I have been contacted on occassion from authors to remove posts that used their very material without their permission. Doesn't happen often but it does happen.

[KYHeirloomer]

Just to keep the record clear, here's how the copyright system works, both legally and in practical terms.

Under the law, you own all rights to intellectual and artistic property. That means that as soon as the work is produced it is real property, and you own it.

Used to be a concept called "automatic copyright," which said that as soon as the work was produced it was copyrighted. In one of the major revisions of the code they dropped that concept. Now, you own it as soon as it is produced, but unless it is registered, there is no copyright. Defending unregistered property is difficult.

Mailing yourself a copy of the work, and leaving the envelope unopened, is known in the trade as the "poor man's copyright." Sometimes it works. But in practical terms, if you can't afford to register the work, you can't afford to defend it anyway.

The law also specifies that a "significant difference" must exist between an old work and a new work, or else the new work is infringing on the copyright. That is to say, changing a couple of words here and there does not make it a new work.

That's what makes copyrighting recipes, per se, so difficult. Unlike, say, a short story or painting, where small changes do not effect the overall nature of the work, recipes can be totally changed with minor changes.

For instance, take a recipe with a long list of ingredients, among them, yogurt and dill. If you change that to sour cream and tarragon, have you created a new recipe? The courts would likely say yes.

All that aside, if a recipe has been published---that is to say, it has appeared in public---then it is covered under the copyright that protects the entire publication. A magazine, book, or internet site all fit in the legal concept "published." So, too, does tacking a broadbill up on a telephone pole, but you aren't likely to find a recipe there.

In practical terms, recipes, per se, are not copyrighted. And it's impossible to protect a copyright if there is one. Recipes are traded back and forth in magazines and books, with no accreditation, all the time. And, so far as the internet goes, the copyright laws may as well not exist.

What Nicko is saying, I believe, is that ChefTalk will not be part of that process. He recognizes that somebody, somewhere, owns the work, and doesn't want to reproduce it here without that person's permission. I wish more site owners would occupy that sort of ethical and moral high ground.

Meanwhile, if you want to share a recipe from a public source, best bet would be just to refer to the source, or link to the sight. Or take the time to obtain permission to reprint from the owner.

BTW, most of the time copyright owners have no problems granting you that right, so long as due credit is given. For instance, a cookbook publisher will gladly let you reprint one recipe from a book, in the hopes that it will encourage others to buy the book.

But the key is asking for, and obtaining, permission. It's not hard getting it. It just takes time.

[Joyfull]

[Meanwhile, if you want to share a recipe from a public source, best bet would be just to refer to the source, or link to the sight. Or take the time to obtain permission to reprint from the owner.]

But that was done. The source in this case was the cookbook and that was a no-no.
How can it be wrong to ask questions about a certain recipe in that book anyway?
What's the point of us buying any cookbook then if we can't discuss or share a recipe from it here or on any other cooking/baking site without getting our knuckles rapped?
I realize that the cookbook and recipes are copyrighted, but really, if no one ever discussed how good or bad the recipes were or asked questions about the ingredients in said recipes to other people for fear they'd get into trouble, no news good or bad about this cookbook would ever be passed on!


[BTW, most of the time copyright owners have no problems granting you that right, so long as due credit is given. For instance, a cookbook publisher will gladly let you reprint one recipe from a book, in the hopes that it will encourage others to buy the book"]

In the past three months I have purchased 2 cookbooks because a certain recipe on someones blog/website caught my eye.
The persons that have the blogs/websites do say what cookbook they got the recipe from as their 'source', but I've never seen any mention of having permission from the author to use said recipe.

To me this can only be a good thing for any cookbook author though.
Think about it, someone buys your cookbook, is so thrilled with one of your recipes they put the recipe on their blog/website to share with others.
Along comes someone like me to that blog/website, sees the recipe and the cookbook its from and promptly goes out and buys it.
That can only be a good thing for the cookbook author right?!

I can see the author/authors objecting if someone posted their cookbook page by page for all to see.
But if its just one recipe posted here and there that in the long run might help make their cookbook more popular, I don't understand the objection at all..

Sorry for being so long winded here. Just wanted to get my thoughts across..

[phatch]

It is my non-professional opinion as a professional writer that you can't copyright a single recipe (in most cases). Similarly excerpting a single recipe doesn't infringe the copyright of the whole work which is how a cookbook generally qualifies for copyright.

U.S. Copyright Office - Recipes

Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds or prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection. 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 combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection.

However, while I believe what I wrote above there are extenuating circumstances that make Nicko's policy a good one.

Nicko runs a website on a shoestring budget. He is liable for the content of this site. In the case of a claim of copyright violation, both HE and the POSTER become liable for LARGE fines for EACH instance. Besides which defending of those claims and winning is an equally large liability on both the poster and Nicko.

So it's a no-win proposition for him to allow the posting of other's work.

And it protects us too.

Now, I think giving a list of ingredients without quantities from a source and a SHORT summary in YOUR OWN words would be sufficient insulation from the creative literary work of the original to be allowed under copyright.

As noted in the government's site on copyright, a mere listing of ingredients is not protected speech. While that probably includes quantities, it's probably best ethics to not list quantities.

Anyway, that's my opinion and worth every cent of what you all paid to read it.

Phil

[KYHeirloomer]

"where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial [COLOR=#006666! important][FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif][COLOR=#006666! important][FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif]literary[/font][/font][/color][/color] expression in the form of an explanation or directions,....."

Let's say you're watching Emeril on TV, and he says put some olive oil in the pan, then add some tomatoes, okra, salt, pepper, and essence, that is not copyrightable.

But then you go to the Food Network website, where the actual recipe appears, along with directions.

"Heat 2 tbls oil in a pan. Add 1 cup chopped tomatoes (heirlooms work best for this), a pound of okra, tipped, tailed, and split the long way, so much salt (sea salt really perks it up, but if not, kosher salt will do), so much pepper and a tsp of essence.

Let it simmer ten minutes, then........etc."

The specific quantitities, along with the explanation and directions, would make it copyrightable.

That recipe probably isn't copywrited for several reasons, not the least of which is that it's designed to be downloaded. Food Network even provides the means for you to do that. But, for the sake of discussion, let's say it was copyrighted.

Now I come along, and print out that recipe here at ChefTalk, attributing it to Emeril and the Food Network. Technically, I have still violated the copyright law, because I used somebody elses property without permission.

In practical terms, my liability is zero. Food Network (the actual copyright holder) is not going to sue under those conditions, for all sorts of reasons. And, if they did, the judge's decision would be based on 1. what damages were suffered, and 2. who, if anyone, benefitted. So, after spending $50,000 on the suit, Food Network would be awarded a favorable decision and 2 cents in damages.

That's why no suit would happen. Food Network's lawyers aren't stupid.

"Similarly excerpting a single recipe doesn't infringe the copyright of the whole work"

Maybe. Excluding the educational exemption (a section, btw, which every writer and publisher seriously objects to), it would depend on the use.

You may quote "short sections" as part of a literary review or criticisim, for instance. Generally, industry practice accepts up to 500 continuous words as legitimate for such usage. Does a recipe qualify? I dunno. I have no idea if it was ever tested.

On the other hand, reprinting it, without permission, and particularly without attribution, in a new cookbook would certainly qualify as a violation. You have, without question, stolen somebody elses property, and are using it for your own benefit.

Again, in practical terms you probably face little liability. But the question is, do you do the right thing out of fear of punishment, or do you do the right thing because it's the right thing?

The answer to that question is how we define the moral man. But that takes us far away from the basic question of property rights.

So, you are likely safe stealing one recipe for your new book (unless, as happens from time to time, the original publisher is looking to make an example). But, what if you stole whole sections of recipes, and put them in your book, representing them as original material? Would you expect to get away with that?

The fact is, stealing 25 recipes and stealing just one is a difference of degree, not of kind. In both cases you have actually broken the law.

[phatch]

Certainly, reprinting for profit without permission is a violation of copyright.

But you also skipped over the part "may be a basis for copyright protection" which is not a guarantee of copyright. And also the word substantial indicates more than just simple directions.

Phil

[phatch]

As to the claim about free info being in the authors interest, see
Accelerando!

Read two sections in particular:

Accelerando! Yes, I know all the links look the same, but they go different places.

and

Accelerando!

The executive summary is that Charles Stross, a well established award winning author thinks that giving away a free etext of the book at the same time it is available in hard copy is a viable and improved marketing strategy.

Which is not a claim to post chunks of his story all over the place in violation of the CC license, but to show that copyright isn't everything (read $$$) big business thinks it is either.

Oh, and it's a good book with some excellent chapters but it wasn't written linearly. And free to read/download at Accelerando!

Phil

[phoebe]

Maybe I'm just having a brain-cell malfunction moment, but I need some clarification. Is it copyright violation if I post a link to a recipe I came across on the web? I understand that I can't type out the recipe and post it, but if I have a question, can't I post a link? And how does naming the source change (or not change) things?