Thanks Angela, he is just shooting his mouth off. There have not been any
"Original" recipes in over a hundred years. Simply because a site Says the
recipe is copyrighted, doesn't necessarily mean it is copyrighted. The
courts would have to decide that, and I don't think they want to go to the
expence involved in a court battle, unless they could prove a substantial
loss of income from posting the recipe in a news group.
"Angela Arnold" > wrote in message
om...
> Douglas,
> You really need to follow your own advice. Below are excerpts from the
web
> site link you posted.
>
> Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the
> reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as
> criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
> Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining
> whether or not a particular use is fair:
>
> 1.the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
> commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
>
> 2.the nature of the copyrighted work;
>
> 3.amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
> copyrighted work as a whole; and
>
> 4.the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
> copyrighted work.
> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
> This is the "fair use" factors I was quoting from in my original post.
>
> Exempt from copyright:
> Mere listings of ingredients, as in recipes, labels, or formulas. When a
> recipe or formula is accompanied by explanation or directions, the text
> directions may be copyrightable, but the recipe or formula itself remains
> uncopyrightable.
> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ34.html
>
>
> 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.
>
> Protection under the copyright law (title 17 of the United States Code,
> section 102) extends only to "original works of authorship" that are fixed
> in a tangible form (a copy). "Original" means merely that the author
> produced the work *by his own intellectual effort*, as distinguished from
> copying an existing work. Copyright protection may extend to a
description,
> explanation, or illustration, assuming that the requirements of the
> copyright law are met.
> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html
> Since very few recipe directions are actually original, (as anybody knows
if
> they have ever baked or cooked a lot), this would have to be one very
unique
> recipe.
> There are only so many ways you can prepare foods and many ingredients
have
> to be combined in certain ways in order for them to work properly.
>
> As for your statement:
> "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."
> Most people looking for recipes do NOT go to the web site in order to
click
> on the banner ads. Actually, I have yet to meet anyone who even clicks on
> banner ads, due to the risk of virus infection and also because most
banners
> are complete crap and are akin to SPAM.
> Angel