spamalicious > wrote:

> When reading
> through a few of them, I realized that the recipes found on the
> retailer's website that they had claimed to be their own recipes, were
> in fact those written by Ian K. Philpott - some of the recipes had the
> occasional measurement change, but the description, ingredients, and
> methods were the same, word for word (except in situations where Ian
> wrote "my wife", the retailer swapped "we" or "our").

It is generally held, at least in the USA, that a list of ingredients
cannot be copyrighted, but an accompanying text, whether constituting
directions or not, can be - *if* it constitutes a "substantial literary
expression". I have once posted a lengthy message on the subject - see
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.food.cooking/msg/f3ace0c0eeeeb7a3>.

However, the late Col. Philpott posted from Thailand and the recipes
were his wife's, a Thai citizen. Copyright in the international context
- and especially its interpretation - may well be somewhat different.
After all, there is still no such thing as universally accepted
international copyright, the Bern Convention notwithstanding.

AFAIK, neither Col. Philpott, nor his wife, have ever released a
commercial - or just any - collection of their recipes. I doubt they
would (have) object(ed) to a non-commercial publication of the posted
recipes with a faithful attribution. It is, apparently not the case in
the present instance. So, if what you say is true, the perpetrators
are true rats and should be caused as much pain and embarrassment as
one can muster.

Victor