Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cook's Magazine Claims Web Is Public Domain

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the gotta-break-a-few-eggs dept.

Facebook 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."

cancel ×

565 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The web is public domain? (4, Informative)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128818)

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."

Re:The web is public domain? (4, Funny)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128852)

It's a huge lie. Everything on the web is in fact public domain.

Re:The web is public domain? (2, Funny)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129146)

Your Cake is a lie.

Re:The web is public domain? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34129256)

Hold that thought. Portal 2 is not out yet. There's still hope for cake!

Re:The web is public domain? (2, Interesting)

james_gnz (663440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129186)

It's a huge lie. Everything on the web is in fact public domain.

Well... Intellectual works aren't the sort of things that can be public domain or not, but rather they might or might not be in the public domain. However that said, yes, all intellectual works on the web are in fact in the public domain, although what is at issue here is whether or not they are in the public domain in law. Not every road that exists in law exists in fact, and vice versa, and this applies to works being in the public domain too.

Re:The web is public domain? (0)

shadowfaxcrx (1736978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129332)

Well, assuming they're not behind a pay wall, they are in the public domain. But even works which are in the public domain through the permission of their authors cannot be copied and put in the private domain for profit without obtaining permission.

If I take a picture and put it on my website, I am giving everyone who has access to the site implicit permission to view it, and of course I am giving implicit permission to my web host to host the file. I am not giving them permission to download it, adjust it a bit in photoshop, and then publish it in a book of photography for $50 a copy.

Re:The web is public domain? (5, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129390)

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? (0, Offtopic)

shadowfaxcrx (1736978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129502)

I was referring to the non-legal definition of "public domain" which would be "place where the public can go."

Should have made that more clear. Apologies.

Re:The web is public domain? (4, Interesting)

samkass (174571) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128908)

Where is a $1.5M verdict when you need one?

Seriously, though, I'll bet half the folks complaining on Facebook have illegally downloaded music themselves.

Re:The web is public domain? (5, Insightful)

demonbug (309515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128988)

Where is a $1.5M verdict when you need one?

Seriously, though, I'll bet half the folks complaining on Facebook have illegally downloaded music themselves.

Downloaded music, yes. Turned around and sold what they downloaded, no.

Re:The web is public domain? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34129082)

And then claimed to the artist that not only what they did was not wrong, but that the artist should pay *them* for the marketing they did by distributing their work!

Re:The web is public domain? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34129088)

That doesn't matter at all. It's still infringement, just (I believe) potentially criminal.

Besides, people would sell downloaded music if they could get away with it -- but people won't buy it. In fact you'd see more illegal downloading if people could turn around and sell it.

Re:The web is public domain? (3, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129156)

So now we're saying it's okay to pirate but not sell what you pirate? Why is one act okay but the other not?

Re:The web is public domain? (2)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129164)

Well, for one thing, one of them is hypocritical.

Re:The web is public domain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34129396)

No it's not hypocritical, it's called making a living (aka re-marketing). Half the world survives by screwing over someone else. The rest just don't know they are yet.

Re:The web is public domain? (2, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129452)

No, it is hypocritical. You’re trying to make money off what you took for free from somebody who created it and was trying to make money off it.

Re:The web is public domain? (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129420)

So what? Are you saying it's unethical to be hypocritical? Guess what's also unethical?

Re:The web is public domain? (2, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129472)

Just tell me; I hate guessing.

Re:The web is public domain? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34129468)

If you take umbrage at reselling pirated copyrighted work, then your objection is with the copyright violation. Because people legally resell 'free' information every occurring moment.

If you don't support copyright, then logically the selling of someone else's copyrighted work is not hypocritical; just don't then expect protection of 'your' work, because that _would_ be hypocritical.

Re:The web is public domain? (2)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129506)

logically the selling of someone else's copyrighted work is not hypocritical; just don't then expect protection of 'your' work, because that _would_ be hypocritical

That’s the whole point. The mere fact that you’re trying to sell it implies that you expect people not to just take it from you.

Re:The web is public domain? (1, Insightful)

Local ID10T (790134) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129240)

So now we're saying it's okay to pirate but not sell what you pirate? Why is one act okay but the other not?

See the whole "personal use" argument. In some countries (not the USA) it has been specifically codified into law that personal use is acceptable.

Even in the USA the laws are very different if you profit from infringement vs not.

Re:The web is public domain? (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129278)

"okay" is not a very precise term. "Morally right" or "morally wrong" might be better.

I think that downloading copyrighted material is largely amoral. It might be immoral if you would have paid for it had the ability to download it not been available.

I think that taking someone else's work and providing it to someone else falls on the immoral side most of the time--you can't know whether or not that person would have purchased the work if you had not given it to them.

I think that selling someone else's work is pretty much always immoral. Exceptions might be abandoned works.

Re:The web is public domain? (4, Insightful)

shadowfaxcrx (1736978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129358)

No, we're saying it's not OK to pirate, and it's even worse to pirate and then sell it, and then suggest that the artist should pay us for the privilege.

Kind of like we say it's not OK to point a gun at someone, and it's even more not OK to shoot them, and it's especially not OK to then charge them for the bullet.

Re:The web is public domain? (1)

panda (10044) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129398)

Well, actually, it might not be illegal to get the copies, but giving them to others definitely is illegal.

You see copyright law is all about distribution. There's nothing that overtly states it is illegal to make a copy for your own use.

It does overtly state that distributing copies (giving them to others) is illegal.

As always, IANAL, but I have read the statutes in question, the circulars from the Library of Congress, and handled the copyright registrations when I worked for an academic publisher.

There is a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to copyright, even among lawyers.

In other words (3, Insightful)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128826)

It's alright if the copyright infringement is committed by a media company?

Re:In other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34128848)

But don't you nerds always tell us that information wants to be free? I'm not seeing the outrage here.

Re:In other words (4, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128970)

The outrage is because the rules aren't being applied equitably (which is NOT the same as equally). It is unacceptable to allow a publisher to steal material from another but have that same publisher sue others for doing likewise. Freedom has to be a two-way street.

(For those wondering about the difference between equal and equitable, the quotation people usually refer to regarding one law for the rich and another for the poor continues "neither are permitted to steal bread or sleep under bridges". Technically, that is equal. But since the rich do not need to do either, it is not equitable.)

Re:In other words (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34129046)

Exactly. Jammie Thomas is told to pay $1.5M for sharing music she didn't make money on, yet this guy makes money on IP infringement. That's not equality at all.

Re:In other words (1)

transfatfree (1920462) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129056)

im just enjoying the comments rolling onto the facebook page every 7 seconds!

i dont really care about this mess.. though the publisher's attitude kinda bugged me

Re:In other words (4, Informative)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128916)

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:In other words (1, Offtopic)

siegesama (450116) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129322)

I'm close with you on this. I have believed for a while now that the American Dream is revenge. We love revenge as a society.

Maybe humans love revenge as a species. I don't know, I'm not travelled enough to really speak about other cultures.

But from winning the lotto and quitting your job with a big "fuck you guys" to postal workers going postal, to columbine, to "nuke the entire middle east" and how we treat criminals (we want punishment a lot more than we seem to want rehabilitation), we have a guttural response to everything. We have been hurt, and thus we will seek to hurt. Perhaps we aren't strong enough (money, influence, physical strength, etc) to take our revenge, but some day... some day we'll be the badass who will lay the smack-down.

I'm going to go back to lurking for another year or so now.

Re:In other words (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34129108)

Yes, it's called the "Semite Exemption". Now get back to work Goyim!

Lady, you dun goofed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34128828)

Consequences will never be the same!

Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (4, Informative)

Trailer Trash (60756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128830)

More from the copyright office:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html [copyright.gov]

Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (5, Informative)

Trailer Trash (60756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128892)

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 (4, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129136)

Is Slashdot on the side of the company or the author? Copyright law is constantly described as being "broken" around here, and posters are often on the side of music pirates and other pro-piracy entities, like Pirate Bay and the Pirate Party.

I suspect, however, that because a company made the violation, people will side with the author. Which suggests that it's really more about anti-corporatism than anti-copyright, which explains why people get up in arms over GPL code theft despite the double standard (the GPL is a copyright license).

Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34129190)

Slashdot is on the side of getting eyeballs to draw in ad revenue.

As a long-time Slashdot reader, you should remember that the kind of ideological coherency that you ascribe to Slashdot never existed in the first place.

Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (1)

ep32g79 (538056) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129220)

Copyright law is constantly described as being "broken" around here, and posters are often on the side of music pirates and other pro-piracy entities, like Pirate Bay and the Pirate Party.

Well for one, the magazine is blatantly ripping off content for both fun and profit ....

Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (5, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129266)

Is Slashdot on the side of the company or the author? Copyright law is constantly described as being "broken" around here, and posters are often on the side of music pirates and other pro-piracy entities, like Pirate Bay and the Pirate Party.

Neither. Copyright law isn't as broke as the justice system that overcompensates for infringement. The infringee in this case asked for $130 donation to a college, a very reasonable sum. Patent law is broken, but the only problem with copyright isn't the concept. Copyright laws are what prevent Cisco from just lifting the Linux kernel and using it without contributing back the changes. Copyright laws themselves are not bad and protect authors. It is the idea that a corporation can own a copyright and have it extended into infinity (See Disney). Or infringement can be punished with a financial death sentence (See RIAA). Even those that pirate aren't against copyrights. Hell, they just don't care.

What is exceptional is that the magazine publisher had come to the conclusion that everything on the internets was public domain. That clearly indicates that they likely have an entire business built on infringing copyrights. Using other peoples work to make a profit. This is very different than hitting thepiratebay to get a copy of Stargate Universe.

Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (1)

foo1752 (555890) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129290)

(the GPL is a copyright license).

No, the GPL is a license. The creator of the work retains the copyright.

Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129368)

If all Slashdotters shared identical opinions, we probably wouldn't have very many comments.

Regarding GPL, the GPL is really an abuse of copyright aimed at "patching" a broken system. GPL advocates don't see why I can buy a table or chair and refinish it, reupholster it, cut it in half and add a leaf, etc. but you can't remix/modify legally acquired software.

Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34129178)

List of sources being compiled,

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=196994196748&topic=23238

They've stolen articles from Martha Steward and Disney...... But don't worry, they haven't distributed MP3 of Britney Spears so they will just get slap on the wrist, instead of $100m fine. It's not like that magazine is (was?) for profit or anything!

Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129200)

[...] word spreads about its theft of a recipe from Monica Gaudio

[...] they didn't just take her recipe. Bad summary as usual. They took her article [...]

And yet her recipe and article are still where she put them. They did not take either! So your own summary is bad. They infringed on her copyrights.

Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34129226)

They'll do what others did in their situation, made their money, cashout and leave the idiots sue a bankrupt business.

Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34128914)

Not quite. I think lists of ingredients aren't copywritable. The text of the recipe is, as I understand it.

Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129174)

It's a bit more than that; The recipe; including the procedure; isn't copyrightable though the specific representation may be. If the text is just exactly a representation of the recipe then it won't be. If you put some artistic input in; say describing how the mix will taste at one moment; telling a story of the history in another; then that whole description will be copyrightable. Of course; details and boundaries vary from place to place.

Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129436)

Can't be copyrighted, but can be trade secrets. Just ask the Colonel.

Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (5, Informative)

dubbreak (623656) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128930)

Exactly. Mod parent up.

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 (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34128952)

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 (2, Funny)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129242)

Surprisingly, /twotarts/twotarts.html is *not* a thoroughly indecent page! I was worried upon first clicking.

Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (2, Informative)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128964)

The page you linked to says that it's only uncopyrightable if it's nothing more than a list of ingredients.

Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34129258)

>> The page you linked to says that it's only uncopyrightable if it's nothing more than a list of ingredients.

You can't copyright Grandma's baked beans recipe; I can show prior fart.

(ok recess is over, I'm going back to class now)

Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (1)

slashdotard (835129) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128976)

The article was copied, not just the recipe(s). The article is copyrighted.

And lately:

Cooks Source website name won't resolve in DNS.

It's a twitter trending topic: http://twitter.com/#search?q=Cooks%20Source [twitter.com]

it's on the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/nov/04/cooks-source-copyright-complaint [guardian.co.uk]

Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (1)

slashdotard (835129) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129000)

Also, the website with the original author's article has already been disabled due to excessive traffic. it was apparently pre-slashdotted.

Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (1)

Fantom42 (174630) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129324)

I think it is important to clarify the position of the copyright office:

"Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients."

Most recipes include instructions on how to process the ingredients. This is copyrightable. All but the most elementary recipes would be.

Anonymous Coward (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34128860)

Everyone is just happy to rip everyone work. But if a media corp do that, boo-hoo.
Cry babies.

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128936)

Everyone is just happy to rip everyone work. But if a media corp do that, boo-hoo.
Cry babies.

I have question. How is cry-babby formed?

Awesome (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128868)

Here we go, it's on the internet it's fair game.

LET THE FILE SHARING BEGIN!

Quick, someone post the magazine to the internet! (1)

BigDXLT (1218924) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128878)

Where it will therefore become public domain!

Public domain? Someone should tell the RIAA! (1)

bioneuralnet (1473843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128882)

Someone should have called these folks in to testify at the Jammie Thomas-Resset hearings yesterday!

comments (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128922)

Gonna be fun watching the /. crowd respond to this - the exact opposite scenario from the vast majority of /.'s news involving IP.

Re:comments (2, Informative)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128992)

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:comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34129192)

No. We're anti-copyright. You're not anti-copyright.

Signed,
The Greater Slashdot Community.

Re:comments (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129304)

So Slashdot is opposed to the GPL and all its previous versions?

Re:comments (-1, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129202)

We aren't necessarily anti-copyright.

Are we reading the same Slashdot?

Speak for yourself, buddy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34129268)

Copyright is stupid. The *only* justification for granting a data-creator control over every consumer of that data is: incentive to create.

That doesn't apply anymore. There are plenty of ways of monetizing free data products. They are in use today and succeeding. And some expensive things (like drug formulas or what-have-you) could just be taxpayer funded as a last resort (which probably won't be necessary anyway, since such things are managed under patent law already).

Copyright is an anachronism. In today's technological and sociological landscape, it is a very harmful non-sequitor. It should be abolished utterly.

Re:Speak for yourself, buddy (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129374)

Without copyright, what this magazine is doing would become legitimate. Corporations would take the work of individual creators and sell them as their own. The creators would not be able to make any money off of the work because the big corporation is the only source of the creative work that anyone would hear about.

Re:Speak for yourself, buddy (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129410)

I should have added to the original comment that we are also opposed to insanely long copyright terms. Copyright should last 20 years with a one-time, optional 20 year extension.

Re:comments (3, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129326)

Slashdot: "Pirate Bay Back Online"
Zealot: "Yes! Take that, MPAA and RIAA. Copyright and intellectual property don't exist. Piracy isn't theft." (+5 Insightful)
Rabble-rouser: "But the GPL is a copyright license. GPL code is intellectual property. Doesn't anybody care about artists getting ripped off?" (-1 Flamebait)

Slashdot: "GPL Code Stolen By Some Company"
Zealot: "Why doesn't the FSF sue them for millions of dollars? This is an outrage. How dare they steal code, those thieves." (+5 Insightful)
Rabble-rouser: "You realize you have two contradictory, self-serving positions, right?" (-1 Troll)

Cookssource.com offine (1)

devlynh (857521) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128926)

It looks like their site has stopped responding and offline. Making a dumb move and then a stupid comment can cause website outage.

Re:Cookssource.com offine (5, Informative)

annaraven (1934930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128998)

Their Facebook page is still up though. And people are using it to collate other stolen articles. http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=196994196748&topic=23238 [facebook.com] Also, someone found a Paula Deen recipe that was stolen, and notified Paula - who has contacted her legal department.

Just WOW! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34128950)

Apparently, Slashdot is having a bout of personality conflict. Today, copyright is good. Tomorrow? Maybe not...

Recipies cannot be copyrighted - or not so much (0, Offtopic)

j-beda (85386) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128956)

Not having read the article at all, I will weigh in anyway.

From http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html [copyright.gov]

"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."

Thus, it is probably pretty difficult to wield copyright law (in the USA) to prevent someone from republishing your recipe. At the very least you will need to show it contains "substantial literary expression" and was developed without building on an existing work. Rules for games and instructions for processes are also not easily protected by copyright laws.

Re:Recipies cannot be copyrighted - or not so much (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129044)

Did you read that beyond the sixth word before you copied and pasted it?

Re:Recipies cannot be copyrighted - or not so much (2, Informative)

j-beda (85386) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129126)

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.

Re:Recipies cannot be copyrighted - or not so much (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34129152)

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:Recipies cannot be copyrighted - or not so much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34129478)

The pie is a lie.

cookssource.com appears to be down (2, Interesting)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128990)

Please help by finding copies of their graphics, stylesheets etc. on the 'net and posting them on your own site. It *is* public domain, after all.

Re:cookssource.com appears to be down (2, Informative)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129310)

Better yet, check out the original article [godecookery.com] .

Re:cookssource.com appears to be down (1)

ep32g79 (538056) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129416)

Better yet, make your own facebook fan page called "cooks source magazine". ... the internets are free domain right?

my prediction (0, Troll)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129014)

What will end up happening is everyone will make a huge deal out of this. The case will go before the supreme court or find it's way into congress and the Riaa/MPAA will use it to pass even harsher copyright law under the guise of protecting the 'little guy'. Then we are all more screwed than before.

Re:my prediction (2, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129238)

What will end up happening is everyone will make a huge deal out of this. The case will go before the supreme court or find it's way into congress and the Riaa/MPAA will use it to pass even harsher copyright law under the guise of protecting the 'little guy'. Then we are all more screwed than before.

Better check those straps on the tinfoil hat. Seems like something is blocking your cerebral circulation.

Incorrect summary. (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129036)

They didn’t just steal the recipe. They stole the whole article and reprinted it without her permission (though they did at least attribute it to her).

In fact the recipes themselves didn’t belong to her – they were taken from old cookbooks. They would probably be considered public domain, I think.

Actually... (1)

masterz (143854) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129090)

Recipes can not be copyrighted.

Re:Actually... (2, Insightful)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129150)

I can understand that logic. It should be impossible to copyright

1 egg
2 tps oil
etc

But the actual directions on what to do with that list can be very unique in wording, description, etc and should be copyrightable.

Re:Actually... (1)

ogreman (1630789) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129180)

I agree somewhat Lists cannot be copyrighted however everything else like instructions, explanations, and steps are copyrighted and the article is also copyrighted.

Re:Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34129230)

Then why is music copyrightable? A music file is just a recipe to create a certain sound, with notes of various frequencies and durations as ingredients.

Re:Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34129384)

Read the fucking article.

copyright is not compatible with internet (1)

Jeek Elemental (976426) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129118)

if you put something on the net, you have given up control of it.
That is the practical situation right now, laws are just lagging (badly) behind.

Re:copyright is not compatible with internet (2, Insightful)

Joehonkie (665142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129224)

No more than putting something in print (where technology has existed for some time allowing people to freely copy and redistribute your work) involves giving up control of it. Just because it's easy to do something doesn't mean it's moral or should be legal to do so.

The Facebook page... (4, Informative)

colenski (552404) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129140)

...is getting hammered right now. Like, several comments a second. Fascinating to watch a meltdown in real time. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cooks-Source-Magazine/196994196748 [facebook.com]

Re:The Facebook page... (1)

L3370 (1421413) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129418)

Judith Griggs, the actual editor for Cooks Source, also has a facebook page...Wonder if she's getting bombarded too.

tcha, u know what, sue already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34129182)

sue sue sue sue sue sue

brought to you by the captcha "sucking"

That's going to leave a mark.. (-1, Redundant)

jcr (53032) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129250)

Lesson for the day: if you're an idiot, then you should at least hire competent legal counsel to advise you on matters of law.

-jcr

"Cook's Source Magazine" trolled the internet (2, Interesting)

rhizome (115711) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129284)

Looking at whois, "cookssource.com" was registered six months ago.

Now a lot of people know who they are, so points for Slashdot giving them free advertising, as well as anybody else who clicked through to such an obvious "HEY LOOK AT ME EVERYBODY." Look for a statement of contrition and a re-launch with original content (which they probably already have on the backburner).

Suckers!

It's not what they did as much (1)

shelterpaw (959576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129312)

as how they responded. They were rude and insulting and she just asked for a donation to a local college. To respond in the way they did anyone would be upset and, out of principal, take legal action. They could have just said, sure we'll make the $130 donation and be happy, but they had to insult her instead. The magazine should donate 10 times the amount and fire the editor.

Re:It's not what they did as much (4, Insightful)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129476)

Yeah. Some people have claimed that Slashdot's response is being hypocritical, however, the key differences are:

MPAA/RIAA sues individual who downloads a song for personal use for $insane_amount per track/video. Person in question did not engage in any commercial activity related to the downloaded item.
Some magazine steals a woman's article (not just the recipe, but the whole article word for word) and commences to use it as part of a commercial product (their magazine). Original author requests a $130 donation to a college and is denied.

Oh no! (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129364)

My string of letters that happened to form words which in turn formed sentences was 'stolen' from me! By stolen, I of course mean not actually taken from me! Here's another example of a worthless law where information is forced to be restricted due to worthless paper.

Cooks Source also plagiarized from (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34129480)

Food Network, WebMD, NPR, and a LOT more.. Visit Cook's Source Facebook page and you'll see a thread in the forums where they are picking apart just this month's issue, finding rampant plagiarism. Both Photos AND Articles have been found to be taken from several sources. And that's just THIS MONTH'S issue!

Mob Action (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34129484)

Recipes should be fuckin free you idiots. WTF is this slashdot.org am I at the right site?

I should slap you all with a copy of the cookie recipe distributed with gcc you posers.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>