Michael L Kankiewicz wrote:
> Here's something from the government.
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.pdf

Yup, exactly what I said.... recipes per se cannot be copyrighted...
only accompanying text and compilation thereof, MAYBE.

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.

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 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".

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)

"Sheldon" >, if that's their real name, wrote:

>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)

You didn't do that with the RFC cookbook, did you?

Carol
--
Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon

>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)

Well then... I hope you might consider a disclaimer when you post your
recipes so that the rest of us know it's not the whole story... :-P

Ginny

Ginny Sher wrote:
> >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)
>
> Well then... I hope you might consider a disclaimer when you post
your
> recipes so that the rest of us know it's not the whole story... :-P
>
> Ginny

Nah, he's kidding. First imagine that he came up with something good
on his own, now imagine him trying to suppress telling us all about it.
Not possible in a thousand years. -aem

Gal Called J.J. wrote:
> One time on Usenet, "Default User" > said:
> > Mash wrote:
>
> > > This gave posters a choice on whether
> > > they wanted their messages archived or not. I do not know if this
is
> > > still done today after Google seems to have taken over the role
of
> > > operating Usenet.
>
> > Ummm, Google's done what?
>
> My reaction as well -- has something happened other since Google
> purchased Deja News? Yes, I'm a bit behind on tech news...


Nothing that I know of, other than roll out the new interface to their
existing service, just in time for the hoardes of homeless AOLers to
land there.



Brian

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

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:

> "Sheldon" >, if that's their real name, wrote:
>
>>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)
>
> You didn't do that with the RFC cookbook, did you?

Would you be surprised...?

Pastorio

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> "Sheldon" >, if that's their real name, wrote:
>
> >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)
>
> You didn't do that with the RFC cookbook, did you?

Not those. But then no one follows those exactly anyhow, proven by all
who have reported back saying they didn't do this, that, or the other,
and still it came out great... that's the mark of a great recipe, it
only requires replication (close approximation, as an echo), not
duplication (copied precisely).

Sheldon

Ginny Sher wrote:
> >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)
>
> Well then... I hope you might consider a disclaimer when you post
your
> recipes so that the rest of us know it's not the whole story... :-P
>
> Ginny

Anything posted here is disclamer enough.

I only omit the parts I know you can't/won't do.

Sheldon

"Bob (this one)" >, if that's their real name, wrote:

>Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>
>> "Sheldon" >, if that's their real name, wrote:
>>
>>>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)
>>
>> You didn't do that with the RFC cookbook, did you?
>
>Would you be surprised...?

Surprised? Dunno. Disappointed? Definitely.

Carol
--
Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon

"Sheldon" >, if that's their real name, wrote:

>Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>> "Sheldon" >, if that's their real name, wrote:
>>
>> >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)
>>
>> You didn't do that with the RFC cookbook, did you?
>
>Not those. But then no one follows those exactly anyhow, proven by all
>who have reported back saying they didn't do this, that, or the other,
>and still it came out great... that's the mark of a great recipe, it
>only requires replication (close approximation, as an echo), not
>duplication (copied precisely).

Thanks, kiddo. You've restored most of my faith in human nature. There
are always a few people out there who are totally lacking in integrity. I
hate to think that very many of them are here in RFC (even though I know
better).

Pollyanna
--
Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon

Sheldon wrote:

> replication (close approximation, as an echo), not
> duplication (copied precisely).

Um...you need to look that up in a *real* dictionary. Replication and
duplication are the same thing. BOTH mean to follow a procedure identically,
or to make an exact copy of something. NEITHER mean "close approximation."

Bob

Michael L Kankiewicz wrote:
> Here's something from the government.
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.pdf

This is better:

http://tinyurl.com/5knv8

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 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.


Saute, stir, boil, mince, steam, etc. do NOT qualify as "substantial
literary expression".

Once again, for the pontificating putzes, recipes per se CANNUOT be
copyrighted... in fact I have never seen a copyrighted recipe anywhere.

Sheldon wrote:
> Michael L Kankiewicz wrote:
>
>>Here's something from the government.
>>
>>http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.pdf
>
> This is better:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5knv8
>
> 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 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.
>
>
> Saute, stir, boil, mince, steam, etc. do NOT qualify as "substantial
> literary expression".

Not separately; individual word can't be copyrighted, but in sentences
as a series of instructions, they most assuredly are. It says that a
list accompanied by words "in the form of an explanation or directions"
is copyrightable in the whole.

> Once again, for the pontificating putzes, recipes per se CANNUOT be
> copyrighted...

Dead, dead wrong. And speaking of pontificating putzes... Sheldon has
never published anything. He's talking as the blowhard spectator he is,
way outside any experience or area of study.

> in fact I have never seen a copyrighted recipe anywhere.

Sure you have, schmuck. Every one you've ever read anywhere accrued
copyright the instant it was rendered in readable form. It doesn't have
to have a copyright symbol next to it to be copyrighted. It only needs
to be readable.

Printed, posted or otherwise presented in form to be read. Speaking it
doesn't qualify. Putting it on paper, a monitor screen or any other form
that can be referred to qualifies as being copyrighted. It's not a
process or condition that can be denied. Copyright exists at the instant
the work is rendered. Even if no one else sees it. It's not necessarily
a matter for public record. It only means that the exact and particular
expression is owned by its creator. Change the words around enough, and
it's a whole new work. And a whole new copyright takes place.

Poor, ignorant, intractable Sheldon.

Pastorio

Bob wrote:

> Sheldon wrote:
>
>>replication (close approximation, as an echo), not
>>duplication (copied precisely).
>
> Um...you need to look that up in a *real* dictionary.

Jeez. You're no fun. The Little Golden Book of Words has been good
enough for him all these years. Came with those swell crayons and all...

> Replication and
> duplication are the same thing. BOTH mean to follow a procedure identically,
> or to make an exact copy of something. NEITHER mean "close approximation."

Obviously you don't speak Sheldonish. He learned it from Humpty Dumpty...

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it
means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

<LOL>

Poor unnecessary Sheldon...

Pastorio

Sheldon wrote variously:

> 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)

> I only omit the parts I know you can't/won't do.


All day long, I've been racking my brain trying to tease forth whatever I
was *reminded* of by these passages. At last I remembered, and found it with
Google:

wrote on Apr 13 2003 at 2:32 am:

================BEGIN QUOTED TEXT: MAY BE COPYRIGHTED=======================

>> Okay, what the heck does "spatchcocking" mean

> spatchcocking is the same a butterflying. You take kitchen shears or a
> sharp knife and remove the backbone of the turkey. And then using the
> breast as a hinge open or spread the turkey out flat. Sometimes a extra
> thump is required to get the poultry to lie flat. American Kitchens (Cooks
> Illustrated) suggests that a brined spatchcocked bird on a rack directly
> over the dressing/stuffing (so as to catch the drippings) is the best way
> to quickly cook a turkey.

"Spatchcock" is one of those context-sensitive terms. Its meaning
changes depending on how it's used. The primary meaning is as given
above, but in the sentence, "Sheldon squealed and thrust his
childbearing hips as best he could, but the turkey was too capacious
for him to spatchcock effectively, and he had to spatchcock a quail
instead," the term means "insert a tiny penis into."

JayJ

=================END QUOTED TEXT: MAY BE COPYRIGHTED========================

"Secret ingredients and procedures" indeed!

Bob

In article .com>,
"Sheldon" > wrote:
[snip]
>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)

Hey, Sheldon me old mate! This is *exactly* what all those old dears
from the QCWA and church Ladies' Guilds do when passing on family
recipes to their dearest friends and relations! The truth is only
revealed when the tattered ancient recipe book of notes is discovered
by the heirs at the bottom of a kitchen drawer with a desiccated
cockroach.

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

Sheldon wrote:

>
> 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)

I always tweak my recipes too,so they are good, but never as good as
when I make it.

One time on Usenet, "Default User" > said:
> Gal Called J.J. wrote:
> > One time on Usenet, "Default User" > said:
> > > Mash wrote:
> >
> > > > This gave posters a choice on whether
> > > > they wanted their messages archived or not. I do not know if
> > > > this is
> > > > still done today after Google seems to have taken over the role
> > > > of operating Usenet.
> >
> > > Ummm, Google's done what?
> >
> > My reaction as well -- has something happened other since Google
> > purchased Deja News? Yes, I'm a bit behind on tech news...

> Nothing that I know of, other than roll out the new interface to their
> existing service, just in time for the hoardes of homeless AOLers to
> land there.

Oh Lord, Usenet, Google and AOLers. Isn't that combination a sign of
the Apocalypse?

--
J.J. in WA ~ mom, vid gamer, novice cook ~
"You still haven't explained why the pool is
filled with elf blood." - Frylock, ATHF