You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
From Cook's Illustrated: Chilled Lemon Souffle for Two
- Thread starter marilynfl
- Start date
Marg...
I copy/pasted the CI recipe word-for-word from their email link to me. I pay a yearly fee to them and gave them credit, but our User Rules state (hold on, I'm going to get the exact wording...)
Recipes published elsewhere and which contain considerable literary expression may be posted as long as you write the recipe in your own words and do not copy the recipe verbatim.
I definitely did "verbatim." Since I already had a post number, I tried to edit the text to "my own words" but CI was pretty specific about certain steps and I didn't want anyone to waste time making this recipe and then messing it up because I changed the wording. I finally decided it was simplier to remove the entire recipe altogether.
I copy/pasted the CI recipe word-for-word from their email link to me. I pay a yearly fee to them and gave them credit, but our User Rules state (hold on, I'm going to get the exact wording...)
Recipes published elsewhere and which contain considerable literary expression may be posted as long as you write the recipe in your own words and do not copy the recipe verbatim.
I definitely did "verbatim." Since I already had a post number, I tried to edit the text to "my own words" but CI was pretty specific about certain steps and I didn't want anyone to waste time making this recipe and then messing it up because I changed the wording. I finally decided it was simplier to remove the entire recipe altogether.
Shaun, would you care to enlighten us?
For one thing, I simply cannot police every recipe that comes through. For another, I believe that "substantial literary expression" is open to interpretation.
RVB's recipes contain substantial literary expression. Cook's Illustrated's? I don't think so.
For one thing, I simply cannot police every recipe that comes through. For another, I believe that "substantial literary expression" is open to interpretation.
RVB's recipes contain substantial literary expression. Cook's Illustrated's? I don't think so.
shaun-in-to
Well-known member
Is there ever enlightenment where the law is concerned? Well, I'm no lawyer, but
this is my summary of what gets said. It's not brief, but nothing to do with the law ever is. (This comes up in my work, which is why some passing familiarity is forced upon me.)
"Considerable" is the key word in FK's User Agreement. (You also see "substantial.") This is to distinguish from ordinary, run-of-the-mill "literary expression," which by definition extends to anything that is written down, creative or not. But copyright law is also deliberately vague, and it's left up to individual judges to decide what's "considerable" on a case-by-case basis.
Some recipes have a distinctive voice or "style" -- Laurie Colwin's and Simon Hopkinson's spring to mind -- and "considerable" literary expression clearly exists. But today, most recipes are written in (or edited to) a standardized (bland) language and format. The recipes are, legally, "literary expression," but there's nothing "considerable" to distinguish one author from another.
Muddying the waters, there's a principle in intellectual-property law that copyright doesn't protect wording when there is a limited number of ways to say something, for instance "Bake at 350°F." Given the pared-down style of many recipes these days, that principle could be taken to mean the whole recipe. Nevertheless, a written recipe, no matter how standardized or spare, is still "original expression" for the purposes of copyright. "What counts is not quality or novelty, but only that the work be original with the author and not copied, consciously or unconsciously, from some other source. The term 'expression' means the words, sounds, or images that an author uses to express an idea or convey information. Copyright protects the expression but not the underlying conceptual or factual material" (Chicago Manual of Style).
The Recipe Writer's Handbook says the legal position on ownership of recipes is somewhat murky because recipes are ideas, which can’t be copyrighted. However, "many attorneys argue that the recipe method, the exact wording of the recipe procedure, constitutes a creative and original literary work and thus can be copyrighted. In that sense, copying a recipe verbatim (without crediting the source) would be a violation of copyright."
The same book notes one exception: "Standard recipes — such as pie crust, white sauce, mayonnaise, and omelets — are so basic they are generally considered to be in the public domain” (which means they are not protected by copyright). But of course, who determines where the line is between "basic" and "standard" recipes and everything else?
For the purposes of this board, I personally can't see anything wrong with posting, say, a Cook's Illustrated recipe when credit is given -- although, if we wanted to walk on eggshells where copyright is concerned, posting just a link would be safer. If I were Cook's Illustrated, I'd see it as free advertising. And if we *couldn't* post recipes verbatim (with credit), this would be an awfully quiet list.
That'll be $800, please.
this is my summary of what gets said. It's not brief, but nothing to do with the law ever is. (This comes up in my work, which is why some passing familiarity is forced upon me.)
"Considerable" is the key word in FK's User Agreement. (You also see "substantial.") This is to distinguish from ordinary, run-of-the-mill "literary expression," which by definition extends to anything that is written down, creative or not. But copyright law is also deliberately vague, and it's left up to individual judges to decide what's "considerable" on a case-by-case basis.
Some recipes have a distinctive voice or "style" -- Laurie Colwin's and Simon Hopkinson's spring to mind -- and "considerable" literary expression clearly exists. But today, most recipes are written in (or edited to) a standardized (bland) language and format. The recipes are, legally, "literary expression," but there's nothing "considerable" to distinguish one author from another.
Muddying the waters, there's a principle in intellectual-property law that copyright doesn't protect wording when there is a limited number of ways to say something, for instance "Bake at 350°F." Given the pared-down style of many recipes these days, that principle could be taken to mean the whole recipe. Nevertheless, a written recipe, no matter how standardized or spare, is still "original expression" for the purposes of copyright. "What counts is not quality or novelty, but only that the work be original with the author and not copied, consciously or unconsciously, from some other source. The term 'expression' means the words, sounds, or images that an author uses to express an idea or convey information. Copyright protects the expression but not the underlying conceptual or factual material" (Chicago Manual of Style).
The Recipe Writer's Handbook says the legal position on ownership of recipes is somewhat murky because recipes are ideas, which can’t be copyrighted. However, "many attorneys argue that the recipe method, the exact wording of the recipe procedure, constitutes a creative and original literary work and thus can be copyrighted. In that sense, copying a recipe verbatim (without crediting the source) would be a violation of copyright."
The same book notes one exception: "Standard recipes — such as pie crust, white sauce, mayonnaise, and omelets — are so basic they are generally considered to be in the public domain” (which means they are not protected by copyright). But of course, who determines where the line is between "basic" and "standard" recipes and everything else?
For the purposes of this board, I personally can't see anything wrong with posting, say, a Cook's Illustrated recipe when credit is given -- although, if we wanted to walk on eggshells where copyright is concerned, posting just a link would be safer. If I were Cook's Illustrated, I'd see it as free advertising. And if we *couldn't* post recipes verbatim (with credit), this would be an awfully quiet list.
That'll be $800, please.