Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
Mexican Cooking (alt.food.mexican-cooking) A newsgroup created for the discussion and sharing of mexican food and recipes. |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Douglas S. Ladden wrote:
> 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 Hmmm, this gives rise to the question of whether or not, Angela is another of A-1's sock puppets. Three (?) and counting. jim |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
REC: Baked Red Snapper with Garlic | General Cooking | |||
Baked Snapper with Tomatoes | Recipes (moderated) | |||
Baked Snapper | Recipes (moderated) | |||
Recipe: Baked Snapper | General Cooking | |||
RED SNAPPER WITH CILANTRO, GARLIC, AND LIME | Diabetic |