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