Angela Arnold on 03 Nov 2003 suggested:

> Therein lies a problem. The man is not in violation of copyright laws
> because he is posting recipes he finds on web sites, no more than
> anyone else is for posting any recipe. You can not copyright a single
> recipe, only a collection of published recipes in the form of a recipe
> book.

This is not a correct statement of the law, as it exists. A mere
listing of ingredients is not protected under copyright law. 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 collection of recipes as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for
copyright protection.

> Meaning that someone could reprint or pass-on any recipe from
> that book or source as long as they didn't copy the entire source
> (book, web site, etc.) completely and exactly.

This is also not correct. Please see the "Fair Use" provision of
the Copyright Law, 17 USC 107.

> You can not copyright a fact or idea, only the manner in which they
> are presented and a recipe falls under facts and ideas.

The first two-thirds of the above sentence is correct, the
conclusion is not. Please see above. Where the idea and the expression
are inseperable, as in a mere list of ingredients, there is no
protection, but where directions on how to mix the ingredients are
included, there can be multiple ways of expressing those directions, and
thus, there is originality of work, giving rise to Copyright protection.

> Just like you can't copyright a song, only the lyrics.

This is CLEARLY not correct. Please see Title 17 of the US Code,
sections 102(a)(2) and 102(a)(7), which specifically list, "(2) musical
works, including any accompanying words", AND "(7) sound recordings".

> Even if there were copyright laws for single recipes, he still would
> not be in violation because he is not reproducing them for profit

Completely irrelevant. The mere act of copying without
authorization, or violating any of the other rights specified in
sections 106 to 122 of Title 17, is sufficient to trigger an
infringement of Copyright. Please see Section 501 of Title 17.
Commercial gain is only relevant for CRIMINAL copyright infringement,
please see Section 506 of Title 17.

Since he is willfully posting these recipes which he knows or
should know are protected by copyright, he is subject to the statutory
damages of $150,000 per work infringed.

> nor is he claiming to be the author of the recipes.

Irrelevant. See above.

> This is because there
> are certain infringements that the copyright law excuses under the
> doctrine of "fair use." In an effort to define fair use, the copyright
> law provides a four-factor test and failure to obtain profit or
> personal claim falls under one of these factors, thus making it
> exempt.

That is a tremendous oversimplification, and an erroneous one at
that. There are four factors which must be considered, but it isn't a
"test". It's a balancing act.

> Here are some links about copyright laws and recipes (among others).
> http://www.uncletaz.com/backyard/entheta/copyrght.html
> http://www.keytlaw.com/Copyrights/faqs.htm#q1
> http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/octnews/oc020403.html
> http://www.eff.org/IP/ip_and_electronic_data.paper

You're better off going to the source, the Copyright Office
itself: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/

> He is not in violation of any copyright laws, although there may be
> something said about ethics.

I would disagree with your analysis and conclusion, as it does not
comport with the law as it stands. He is clearly infringing on the
Copyrights of the authors, and he is not doing so within the "Fair Use"
provisions of the law.

> But, since he is not deriving anything
> from posting these recipes and is only doing so for the benefit of
> others, there is nothing unethical about it.

Again, derivation of profit is irrelevant for civil infringement,
and the fact that he's doing it for the benefit of others is also
irrelevent. If you don't believe me, look at the RIAA lawsuits busting
all those people sharing their music for the benefit of others.

> Especially since he is
> not depriving the authors of any income in doing so (these recipes are
> free for anyone to read and use-the sites do not charge you to have
> access to them.)

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.

--Douglas