aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (a.e.mossberg) (03/28/91)
Thanks to everyone who responded, I got about 75 letters altogether. I won't keep you in suspense, the people who wanted articles from cookbooks to be posted where in the majority. It was about 61 to 8.. Warning, the following is long. If you make it to the end there is some comic relief, but I won't blame you if you cut out early. In a moment I'll share with you some of the comments I got. The policy for rec.food.recipes and the corresponding digest will now be: Yes, we'll accept individual recipes from cookbooks and other copyrighted sources, but you must credit the source. I would prefer that you paraphrase any instructions into your own voice, but this is not mandatory and I will not maintain a cookbook collection in my office in order to verify this. Okay, now to some of the replies. A number of people who were in favor mentioned that seeing recipes which named particular cookbooks often encouraged them to go out and buy the cookbook. For instance, kastella@cajal.biostr.washington.edu (Ken Kastella) said: >Well, I don't know what the legalities are but I see nothing wrong with >posting copyrighted recipes. Carol Miller-Tutzauer pointed out that after >a recipe has been posted she has bought the book. That has happened to >me also, most recently a recipe was posted in rec.food.cooking from >The Feast of Santa Fe and I am now the owner of that book and have made >a couple dishes that certainly reminded me of my days in New Mexico. Others that mentioned this were: robert e roden <roden@cis.ohio-state.edu>, marges@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Marge Shallenberger), Barbara Hlavin ashmore@casper.csc.ti.com (Lucinda Ashmore), <twain@u.washington.edu>, misek@Solbourne.COM (Steve Misek), wendy@cs.pdx.edu (Wendy Wilhelm), babs@jfwhome.funhouse.com (Babs Woods), Ruthann Schmidt <rs57+@andrew.cmu.edu>, debs@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Deb Summa), amo@mvuxd.att.com (Arlene M Osborne), ADUS13@jetson.uh.edu, Alan Jeddeloh <alanj@nevermore.wv.tek.com>, Will Martin <wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL>, IO00053@maine.maine.edu (mari robinson) Several people presented the argument that recipes can't be copyrighted, although arguably the instructions could. Among the presenters of this were: michele@apex.yorku.ca, pinkas@st860.intel.com (Israel Pinkas), "Paul S. Winalski 19-Mar-1991 1742" <winalski@psw.enet.dec.com>, John.DeCarlo@p109.f131.n109.z1.fidonet.org (John DeCarlo), jacob@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Tom Jacob),<ALC@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>, cedar!sandy@cs.washington.edu (Sandy Fifer) Other people quoted from various sources about copyright law and it's limitations and provisos. This group includes mlg@polaris.crhc.uiuc.edu (Michael Leonard Golden), cedar!sandy@cs.washington.edu (Sandy Fifer) Still others mentioned that if I am strict about rejecting articles from other sources, that people may still submit them, but not give rightful credit to the source. Among this argument were: Kiran Wagle <kiran@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>, Karla Shapiro <karla@Shiva.COM>, debs@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Deb Summa), Will Martin <wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL> Leah Zeldes Smith (leah@smith.chi.il.us) wrote: >As a food writer for the Lerner Newspapers, I frequently use recipes >from copyrighted cookbooks. We call and ask for permission; it has >never been refused and only once that I am aware of has anyone asked for >payment. Usually, all that's required is that we credit the source. > >Obviously, you can't call up publishers all the time for a medium such >as rec.food.recipes -- the cost and time would be prohibitive. I'd >guess, though, that if you are sure to credit the publication, author, >publisher, publishing date, etc., you'll be all right. > >Cookbook authors steal recipes from each other all the time; sometimes >they don't bother even to change an ingredient or technique before >claiming the recipe as their own. It seems to me I recall reading that >only the actual TEXT of a recipe can be copyrighted, not the ingredients >or techniques. > >Another common practice is for one cookbook author to reprint another's >recipe with credit, saying "so-and-so did this so well, I can't improve >on it." I've no idea whether they bother to get permission or not, but >that's the sort of thing you'd be doing. uunet!adpplz!martin (Martin Golding) wrote: >If you spend some time reading cookbooks, you will find two kinds >of recipes: > >Stolen recipes >Stolen recipes for which credit is given reid@pa.dec.com (Brian Reid), father of alt.gourmand and therefore uncle of rec.food.recipes posted: >I know nothing about non-U.S. copyright law. I have studied U.S. copyright >law extensively, especially as it applies to recipes and cookbooks. > >There are two aspects of U.S. Copyright law that apply here. > >You cannot copyright a formula, but you can copyright the words used to >express that formula. The list of ingredients and steps is not copyrightable >material, but all of the commentary around it is. A copyright is just a >license to file an infringement suit (or, more precisely, an aid towards >winning one), and the court will decide whether or not the copy has infringed >the phrasing of the original. This is, perhaps, one of the reasons that the >English language has so many different ways to say "stir in". > >You can copyright a collection, even if all of the contents of the collection >are themselves in the public domain. For example, the 1200 recipes from >Escoffier's cookbook are completely in the public domain, but if somebody >published a "best 100 recipes of Escoffier" anthology, and you tried to >publish the same 100 recipes, you would be in violation and he could likely >win an infringement suit against you. > >Here is the official "alt.gourmand" explanation of the issue: > > COPYRIGHT NOTES > >Tell us where you got the recipe from. It's ok if you cribbed it from a book >or magazine or newspaper, but if you copy exactly the words that you found >there, there might be a problem with copyright violation. The copyright of a >recipe is not on the formula, but on the words. If you have copied the words >out of a copyrighted cookbook, then you are infringing its copyright. > >While the main purpose of the USENET cookbook is to let us all make our own >custom cookbooks, we can't ignore the reality of the copyright law. Surely >you have noticed that every modern book says ``No part of this publication >may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form >or by any means, electronic, ..., or otherwise without the prior written >permission of the publisher.'' > >Copyright law is complex, and only a lawyer who specializes in copyright >can reliably advise you on whether or not you are violating it, but in >general if you rewrite a recipe, in your own words, even if you don't change >the formula, then you are not infringing the copyright by submitting that >recipe to the network. The copyright is on the words that explain the recipe, >and on the title of the recipe, not the formula itself. Okay, now let's get on to the various people that were against it, which includes: bb@wjh12.harvard.edu (Brent Byer), sbhattac@sales.stern.nyu.edu (Shankar Bhattacharyya), Dick Dunn <rcd@ico.isc.com>, Bill Turner <bturner@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com>, Maria Brown <maria@sequent.com> And here are some typical comments against the posting... mernst@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Michael Ernst) wrote: >It's illegal to republish copyrighted work without permission. Not only >that, it's inconsiderate to the author and (in some belief systems) immoral >as well. You should not be republishing copyrighted material without >permission of the copyright holder. >Please don't do this. Rather, do the right thing, even if most people want >you to bend the law and your morals. schuck@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca (Mary Margaret Schuck) wrote: >Much as I hate to say it, it's quite illegal to post copyrighted recipes. >It's right up there with Monty Python skits or Dave Barry columns. (Although >Brad Templeton has asked for and recieved permission to do the latter.) >You're propagating, by electronic publishing something that someone else wants >to make a profit from, and they could quite easily sue and win. Not that >I think anyone would bother, but given the potential for abuse within >USENET, if we can be seen to be consistently self-policing it's better for us. >(I.e. the more easily we can prove that we're trying to be good citizens, the >harder it will be for idiots to pull the plug on us.) Lastly, fwy@cs.brown.edu (Felix Yen) contributed this pithy comment: >this jerk, who doesn't even read your newsgroup, would like to take >this opportunity to pollute your mailbox with this: > >i personally don't see the legal question as being an interesting >one. i think 95+% of your readers would be surprised at the number >and quality of the cookbooks in their local public libraries. and >i don't think electronic bulletin boards should be used as a >library substitute. (not to mention that these same readers are >already paying for the library; they might as well get something >for their tax dollar.) >if it were any of my business, i'd be inclined to use this legal >ambiguity as an excuse to get more people off their butts and into >their libraries and their kitchens. besides, you and i both know >that a good recipe doth not a good cook make. -- aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu ....................................................... I hate quotations. Tell me what you know. - Ralph Waldo Emerson