Hmmmm... Maybe I should just keep my recipes to myself and carry on with
just cooking. My bubble has burst......sigh.

"Angela Arnold" wrote in message
om...
Douglas,
You really need to follow your own advice. Below are excerpts from the
web
site link you posted.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the
reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining
whether or not a particular use is fair:

1.the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2.the nature of the copyrighted work;

3.amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and

4.the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
This is the "fair use" factors I was quoting from in my original post.

Exempt from copyright:
Mere listings of ingredients, as in recipes, labels, or formulas. When a
recipe or formula is accompanied by explanation or directions, the text
directions may be copyrightable, but the recipe or formula itself remains
uncopyrightable.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ34.html


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.

Protection under the copyright law (title 17 of the United States Code,
section 102) extends only to "original works of authorship" that are fixed
in a tangible form (a copy). "Original" means merely that the author
produced the work *by his own intellectual effort*, as distinguished from
copying an existing work. Copyright protection may extend to a
description,
explanation, or illustration, assuming that the requirements of the
copyright law are met.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html
Since very few recipe directions are actually original, (as anybody knows
if
they have ever baked or cooked a lot), this would have to be one very
unique
recipe.
There are only so many ways you can prepare foods and many ingredients
have
to be combined in certain ways in order for them to work properly.

As for your statement:
"But he DOES deprive the authors/owners of the website of income,
by not properly attributing the source, and eliminating the need for
people who seek such recipes from going to that site, and clicking on
the ads from which the web owners derive their income."
Most people looking for recipes do NOT go to the web site in order to
click
on the banner ads. Actually, I have yet to meet anyone who even clicks on
banner ads, due to the risk of virus infection and also because most
banners
are complete crap and are akin to SPAM.
Angel

Angela Arnold on 03 Nov 2003 suggested:

Douglas,
You really need to follow your own advice. Below are excerpts from
the web
site link you posted.

Nothing you posted here contradicts what I stated in my post. Yet
I'll still clarify some things here as well. You declared the "four
factors" as a test, and stated (or strongly implied) that if it met any
one of the factors, it was exempt. That is simply not true.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the
reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and
research.

This is correct. The way they were being posted here was for none
of the above purposes, as far as I can tell.

Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in
determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1.the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is
of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2.the nature of the copyrighted work;

3.amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and

4.the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
This is the "fair use" factors I was quoting from in my original
post.

I did not deny the four factors existed, and am well aware of
them. I simply stated that you did not understand how they are applied
in evaluating "fair use". And from your current comments, I still don't
think you understand.

Exempt from copyright:
Mere listings of ingredients, as in recipes, labels, or formulas.
When a recipe or formula is accompanied by explanation or directions,
the text directions may be copyrightable, but the recipe or formula
itself remains uncopyrightable.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ34.html

I never said the ingredients list was subject to copyright, on the
contrary, I believe I specifically said the expression of the
ingredients was inseparable from its function, and thus not protected.
I did say that the expression as to how the ingredients could be
combined, mixed, and brought together into a final product could very
well be an original expression, and subject to protection.

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.

I believe the above paragraph is precisely what I said in the
previous post, albeit without the emphasis on "may be". However, under
current copyright law, pretty much any original expression affixed in a
tangible medium does, in fact, enjoy protection.

Protection under the copyright law (title 17 of the United States
Code, section 102) extends only to "original works of authorship"
that are fixed in a tangible form (a copy). "Original" means merely
that the author produced the work *by his own intellectual effort*,
as distinguished from copying an existing work.

That IS the law. Who are you to say that the posts are NOT
original in their expression of how to prepare the ingredients that are
listed? Unless you have some evidence that (a) shows there was a
previous identical expression, AND (b) that the author had access to it
and copied it, the work is presumed to be an original work.

Copyright protection
may extend to a description, explanation, or illustration, assuming
that the requirements of the copyright law are met.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

Yes, that's correct.

Since very few recipe directions are actually original, (as anybody
knows if they have ever baked or cooked a lot), this would have to be
one very unique recipe.

Again, as you said before, Copyright doesn't protect the IDEA or
the FORMULA. It protects the original expression of said idea or
formula. Thus, if there is originality in the explanation of how to
prepare or combine the ingredients, it is entitled to protection of the
Copyright laws.

There are only so many ways you can prepare foods and many
ingredients have to be combined in certain ways in order for them to
work properly.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I make pretty
much one "dish", chocolate chip cookies. And I can assure you, that not
only the ingredients matter, but that they can be combined in many
different ways, different orders, and with very different results.
After many trials and errors, I have discovered my particular method,
that I believe makes the best chocolate chip cookie to my likes, which I
do not share with anyone. And yet, my method is NOT subject to
Copyright protection. However, saying that, I can still express how to
do it my way, in as many different ways as there are letters in the
alphabet, and my teaching of my method WOULD BE protected by Copyright.

As for your statement:
"But he DOES deprive the authors/owners of the website of income,
by not properly attributing the source, and eliminating the need for
people who seek such recipes from going to that site, and clicking on
the ads from which the web owners derive their income."
Most people looking for recipes do NOT go to the web site in order to
click on the banner ads. Actually, I have yet to meet anyone who even
clicks on banner ads, due to the risk of virus infection and also
because most banners are complete crap and are akin to SPAM.

Again, that's YOUR opinion, of which you are also entitled. All I
can say is that if nobody clicked on ads, there wouldn't be very many of
them, and yet there are, because people DO click on them, generating
income for those people who have them. A lot of the "free" sites
wouldn't exist anymore, without these ads. The red herring regarding
virus/spam/etc is irrelevant.

--Douglas

Misschef on 03 Nov 2003 suggested:

Hmmmm... Maybe I should just keep my recipes to myself and carry on
with just cooking. My bubble has burst......sigh.

No need to do that. Though the ingredients themselves aren´t subject
to protection, your clever, interesting and original explanations about
how to put the ingredients together are protectable. And any stories you
add to the recipes about your efforts to create or discover the recipe
would also be protectable.

--Douglas

"The Ranger" wrote ...someone afraid to take
ownership of their words;
unworthy of further note.

The Ranger

Are we to assume your first name is The?
JackG

Jack Sloan quipped in message
...
Are we to assume your first name is The?

Assume anything you like, Jack; anything at all. EG

The Ranger

Angela Arnold wrote:

Therein lies a problem. The man is not in violation of copyright laws
because he is posting recipes he finds on web sites, no more than
anyone else is for posting any recipe. You can not copyright a single
recipe, only a collection of published recipes in the form of a recipe
book. Meaning that someone could reprint or pass-on any recipe from
that book or source as long as they didn't copy the entire source
(book, web site, etc.) completely and exactly. You can not copyright a
fact or idea, only the manner in which they are presented and a recipe
falls under facts and ideas. Just like you can't copyright a song,
only the lyrics.
Even if there were copyright laws for single recipes, he still would
not be in violation because he is not reproducing them for profit, nor
is he claiming to be the author of the recipes. This is because there
are certain infringements that the copyright law excuses under the
doctrine of "fair use." In an effort to define fair use, the copyright
law provides a four-factor test and failure to obtain profit or
personal claim falls under one of these factors, thus making it
exempt.
Here are some links about copyright laws and recipes (among others).
http://www.uncletaz.com/backyard/entheta/copyrght.html
http://www.keytlaw.com/Copyrights/faqs.htm#q1
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/octnews/oc020403.html
http://www.eff.org/IP/ip_and_electronic_data.paper
He is not in violation of any copyright laws, although there may be
something said about ethics. But, since he is not deriving anything
from posting these recipes and is only doing so for the benefit of
others, there is nothing unethical about it. Especially since he is
not depriving the authors of any income in doing so (these recipes are
free for anyone to read and use-the sites do not charge you to have
access to them.)
Angel

Very well done, Angela, but he is doing it for HIS benefit at the core.
See how many posts there are telling him to take a hike.


jim

Douglas S. Ladden wrote:

Angela Arnold on 03 Nov 2003 suggested:


Therein lies a problem. The man is not in violation of copyright laws
because he is posting recipes he finds on web sites, no more than
anyone else is for posting any recipe. You can not copyright a single
recipe, only a collection of published recipes in the form of a recipe
book.


This is not a correct statement of the law, as it exists. 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.


Meaning that someone could reprint or pass-on any recipe from
that book or source as long as they didn't copy the entire source
(book, web site, etc.) completely and exactly.


This is also not correct. Please see the "Fair Use" provision of
the Copyright Law, 17 USC 107.


You can not copyright a fact or idea, only the manner in which they
are presented and a recipe falls under facts and ideas.


The first two-thirds of the above sentence is correct, the
conclusion is not. Please see above. Where the idea and the expression
are inseperable, as in a mere list of ingredients, there is no
protection, but where directions on how to mix the ingredients are
included, there can be multiple ways of expressing those directions, and
thus, there is originality of work, giving rise to Copyright protection.


Just like you can't copyright a song, only the lyrics.


This is CLEARLY not correct. Please see Title 17 of the US Code,
sections 102(a)(2) and 102(a)(7), which specifically list, "(2) musical
works, including any accompanying words", AND "(7) sound recordings".


Even if there were copyright laws for single recipes, he still would
not be in violation because he is not reproducing them for profit


Completely irrelevant. The mere act of copying without
authorization, or violating any of the other rights specified in
sections 106 to 122 of Title 17, is sufficient to trigger an
infringement of Copyright. Please see Section 501 of Title 17.
Commercial gain is only relevant for CRIMINAL copyright infringement,
please see Section 506 of Title 17.

Since he is willfully posting these recipes which he knows or
should know are protected by copyright, he is subject to the statutory
damages of $150,000 per work infringed.


nor is he claiming to be the author of the recipes.


Irrelevant. See above.


This is because there
are certain infringements that the copyright law excuses under the
doctrine of "fair use." In an effort to define fair use, the copyright
law provides a four-factor test and failure to obtain profit or
personal claim falls under one of these factors, thus making it
exempt.


That is a tremendous oversimplification, and an erroneous one at
that. There are four factors which must be considered, but it isn't a
"test". It's a balancing act.


Here are some links about copyright laws and recipes (among others).
http://www.uncletaz.com/backyard/entheta/copyrght.html
http://www.keytlaw.com/Copyrights/faqs.htm#q1
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/octnews/oc020403.html
http://www.eff.org/IP/ip_and_electronic_data.paper


You're better off going to the source, the Copyright Office
itself: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/


He is not in violation of any copyright laws, although there may be
something said about ethics.


I would disagree with your analysis and conclusion, as it does not
comport with the law as it stands. He is clearly infringing on the
Copyrights of the authors, and he is not doing so within the "Fair Use"
provisions of the law.


But, since he is not deriving anything
from posting these recipes and is only doing so for the benefit of
others, there is nothing unethical about it.


Again, derivation of profit is irrelevant for civil infringement,
and the fact that he's doing it for the benefit of others is also
irrelevent. If you don't believe me, look at the RIAA lawsuits busting
all those people sharing their music for the benefit of others.


Especially since he is
not depriving the authors of any income in doing so (these recipes are
free for anyone to read and use-the sites do not charge you to have
access to them.)


But he DOES deprive the authors/owners of the website of income,
by not properly attributing the source, and eliminating the need for
people who seek such recipes from going to that site, and clicking on
the ads from which the web owners derive their income.

--Douglas

Hmmm, this gives rise to the question of whether or not, Angela is
another of A-1's sock puppets. Three (?) and counting.


jim

"Thurman" wrote in message
...
Dimitri wrote:
I guess you've discovered a new source to rip off:


A retired employee of a very large company was copying my
posts, substituting his name and publishing them as
originals in a company magazine.

The law is very clear and so am I. I just want his
retirement income for life.

Sorry little girl, but you can't possibly afford the legal clout that would
be necessary to even come close to getting my retirement. Your a pitiful
little cockroach, and would be stepped on as such. However, if you have a
million or so for your attorneys, take your best shot little girl. It's not
the same in the real world as it is in this news group. I play hard ball in
the real world little girl, and you wouldn't like the game.

Thanks Angela, he is just shooting his mouth off. There have not been any
"Original" recipes in over a hundred years. Simply because a site Says the
recipe is copyrighted, doesn't necessarily mean it is copyrighted. The
courts would have to decide that, and I don't think they want to go to the
expence involved in a court battle, unless they could prove a substantial
loss of income from posting the recipe in a news group.
"Angela Arnold" wrote in message
om...
Douglas,
You really need to follow your own advice. Below are excerpts from the
web
site link you posted.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the
reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining
whether or not a particular use is fair:

1.the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2.the nature of the copyrighted work;

3.amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and

4.the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
This is the "fair use" factors I was quoting from in my original post.

Exempt from copyright:
Mere listings of ingredients, as in recipes, labels, or formulas. When a
recipe or formula is accompanied by explanation or directions, the text
directions may be copyrightable, but the recipe or formula itself remains
uncopyrightable.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ34.html


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.

Protection under the copyright law (title 17 of the United States Code,
section 102) extends only to "original works of authorship" that are fixed
in a tangible form (a copy). "Original" means merely that the author
produced the work *by his own intellectual effort*, as distinguished from
copying an existing work. Copyright protection may extend to a
description,
explanation, or illustration, assuming that the requirements of the
copyright law are met.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html
Since very few recipe directions are actually original, (as anybody knows
if
they have ever baked or cooked a lot), this would have to be one very
unique
recipe.
There are only so many ways you can prepare foods and many ingredients
have
to be combined in certain ways in order for them to work properly.

As for your statement:
"But he DOES deprive the authors/owners of the website of income,
by not properly attributing the source, and eliminating the need for
people who seek such recipes from going to that site, and clicking on
the ads from which the web owners derive their income."
Most people looking for recipes do NOT go to the web site in order to
click
on the banner ads. Actually, I have yet to meet anyone who even clicks on
banner ads, due to the risk of virus infection and also because most
banners
are complete crap and are akin to SPAM.
Angel

"William Barfieldsr" LIED in message
...
Thanks Angela, he is just shooting his mouth off. There have not been any
"Original" recipes in over a hundred years.

BULL SHIT!

Original recipe # 1

Toll House cookie
This - the original chocolate-chip cookie - was created in the 1930s by Ruth
Wakefield, who ran the Toll House Restaurant outside of Whitman,
Massachusetts. Mrs. Wakefield, in a moment of brilliant inspiration, cut up
bars of chocolate to add to a basic butter-cookie dough. History was made.
Today, the chocolate-chip cookie is the most popular in the United States.
© Copyright Barron's Educational Services, Inc. 1995 based on THE FOOD
LOVER'S COMPANION, 2nd edition, by Sharon Tyler Herbst.

Original recipe # 2

fettuccine Alfredo
[feht-tuh-CHEE-nee al-FRAY-doh]
Roman restaurateur Alfredo di Lello is credited with creating this dish in
the 1920s. The FETTUCCINE is enrobed in a rich sauce of butter, grated
PARMESAN CHEESE, heavy cream and plentiful grindings of black pepper. Other
noodles may be substituted for the fettuccine.
© Copyright Barron's Educational Services, Inc. 1995 based

Original recipe # 3

Caesar salad
[SEE-zer]
A salad consisting of greens (classically, ROMAINE LETTUCE) tossed with a
garlic VINAIGRETTE dressing (made with WORCESTERSHIRE SAUCE and lemon
juice), grated Parmesan cheese, croutons, a CODDLED egg and sometimes
anchovies. It is said to have been created in 1924 by Italian chef Caesar
Cardini, who owned a restaurant in Tijuana, Mexico.
© Copyright Barron's Educational Services, Inc. 1995 based on THE FOOD
LOVER'S COMPANION, 2nd edition, by Sharon Tyler Herbst

AD INFINITUM AD NAUSEUM

Missed by a few years:

http://www.tarte-tatin.com/english/p...orique-en.html

Oh yes just in case you were wondering

Dimitri

"William Barfieldsr" wrote in message
...
Thanks Angela, he is just shooting his mouth off. There have not been any
"Original" recipes in over a hundred years.

Damn, I forgot.

Coca-Cola
Big Mac
Kentucky Fried Chicken
Krispy Kream
Whopper
Jumbo Jack

Who else?

Dimitri

William Barfieldsr wrote:
Thanks Angela, he is just shooting his mouth off. There have not been any
"Original" recipes in over a hundred years. Simply because a site Says the
recipe is copyrighted, doesn't necessarily mean it is copyrighted. The
courts would have to decide that, and I don't think they want to go to the
expence involved in a court battle, unless they could prove a substantial
loss of income from posting the recipe in a news group.
"Angela Arnold" wrote in message
om...

Douglas,
You really need to follow your own advice. Below are excerpts from the

web

site link you posted.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the
reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining
whether or not a particular use is fair:

1.the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2.the nature of the copyrighted work;

3.amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and

4.the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
This is the "fair use" factors I was quoting from in my original post.

Exempt from copyright:
Mere listings of ingredients, as in recipes, labels, or formulas. When a
recipe or formula is accompanied by explanation or directions, the text
directions may be copyrightable, but the recipe or formula itself remains
uncopyrightable.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ34.html


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.

Protection under the copyright law (title 17 of the United States Code,
section 102) extends only to "original works of authorship" that are fixed
in a tangible form (a copy). "Original" means merely that the author
produced the work *by his own intellectual effort*, as distinguished from
copying an existing work. Copyright protection may extend to a

description,

explanation, or illustration, assuming that the requirements of the
copyright law are met.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html
Since very few recipe directions are actually original, (as anybody knows

if

they have ever baked or cooked a lot), this would have to be one very

unique

recipe.
There are only so many ways you can prepare foods and many ingredients

have

to be combined in certain ways in order for them to work properly.

As for your statement:
"But he DOES deprive the authors/owners of the website of income,
by not properly attributing the source, and eliminating the need for
people who seek such recipes from going to that site, and clicking on
the ads from which the web owners derive their income."
Most people looking for recipes do NOT go to the web site in order to

click

on the banner ads. Actually, I have yet to meet anyone who even clicks on
banner ads, due to the risk of virus infection and also because most

banners

are complete crap and are akin to SPAM.
Angel




If it says it is copyrighted, then it is by common copyright. You are
jerk A-1 (noticing you're hiding out now with a different identity).


jim

William Barfieldsr wrote:

"Thurman" wrote in message
...

Dimitri wrote:

I guess you've discovered a new source to rip off:


A retired employee of a very large company was copying my
posts, substituting his name and publishing them as
originals in a company magazine.

The law is very clear and so am I. I just want his
retirement income for life.


Sorry little girl, but you can't possibly afford the legal clout that would
be necessary to even come close to getting my retirement. Your a pitiful
little cockroach, and would be stepped on as such. However, if you have a
million or so for your attorneys, take your best shot little girl. It's not
the same in the real world as it is in this news group. I play hard ball in
the real world little girl, and you wouldn't like the game.



And you're nothing more than a ****ant, A-1.


jim

William Barfieldsr on 04 Nov 2003 suggested:

Thanks Angela, he is just shooting his mouth off.

Oh, and I rarely just shoot my mouth off. Especially when it
comes to the law.

There have not been any "Original" recipes in over a hundred years.

Well, now isn't that another one of those wonderfully typical
arrogant, ignorant, and completely stupid statements that YOU are
becoming so famous for. You know, in the late 1800's, the Patent
Commissioner declared that everything that could ever be invented, had
been invented. Was he related to you?

I do NOT cook, but I do help others cook, and I have come up with
several ORIGINAL recipes of my own, both in ingredients, and in process.
It does not surprise me that you don't think there is anything original,
since there sure doesn't seem to be anything original in your brain, and
may well not have been in 100 years.

Simply because a site Says the recipe is copyrighted, doesn't
necessarily mean it is copyrighted.

Since 1978, all original works affixed in a tangible medium are
automatically protected by Copyright. Since most websites didn't exist
prior to 1978, they would be protected. The recipes themselves would
might also be Copyright depending on the factual basis surrounding them.

The courts would have to decide that, and I don't think
they want to go to the expence involved in a court battle, unless
they could prove a substantial loss of income from posting the recipe
in a news group.

Actually, the expense in filing a Copyright infringement suit is
rather low, especially when compared against the potential damages that
can be recovered. Also, the majority of the expense would be on the
defendant, since the presumption is that the Copyright is valid, and you
would have to affirmatively prove any defenses or mitigating
circumstances.

Apparently, you do NOT understand Copyright law either. The term
"statutory damages" means that they don't have to prove ANY actual
damages or loss at all. All they have to prove is that they have a
valid Copyright, and that they have registered it before they filed
suit, an easy thing to do. The statutory damages can be as high as
$150,000 for each work infringed, not a bad return for a $200 investment
in filing the law suit.

--Douglas

Jim Lane on 04 Nov 2003 suggested:

If it says it is copyrighted, then it is by common copyright. You are
jerk A-1 (noticing you're hiding out now with a different identity).

To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "common copyright", nor
a "common law copyright", if that's what you meant. At least not in the
United States, I am not familiar with the laws of other jurisdictions.
All Copyright Law in the United States is enabled by the U.S.
Constitution, and established by Federal Law, pre-empting any State laws
which may speak to the issue.

--Douglas