Cook's Magazine Claims Web Is Public Domain 565
Isarian writes with a story, as reported on Gawker and many other places, that "Cooks Source Magazine is being raked over the coals today as word spreads about its theft of a recipe from Monica Gaudio, a recipe author who discovered her recipe has been published without her knowledge. When confronting the publisher of the offending magazine, she was told, 'But honestly Monica, the web is considered "public domain" and you should be happy we just didn't "lift" your whole article and put someone else's name on it!' In addition to the story passing around online, Cooks Source Magazine's Facebook page is being overwhelmed with posts by users glad to explain copyright law to the wayward publisher."
The web is public domain? (Score:5, Informative)
What's this thing at the bottom of my page?
"All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc."
Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (Score:5, Informative)
More from the copyright office:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html [copyright.gov]
Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (Score:5, Informative)
Looking into this - they didn't just take her recipe. Bad summary as usual. They took her article, and they've apparently done this many times. They could easily be pushed to bankruptcy by the lawsuits coming their way, and that idiotic email is going to be the first exhibit at every one of them.
Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (Score:1, Informative)
Not quite. I think lists of ingredients aren't copywritable. The text of the recipe is, as I understand it.
Re:In other words (Score:5, Informative)
We live in a society with two sets of rules. They basically boil down to this: if a big guy does it to a little guy, it's okay. If a little guy does it to a big guy, the little guy is gonna get stomped. That is the real American Dream: to become an Important Person, so you can play by the more advantageous set of rules and tell the little people what to do.
Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (Score:5, Informative)
Recipes do not fall under copyright (at least the list of ingredients and quantities). They can't directly copy your layout and can't copy any artwork or photography associated with the recipe, but the recipe itself is fair game.
Being on the web has nothing to do with public domain. It should be obvious to anyone that something being on the internet does not make it public domain. Such a claim is beyond ignorant.
Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (Score:5, Informative)
In this case it wasn't just a recipe it was an entire article accompanied by discussion of early apple "pies", with citations to other research.
Here's the original article: http://www.godecookery.com/twotarts/twotarts.html
Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (Score:2, Informative)
The page you linked to says that it's only uncopyrightable if it's nothing more than a list of ingredients.
Re:comments (Score:2, Informative)
We aren't necessarily anti-copyright.
We are opposed to hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties for a single shared or downloaded song.
Re:Cookssource.com offine (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Recipies cannot be copyrighted - or not so much (Score:3, Informative)
Um, yeah. Did you? The part about "substantial literary expression" perhaps? A list of ingredients and instructions for using them, just like rules for games or instructions for building a bird house do not generally qualify as "substantial literary expression" and generally are not completely "original works of authorship", and thus enjoy significantly decreased copyright protection.
Gather them together as a collected work, and the total work enjoys much more copyright protection, but the individual recipes, not so much.
The Facebook page... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Recipies cannot be copyrighted - or not so much (Score:4, Informative)
Well, if you had read the article or followed the links, you'd see that the article in question isn't just a recipe. It's a researched article about the history of apple pie, including two medieval recipes, with commentary and a bibliography. No question that it's more than a list of ingredients with instructions.
Re:cookssource.com appears to be down (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The web is public domain? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, assuming they're not behind a pay wall, they are in the public domain.
That is not what “public domain” means. Just because something is freely available to the public does not mean it is in the public domain [wikipedia.org].
The original website had a © notice at the bottom. It is not public domain.
Re:The web is public domain? (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe you're confusing it for "public spaces".
Which, btw, are not in the public domain.
The open ocean might be considered public domain. But good luck downloading it on the Internet.
Bad Title (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The web is public domain? (Score:2, Informative)
Downloaded music, yes. Turned around and sold what they downloaded, no.
Well, as per RIAA lawyers, downloading and giving it away is worse than selling it.
In the end, he said that Thomas-Rasset needed to take responsibility, that she was not the innocent victim she claimed, and that in fact "giving music away for free causes more harm" than charging people for it—at least the real pirates help keep the perceived value of music up.
Quote from: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/riaa-giving-music-away-for-free-worse-than-charging-for-it.ars [arstechnica.com]
Re:The web is public domain? (Score:5, Informative)
Whether or not the concept of copyright is beneficial to society is a completely different argument, and I personally agree that the current limits on length of copyright need to be revisited. However, downloading music that is still under copyright without the copyright holder's permission is blatant copyright infringement, and a violation of the law.
Re:The web is public domain? (Score:5, Informative)
You were using a meaning of the term external to the domain of this discussion either to purposely confuse the issue to benefit an agenda, or just to be jackass.
In the context of copyright law 'public domain' has a very specific meaning which has nothing to do with being 'publically available.' Using other (dubious) meanings of 'public domain' in this conversation is being willfully obtuse.
Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (Score:5, Informative)
In this case, it's not relevant, however, since it's not a recipe in question, but rather an article on the origins of Apple Pie.
Recipes are, as you say, not copyrightable.
Re:Recipes and copyright?? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The web is public domain? (Score:1, Informative)
Recipes are NOT copyrightable (Score:3, Informative)
There is actually precedent that has determined that recipes--at least, lists of ingredients and/or instructions for preparing them--are not copyrightable. Point of interest, but jokes are not copyrightable also. (Though a specific performance of those jokes can be.)
Reference [copyright.gov]
VERY interesting talk [ted.com] about making money in industries that are exempt from copyright, specifically the fashion industry.
Re:A recipe might not be copyrightable... (Score:3, Informative)
On their facebook forum, their magazine has been deconstructed to show where all of their content came from. Its not just recipes, but articles and pictures as well
For example, the image at http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=439516851748&set=a.439514776748.238553.196994196748 [facebook.com] of their magazine is a copy of http://www.weightwatchers.com.au/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=38441 [weightwatchers.com.au]. This is not a recipe.
Re:The web is public domain? (Score:4, Informative)
No. A copy is defined in the law as a tangible object within which a work is fixed. It isn't possible to download tangible objects. If we could, that would be the end of the postal system. The tangible object in the case of downloading is the downloader's computer's hard drive, or RAM, or whatnot. And since the download didn't magically make itself happen, but was initiated by the downloader sending a request to the server, it is the downloader who is liable for infringement for the download. And the uploader for serving the file to the downloader.
The cases that are brought are selected and structured as they are for merely tactical reasons. Uploaders are easier to find and gather evidence about. A person who only downloads -- a leech -- is harder to find, much less prove liable. Plus, if there were no more uploaders, the downloaders would go away on their own, but this does not really work vice versa. Thus, it is a better use of resources to go after uploaders. Going after the networks themselves is better still (which is why the first lawsuits were against entities like Napster), but they have gotten a lot slipperier.