Sheldon wrote:
> Michael L Kankiewicz wrote:
>
>>Here's something from the government.
>>
>>http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.pdf
>
> Yup, exactly what I said...
Nah. Not what you said. You still think that the combination of
ingredients and instructions are a recipe and can't be copyrighted.
You're dead wrong. It says...
"Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds or
prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection."
This would be *only* the ingredient list - the "formula" or materials
involved. They go on to say:
"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."
> recipes per se cannot be copyrighted...
> only accompanying text and compilation thereof, MAYBE.
As has already been explained and as detailed in the Copyright Office
page, the headnotes, title, ingredient list, instructions, endnotes -
together - *are* the totality of the recipe. As for the *may* that's
listed on the web site, it's a legalism to make sure that the odd case
is covered.
> You wanna include about how yer momma would prepare Fried Goobers for
> Sunday dinner special for Aunt Betty Lou's ******* daughters, that part
> MAY be copywritable, but not the actual recipe (the list of ingredients
> and basic procedure)... before the procedure can be copyrighted first
> there'd need to be a patent on Cooking, there is none... you can't
> patent fire.
And you don't need to. Sheldon doesn't seem to know the difference
between patents, trademarks and copyright. Shocked, I am. Study time:
<http://www.uspto.gov/>
Ingredients *and* directions *are* a copyrightable recipe according to
the Copyright office.. "where a ... formula is accompanied by
substantial literary expression in the form of ...directions"
In copyright law, the entire work is covered - as a unit - and isn't
separable into pieces, some of which are copyrighted and others are not.
So if the entire recipe includes "substantial literary expression in the
form of an explanation or directions," it's covered as a single work.
The ingredient list can be used by others if the "substantial literary
expression in the form of an explanation or directions" differs
substantially from the original. It's the same thing as saying the
specific entire work is covered, but the components (words, punctuation,
lists, cliches, etc.) can be reused in a substantively different
expression. Without violating copyright. Maybe.
> Anyone with a proprietary recipe (secret formula) (ie. Coca Cola), and
> wants to *fully* protect it has but one (1) choice, DON'T WRITE IT DOWN
> AND DON'T TELL ANYONE... if more than one (1) person knows it is NOT a
> secret... do NOT even think about copywriting a proprietary formula.
This is a mishmash of garbled thinking. The ingredient list of Coke
can't be copyrighted *without* the directions. With the directions,
copyright *automatically* takes effect when it's written. You literally
can't stop it. It's not in the control of the creator. What is in that
control is registering it. In doing so, it exposes the information for
others to adapt and alter to get around the copyright.
But copyright doesn't prevent anyone from changing the directions and
making it their own. It only offers some protection against someone
stealing the *exact words*, in that same order, used in the original
recipe. Copyright isn't about the content of the expression, it's only
about the words and form used to express the ideas.
Like all ignorant people, Sheldon seems to think that when something is
copyrighted, somehow you can't use that information or change the
details to avoid infringement. That's the important word in copyright
law - infringement.
> This copyright subject has been scrutinized here previously, many times
> over the years, there are always a few pontificating pinheads who are
> incapable of "getting it".
<LOL> Oh sure. Listen to Sheldon who can barely make coherent sentences
without violating somebody else's copyright and has never had anything
culinary published anywhere that had an editor. (If he had, we'd know.
He'd make sure of that.)
As opposed to the several people (including me) who have published
literally thousands of articles and who, for their own safety and income
need to know the details behind these issues. Editors and corporate
attorneys make damn sure that columnists understand enough applicable
law about copyright, libel, contractual obligations, exclusions and all
the rest of it to protect the business.
Sheldon's a fat, old guy standing on the sidelines of a football game
telling the players how to do it on the field, never having been out
there himself.
> Sheldon (who often omits mentioning his secret ingredients and
> procedures, which is why after eating my food you wonder why even with
> my giving you the recipe you can't replicate it exactly)
Which only serves to document what a total and utter shit he is. As
though he has to "win" and gain some sick ascendancy even when there
isn't a contest. "Secret ingredients" as though life is about fooling
everyone around him. Schoolyard crap.
Sick, sick, sick...
Pastorio