# Should recipes have copyright?



## di reston

Thought this article might interest you:


http://www.italy24.ilsole24ore.com/art/arts-and-leisure/2016-the-kitchen-to-edit-152749-php?uuid=AD6RPM0B

Food for thought indeed. What do you think? 

di reston


Enough is never as good as a feast    Oscar Wilde


----------



## di reston

*Should recipes have copyright? errata corrige*

Link:

Are chefs protected by copyright? 

di reston

Jeepers Creepers, I'm useless at inserting links!


----------



## GotGarlic

We had a pretty thorough discussion about this topic not too long ago: http://www.discusscooking.com/forums/f17/at-what-point-can-you-claim-a-recipe-as-your-own-91948.html

Seems strange that Italians are asking this question since the answer came from the Roman Empire.


----------



## skilletlicker

No.

And neither should folk music, for the same reasons.


----------



## dragnlaw

All royalties to be paid to Adam and Eve's descendants?


----------



## PrincessFiona60

Yes.  The creative process should be honored.  Writing a recipe is the same as writing a novel, inventing a gadget, writing music/lyrics, etc.


----------



## GotGarlic

PrincessFiona60 said:


> Yes.  The creative process should be honored.  Writing a recipe is the same as writing a novel, inventing a gadget, writing music/lyrics, etc.



+1..


----------



## dragnlaw

Only the lawyers would get rich. 

If Adam and Eve's descendants can't collect the royalties, the which caveman, pray tell, gets the rights for any meat cooked with heat and fire?

And who would get the royalties for chunks/chips of chocolate? Would that extend to the creation of white choc chips? and butternut/caramel chips? Then after that who would get the royalties for baking them into globs of dough?

By the time you are finished you would be paying $5 a cookie.  

If recipes were copyrighted would you have to pay royalties to bake a cake? Roast a beef?  Make a white sauce?  

Look what happens in the music industry!  

In this day and age, with all those food bloggers out there, all the recipe books, all the home grown traditional recipes from each country and ethnic groups, etc...    I believe it is not only nice and but important to credit who you learned/heard/saw a recipe from.  But you can't say one person 'created' a recipe when they themselves learned about it from somewhere else.


----------



## letscook

I say no.  If you don't want your recipes to be shared, keep them to yourself.  
If you post them, then you gave them to the public to use and share.
I do say that if you use them and share you do give credit to where you received them.


----------



## tenspeed

Without trying to weigh in on the legalities, I wonder if it's even possible to come up with a new recipe.  With billions of cooks and countless cookbook authors, food bloggers, etc., is there any recipe that hasn't already been created and published multiple times?

  I have a couple of cookbooks written by Beth Hensperger.  A quick check on Amazon lists a dozen cookbooks by her.  Each one typically has hundreds of recipes.  I have a hard time believing that she has developed thousands of recipes without borrowing from someone else's work.  If you Google some of her recipes by title, it's not all that uncommon to find the same recipe word for word (or extremely close)elsewhere.  Who stole from who?

  You violated my copyright - I stole it fair and square!


----------



## PrincessFiona60

The copyright rules for recipes pertain only to the written directions, you may NOT do those word for word without breaking copyright law.


----------



## GotGarlic

You can't talk about copyright without weighing in on the legalities because it's a legal concept. And most people miss the point. It's not about coming up with something new that has never been done before. It's about original expression - how the person who wrote the recipe put it down in words. 

I wrote this in the other thread: "What's protected is people's original expression, whether it's a sculpture, a piece of music, or a recipe. A list of ingredients alone is not protected by*copyright, but the way a person describes how to make the recipe is.*

"Some people include instructional information in their recipes; some don't. Some have a certain "voice" when they write that others don't have. Some give more details about prep or options than others. All of these contribute to making a recipe your own. And copyrightable, whether you want to take that step or not."


----------



## GotGarlic

dragnlaw said:


> Only the lawyers would get rich.
> 
> If Adam and Eve's descendants can't collect the royalties, the which caveman, pray tell, gets the rights for any meat cooked with heat and fire?
> 
> And who would get the royalties for chunks/chips of chocolate? Would that extend to the creation of white choc chips? and butternut/caramel chips? Then after that who would get the royalties for baking them into globs of dough?
> 
> By the time you are finished you would be paying $5 a cookie.
> 
> If recipes were copyrighted would you have to pay royalties to bake a cake? Roast a beef?  Make a white sauce?



You say "would" and "if they were" as if recipes are not now protected by copyright. They are.


----------



## Addie

PrincessFiona60 said:


> Yes.  The creative process should be honored.  Writing a recipe is the same as writing a novel, inventing a gadget, writing music/lyrics, etc.



Yup, Absolutely!


----------



## jennyema

How about patents and trade secrets?

https://www.uspto.gov/custom-page/inventors-eye-advice-1


----------



## tenspeed

I came across the following:

  "As a recipe/cooking blogger, you won’t run afoul of any copyright laws if you copy a recipe from somewhere else, as long as what you copied was no more than the list of ingredients and the bare directions. This makes sense – after all, how many ways of saying “2 teaspoons of salt” or “preheat the oven to 350F” are there?

  However, any additional language someone has in the recipe (perhaps explaining what coconut flour is or saying that they love chocolate and so they always add a bit more chocolate chips into the cookie) may be copyrightable. If you’re going to copy a recipe, don’t copy those bits, and add in your own flair."

  From The Definitive Guide to Recipes and Copyright

  The link to the food blog alliance was interesting.

  Another one:

  "Lists are not subject to copyright, per US Copyright Law. This is well-known to mean the ingredient listing is not protected. With recipes, it’s the instructions or directions that are potentially copyrightable so long as they meet the criteria of being an original work of authorship and substantial literary expression. So that recipe for your fabulous margarita probably doesn’t count as ‘substantial literary expression’ when the directions are something like put all ingredients in blender, blend on high for 3 minutes, pour into glass and enjoy. What you need is something more, well, substantial."

  From Recipe Copyright In Plain English


----------



## GotGarlic

I think the copyright law itself as it pertains to recipes is pretty plain 



> Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients. Nor does it protect other mere listings of ingredients such as those found in formulas, compounds, or prescriptions. Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook.
> 
> Only original works of authorship are protected by copyright. “Original” means that an author produced a work by his or her own intellectual effort instead of copying it from an existing work.
> 
> For further information about copyright, see Circular 1, Copyright Basics. Note that if your recipe has secret ingredients that you do not want to reveal, you may not want to submit it for registration, because applications and deposit copies are public records.
> 
> Deposit requirements depend on whether a work has been published at the time of registration:
> 
> If the work is unpublished, one complete copy
> If the work was first published in the United States on or after January 1, 1978, two complete copies of the best edition
> If the work was first published outside the United States, one complete copy of the work as first published
> If the work is a contribution to a collective work and was published after January 1, 1978, one complete copy of the best edition of the collective work or a photocopy of the contribution itself as it was published in the collective work
> 
> FL-122, Reviewed December 2011



U.S. Copyright Office - Recipes

Circular 1 is available here: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/


----------



## dragnlaw

Je vais dormir plus sage ce soir...

so *di* - I think as OP your question is a bit moot...  if a person chooses to copyright a recipe - go for it...  as the laws already seem to exist...  and you feel the urge to sue someone for infringement - go for it...

I still maintain it is only the lawyers who win.


----------



## GotGarlic

dragnlaw, a person does not have to choose to copyright a recipe. A creative work such as a recipe is automatically copyrighted upon creation in fixed form. A person can choose to register the copyright, which can make it easier to defend in court, but it's not necessary. 

While you may believe that only lawyers "win," the fact is that copyright law is intended to encourage people to create by providing legal protection for their creations. So people win.


----------



## dragnlaw

*GG* - in fact I understand exactly what you are saying...  and I have no problem with that...  but that having been said... 

in a perfect world.


----------



## skilletlicker

GotGarlic said:


> ...
> While you may believe that only lawyers "win," the fact is that copyright law is intended to encourage people to create by providing legal protection for their creations. So people win.



Intentions aside, I see more examples of harm than benefit to society by current copyright and patent practice.


----------



## GotGarlic

skilletlicker said:


> Intentions aside, I see more examples of harm than benefit to society by current copyright and patent practice.



We're talking about copyright here. What harm do you see?


----------



## di reston

I think the whole thrust of the article was about creativity in recipes. I once saw a TV programme about this. They interviewed a chef from Bologna who made a pasta alla bolognese that looked like a small easter egg, pasta on the outside and bolognese sauce on the inside. Heston Blumenthal is well known for his amazing innovations, and in every case of innovation, presentation plays a major part. You can't copyright items of food, but I believe it's right and proper that creativity in the innovative use of them to create a dish should, and imho I agree with the article when it says two years. Things move on with progress - maybe on this issue it could be interesting to be open-minded.

Good discussion. No arrogance meant on my part.

di reston


Enough is never as good as a feast     Oscar Wilde


----------



## dragnlaw

Well put *di*!  Matter of fact, you have done it so succinctly and eloquently, I could perhaps change my mind.

I guess I associate copywrite too much with lawsuits and nasty proceedings.  I see no problem in giving someone their creative methods their proper due.


----------



## RPCookin

PrincessFiona60 said:


> The copyright rules for recipes pertain only to the written directions, you may NOT do those word for word without breaking copyright law.



Which I've always thought of as just plain stupid.  I can post the ingredients, then rephrase the process while saying exactly the same thing as the author, and now I'm legal?  There is nothing "literary" about the process for a recipe.  When it's put out in the public domain, then it seems to me that the only thing that should be required for copying it is giving credit to the originator, assuming that you can even identify the source.  

If Kitchen Karl posts a recipe which he says was "borrowed" from Bobby Flay, but the process rewritten to satisfy copyright laws, am I allowed to post Karl's version word for word, since he has already paraphrased the original as published my Bobby?  It is not Karl's intellectual property, it's Bobby Flay's.  Karl shouldn't have any rights at all under copyright law, should he, since all he did was change a word or two from the original?


----------



## Andy M.

RPCookin said:


> ...If Kitchen Karl posts a recipe which he says was "borrowed" from Bobby Flay, but the process rewritten to satisfy copyright laws, am I allowed to post Karl's version word for word, since he has already paraphrased the original as published my Bobby?  It is not Karl's intellectual property, it's Bobby Flay's.  Karl shouldn't have any rights at all under copyright law, should he, since all he did was change a word or two from the original?



First of all, changes to the wording have to be substantial, not just ".... a word or two".  After Karl made his changes that version of the recipe becomes his and is copyright protected.  If you copy that recipe and make substantial changes to the text, that version is yours and is copyright protected.  Unless your changes make it like Bobby Flay's  version.  Then you're in trouble.


----------



## PrincessFiona60

I don't understand why people have such a hard time with Copyright.  When you go to work you punch in, sign in, etc.  You are saying, "Here I Am, I'm working."  When you leave, punching out, signing out, etc.  You are saying, "I'm done, I am leaving, please pay me for the work I accomplished today."  That IS YOUR pay, that is YOUR LIVING.  Same with writers, they have no time clock, but they are asserting their right to be paid for the work they just did.

Someone else using their work is taking away their living, just like someone else stealing your paycheck, rustling your cattle, burglarizing your house.

Copyright is there to protect writers, making sure they get their due for their work.


----------



## GotGarlic

PrincessFiona60 said:


> I don't understand why people have such a hard time with Copyright.  When you go to work you punch in, sign in, etc.  You are saying, "Here I Am, I'm working."  When you leave, punching out, signing out, etc.  You are saying, "I'm done, I am leaving, please pay me for the work I accomplished today."  That IS YOUR pay, that is YOUR LIVING.  Same with writers, they have no time clock, but they are asserting their right to be paid for the work they just did.
> 
> Someone else using their work is taking away their living, just like someone else stealing your paycheck, rustling your cattle, burglarizing your house.
> 
> Copyright is there to protect writers, making sure they get their due for their work.



I hear your frustration, PF, and I share it. Knowledge of copyright protection is a somewhat new idea for many people. Before computers made it easy to copy and paste writings and images, most people had no need to know or care about it. But now that it's so easy, people do it all the time and don't want to be reminded that it's unethical and illegal.

That's also why people say, if it's on the Internet, it must be in the public domain. No, it's not. There are specific rules in the law regarding public domain as well.


----------



## GotGarlic

RPCookin said:


> Which I've always thought of as just plain stupid.  I can post the ingredients, then rephrase the process while saying exactly the same thing as the author, and now I'm legal? *There is nothing "literary" about the process for a recipe*.



This recipe for corn tortillas was written by a home cook for Taste of Home:


In a large bowl, combine flour and salt. Stir in water and oil. Turn onto a floured surface; knead 10-12 times, adding a little flour or water if needed to achieve a smooth dough. Let rest for 10 minutes.
Divide dough into eight portions. On a lightly floured surface, roll each portion into a 7-in. circle.
In a large nonstick skillet coated with cooking spray, cook tortillas over medium heat for 1 minute on each side or until lightly browned. Keep warm.

This one was written by Rick Bayless:


*Mix dough*. If using powdered masa harina, measure into bowl and add 1 cup plus 2 tablespoons hot tap water. Mix with hand, kneading until thoroughly combined. Cover and let stand 15 minutes. If using fresh masa, scoop into bowl. Break up and knead a few times until smooth.

*Heat griddle or skillets*. Set large griddle (one that stretches of 2 burners) or 2 skillets on stovetop. Set heat under one end of griddle (or one skillet) at medium. Set heat under other end (or other skillet) at medium-high.

*Adjust consistency of dough*. Gently squeeze dough. If it is stiff (it probably will be), knead in water 1 or 2 teaspoons at a time until the dough feels like soft cookie dough - not stiff, but not sticky. Divide evenly into 15 pieces and roll each into a ball. Cover with plastic.

*Press out dough balls*. Cut 2 pieces of plastic bag 1-inch larger than tortilla press. Open press. Lay in one piece of plastic. Lay dough ball in center. Gently mash. Top with second piece of plastic. Close press. Press gently enough to mash dough into 1/8-inch disc. Pull off top piece of plastic.

*Unmold uncooked tortilla*. Flip tortilla onto right hand (if right-handed). IMPORTANT: top of tortilla should line up with top of index finger. Lay on medium-hot griddle (or skillet) by letting bottom of tortilla touch griddle, then lowering your hand slightly and moving it away from youthe tortilla will stick to the hot surface so you can roll your hand out from under it as it rolls down flat.

*First flip*. After about 30 seconds, edges of tortilla will dry slightly and tortilla will release from griddlebefore this moment, tortilla will be stuck. With metal spatula (or callused fingers), flip onto hotter side of griddle (or hotter skillet).

*Second flip*. After about 30 seconds, tortilla should be browned underneath. Flip. Cook 30 seconds more. Tortilla should puff in places (or all over - a gentle press with metal spatula or fingers encourages puffing). Transfer to basket lined with towel.

*Continue*. Press and bake remaining tortillas. Stack each baked tortilla on previous one. Keep tortillas well wrapped in towel to keep warm.

Hopefully you can see the difference.


----------



## skilletlicker

*A contrarian view*

First, let me stipulate that you are all smarter than me so no need to prove it.

I don't disagree with Princess Fiona's post. But I think that blade cuts both ways and way more people are robbed by "Philadelphia Lawyers" than muggers.

It's a little bit wrong for people make money by copying the work of professional food workers into their happy homemaker blog. But it's way worse for some guy who can't cook a lick to hire a shyster to sue 10,000 stay at home moms for infringing on his "copyrighted" macaroni and cheese recipe.


----------



## Andy M.

skilletlicker said:


> First, let me stipulate that you are all smarter than me so no need to prove it.
> 
> I don't disagree with Princess Fiona's post. But I think that blade cuts both ways and way more people are robbed by "Philadelphia Lawyers" than muggers.
> 
> It's a little bit wrong for people make money by copying the work of professional food workers into their happy homemaker blog. But it's way worse for some guy who can't cook a lick to hire a shyster to sue 10,000 stay at home moms for infringing on his "copyrighted" macaroni and cheese recipe.



First of all, this isn't about "Philadelphia Lawyers".  It's about protecting intellectual property.  

Second, it's not a "little bit wrong".  It's illegal, period.

Stay at home moms can download every recipe on the internet and make them all at home without consequence.  It's only an issue when they publish that recipe as their own creation.  Then it's a criminal offense.


----------



## GotGarlic

skilletlicker said:


> First, let me stipulate that you are all smarter than me so no need to prove it.
> 
> I don't disagree with Princess Fiona's post. But I think that blade cuts both ways and way more people are robbed by "Philadelphia Lawyers" than muggers.
> 
> It's a little bit wrong for people make money by copying the work of professional food workers into their happy homemaker blog. But it's way worse for some guy who can't cook a lick to hire a shyster to sue 10,000 stay at home moms for infringing on his "copyrighted" macaroni and cheese recipe.



Has that happened? When? Where? 

Btw, I'm not claiming to be "smarter" than anyone else, but I do have education and experience with this topic. I managed a large website for a medical school for 14 years and in around 2000, I attended a seminar by an intellectual property attorney on copyright as it pertained to the Internet. I also took a class on Media Law when I got a certificate in Professional Writing. Not trying to "prove" anything; just giving some background.


----------



## skilletlicker

You could argue a civil offense. Not criminal though. But I've made my point now I'm done with it.


----------



## jennyema

skilletlicker said:


> First, let me stipulate that you are all smarter than me so no need to prove it.
> 
> I don't disagree with Princess Fiona's post. But I think that blade cuts both ways and way more people are robbed by "Philadelphia Lawyers" than muggers.
> 
> It's a little bit wrong for people make money by copying the work of professional food workers into their happy homemaker blog. But it's way worse for some guy who can't cook a lick to hire a shyster to sue 10,000 stay at home moms for infringing on his "copyrighted" macaroni and cheese recipe.



I'm sorry but your response suggests a pretty serious misunderstanding of how copyrights are enforced in addition to a misunderstanding of the very basis about how copyrights are established and why.

Plus your remarks about "Philadelphia lawyers" and "shysters" are unnecessary


----------



## GotGarlic

skilletlicker said:


> You could argue a civil offense. Not criminal though. But I've made my point now I'm done with it.



So you're talking about a theoretical situation of 10,000 stay-at-home moms being sued for copyright infringement by a professional chef? Gotcha.


----------



## skilletlicker

I wasn't filing a legal brief. But bloggers are being routinely sued for copyright infringement. And some of those suits are being filed by:


> a person, especially a lawyer, who uses unscrupulous, fraudulent, or deceptive methods in business


Please substitute the language above for that which you deem unnecessary.

My opinions regarding the practice and intent of copyright law were largely formed by considering the flawed applications in the music industry starting in the 1920s.

But I'm not a legal scholar, I'm a simple bachelor cook. If I am not entitled to express opinions on this topic a list of subjects upon which I may not speak would be helpful.


----------



## di reston

There are interesting articles on the Web on the subject of Copyright and Plagiarism. I've been reading up on it. They clarify a lot of issues.


di reston


Enough is  never as good as a feast   Oscar Wilde


----------



## Andy M.

skilletlicker said:


> ...But I'm not a legal scholar, I'm a simple bachelor cook. If I am not entitled to express opinions on this topic a list of subjects upon which I may not speak would be helpful.



You are entitled to express opinions.  This is, after all, a place to DISCUSS.  No one here is an expert on every topic.  Several are experts on copyright law.  It's not insulting to try to correct misconceptions or discuss opinions that differ.


----------



## GotGarlic

skilletlicker said:


> I wasn't filing a legal brief. But bloggers are being routinely sued for copyright infringement. And some of those suits are being filed by:
> 
> Please substitute the language above for that which you deem unnecessary.
> 
> My opinions regarding the practice and intent of copyright law were largely formed by considering the flawed applications in the music industry starting in the 1920s.
> 
> But I'm not a legal scholar, I'm a simple bachelor cook. If I am not entitled to express opinions on this topic a list of subjects upon which I may not speak would be helpful.



Now you're just being ridiculous  I simply asked you to back up a statement of fact. If you can't do that, maybe you should revise your statement.


----------



## PrincessFiona60

skilletlicker said:


> I wasn't filing a legal brief. But bloggers are being routinely sued for copyright infringement. And some of those suits are being filed by:
> 
> Please substitute the language above for that which you deem unnecessary.
> 
> My opinions regarding the practice and intent of copyright law were largely formed by considering the flawed applications in the music industry starting in the 1920s.
> 
> But I'm not a legal scholar, I'm a simple bachelor cook. If I am not entitled to express opinions on this topic a list of subjects upon which I may not speak would be helpful.



You are painting all Lawyers with a big black brush.  I know many  Lawyers who are law-abiding citizens and do not use any of the methods you described when arguing/debating/speaking in court.

The music industry is another field where I will speak up on Copyright.  We can't fix the past now, but we can as a society, refuse to tolerate those who do abuse Copyright.

BTW, in case you have forgotten, I am a nurse and home cook.  I am just as ignorant on some subjects as others are.  Copyright Infringement is a special study of mine, trying to keep a particular authors work free of infringement, wish I had the time to include other authors.  I can't help being strident about Copyright, it is after all, the Law. Just like running STOP signs and going over the speed limit, If you are caught you are ticketed.


----------

