Mash wrote:
> Bob (this one) wrote:
>
>> Sheldon wrote:
>
> Thanks Bob! Actually I've learned to tolerate Sheldon and even if
> he's forgotten how we used to correspond I understand. It's been
> awhile since I've posted here.

I usually just ignore his blather and blunder. But sometimes he posts
such a load of crap that he just cries out for a smack. Like this.

>> snippage...
>>
>> This is what non sequitur is all about. Irrelevancies piled on
>> irrelevancies... all tending toward false conclusions. To prove a
>> point that is no point.
>
>>> and that's why recipes cannot be copyrighted, they've all been
>>> done before.
>>
>> And he administers the coup de grace to himself - by himself. Of
>> course recipes can be copyrighted. I have thousands of them that
>> I've published and they're mine. They can't be copied and used
>> without my permission. What can't be copyrighted is the list of
>> ingredients. Any and all headnotes, instructions and endnotes are
>> "original expression" and, as such, intellectual property and, as
>> such, automatically copyrighted upon creation. Just like the law
>> says. So *every* recipe is subject to copyright as an "original
>> work" even if some component of it isn't. Just like novels are
>> copyrighted even though page numbers aren't and individual words
>> aren't.
>>
>> Idiot. Pontificating poseur.
>>
>> Pastorio
>
> As to copyright, you are correct. The list of ingredients can NOT be
> copyrighted only the descriptive text can. That is where the real
> writing takes place.

Of course. It's the descriptions, directions and further thoughts that
make it into a communication of "original thought."

> As a semi-retired journalist, I've had to learn a bit about
> copyright, libel, etc. My last reporting job included writing about
> government and military affairs, the environment and for fun I wrote
> a weekly food column. I enjoyed writing this column because I love to
> write about food. Sometimes the articles dealt with my cooking
> adventures and sometimes I used pre-written copy. I always gave the
> appropriate attribution because it was polite and correct.

One of my editors suggested I look at copyright laws as they applied to
what we were working on so there were no surprises in how we dealt with
each other. I thought I knew them until I went to the Copyright Office
web site and actually read the laws. A lot of it is controversial, but
the basic stuff is pretty clear.

I wrote about 600 articles for her, IIRC. Then I had to break in a new
editor. And another. And then another...

Pastorio