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