It’s the claims about the recipes. If you premise the sale of something based on a lie you open up the possibility to face consequences. These are the consequences.
Plus the book is a shit idea meant as a zero effort cash grab. Fuck em.
oh bugger off with that. there’s a difference between sharing information and having that information scraped, bundled up and peddled by a third party that had fuck all to do with it apart from cash grabbing.
Not really. You can copyright a book or a video of someone preparing the recipe. The presentation can be copyrighted. That’s not the same as copyrighting the recipe and it’s not what the article is about.
It’s nuanced. From your source (and consistent with the copyright laws in my country, the U.S.):
Copyright does not protect information about the ingredients or cooking methods.
The functionality of a recipe isn’t copyrightable. The layout and the precise diction used, the explanations given (including editorial choices about where to put those explanations in the recipe) might be copyrighted.
So maybe the appropriate way to be safe is to do what some software companies do with their “clean room implementations,” and define the ingredients and steps in a robust way, and ask someone who hasn’t seen the original recipe rewrite those steps in their own words.
Of course, two can play at that game. A PR push, plus a re-listing of literally every recipe in the bestseller cookbook, using the exact same clean room technique, could get that whole cookbook published on the internet for free, with no compensation to this plagiarist or her publisher.
You can’t copyright recipes. Period.
Don’t publish your recipes if you don’t want people to copy them.
Don’t claim they’re original if they are not.
It’s the claims about the recipes. If you premise the sale of something based on a lie you open up the possibility to face consequences. These are the consequences.
Plus the book is a shit idea meant as a zero effort cash grab. Fuck em.
oh bugger off with that. there’s a difference between sharing information and having that information scraped, bundled up and peddled by a third party that had fuck all to do with it apart from cash grabbing.
That is incorrect.
Not really. You can copyright a book or a video of someone preparing the recipe. The presentation can be copyrighted. That’s not the same as copyrighting the recipe and it’s not what the article is about.
It’s nuanced. From your source (and consistent with the copyright laws in my country, the U.S.):
The functionality of a recipe isn’t copyrightable. The layout and the precise diction used, the explanations given (including editorial choices about where to put those explanations in the recipe) might be copyrighted.
So maybe the appropriate way to be safe is to do what some software companies do with their “clean room implementations,” and define the ingredients and steps in a robust way, and ask someone who hasn’t seen the original recipe rewrite those steps in their own words.
Of course, two can play at that game. A PR push, plus a re-listing of literally every recipe in the bestseller cookbook, using the exact same clean room technique, could get that whole cookbook published on the internet for free, with no compensation to this plagiarist or her publisher.