Copyright

This subject came up in a now deleted thread. But folks should be aware, that copying and pasting entire articles from another source (of which you are not the author nor copyright owner) is generally a violation of copyright - EVEN if you quote the source.
 
Although a bit of a pain in the arse to do, it's best to provide, in your own words, a quick summation or pithy comment about the article, then provide a link to the article.
 
Also, be sure to only post your own photos. Even using so called "royalty free" photos can be construed a copyright infringement if your use does not meet the explicit limitation-of-use for royalty free photos. (I'm even guilty of this, because stock photography is so easily attained and copied)
 
This site is a for-profit site (even if Stephen isn't making a dime). It has paid advertisers and all. So, even though you personally may get no money from posting the article or photo, the site is funded by ad money.
 
Please respect the work of the creative population by respecting their copyright.
 
I can offer some guidance, but not legal advice, if you're unsure of copyright law. Simply send me a private message and I'll respond.
 
There is much misinformation out there about copyright. In fact, in many ways, the misinformation is more readily known and passed on than the facts. Be sure to get the facts before posting something that could make you, or this site which we all love using, liable.
 
 
(I can even answer your Fair Use questions)
 
 

One other common area is with recipes.

The listing of ingredients is not subject to copyright protection.  However, the text of the description of how to make the dish is generally protected. So, one area to be careful is in reprinting recipes from cook.com, recipebazaar, etc. etc.

Cutting and pasting the directions is generally a no-no. Although, it is not a violation of copyright to follow those directions and send us a picture of your results!

I don't disagree with what you say Scorereader but also remember too that a lot of recipe sites themselves are in violation of copyright law. Not all are original copyright sources. I've found my originally written breaded pork tenderloin sandwich recipe instructions copied verbatim on some of those sites. I've found my original photos on so many sites without attribution and even claims of ownership by the poster that it isn't worth worrying about. Even the State of Missouri pork producers association ripped me off. Basically the internet is extremely viral and almost un-policeable.

Keep in mind there are a lot of content control freaks that object to links as well, especially embedded links with a different web page surround.

Speaking of viral, that Tiger and Elin Woods photo with his faced scarred up in the Tiger Woods thread has now appeared on repeatedly Facebook and several other message boards.

Davydd


I don't disagree with what you say Scorereader but also remember too that a lot of recipe sites themselves are in violation of copyright law. Not all are original copyright sources. I've found my originally written breaded pork tenderloin sandwich recipe instructions copied verbatim on some of those sites. I've found my original photos on so many sites without attribution and even claims of ownership by the poster that it isn't worth worrying about. Even the State of Missouri pork producers association ripped me off. Basically the internet is extremely viral and almost un-policeable.

Keep in mind there are a lot of content control freaks that object to links as well, especially embedded links with a different web page surround.

If you notice your work posted on a site without your authorization, you may contact the OSP. For contact info, go to: http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html
more info is here: www.copyright.gov/onlinesp
 
Yes, the Internet is tough to police copyright infringment, but just because someone else breaks the law, doesn't mean we should as well.
 
 

Scorereader, you are fighting a losing battle. Despite the law, and despite the fact that no one would wish to have people steal things from them, some still regard anything they read, see or hear as theirs, and they will continue to post these things illegally because they do not care whether a website such as Roadfood -- or any other -- ends up losing copyright infringement suits costing tons of money and putting them out of business.

MH: I once had some moron try to tell me that anything on the Internet was public domain.

The Internet has made copyright tough to police by individuals. but there are programs now that search for cartain images, for example, and can find them. It's amazing technology that hopefully can help creators of original works to protect their work.

BTW- roadfood has yet to file an OSP designated agent for this site to the Copyright Office.

and, it's dumb that they haven't provided a designated agent, since providing a designated agent give this site protection from us users who post protected works that are not our own.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, signed into law on October 28, 1998, amended the United States Copyright Act, Title 17 of the U.S. Code, to provide in part certain limitations on the liability of online service providers (OSPs) for copyright infringement. Subsection 512(c) of the Copyright Act provides limitations on service provider liability for storage, at the direction of a user, of copyrighted material residing on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if, among other things, the service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement by providing contact information to the Copyright Office and by posting such information on the service provider’s publicly accessible website.


(BTW - for those who don't know - it is not illegal to reprint works of the federal gov't, such as the language I copied and pasted from the US Copyright Office website.)

Clearly, this site owner should think about this protection the DMCA provides.

Scorereader

Davydd


I don't disagree with what you say Scorereader but also remember too that a lot of recipe sites themselves are in violation of copyright law. Not all are original copyright sources. I've found my originally written breaded pork tenderloin sandwich recipe instructions copied verbatim on some of those sites. I've found my original photos on so many sites without attribution and even claims of ownership by the poster that it isn't worth worrying about. Even the State of Missouri pork producers association ripped me off. Basically the internet is extremely viral and almost un-policeable.

Keep in mind there are a lot of content control freaks that object to links as well, especially embedded links with a different web page surround.

If you notice your work posted on a site without your authorization, you may contact the OSP. For contact info, go to: http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html
more info is here: www.copyright.gov/onlinesp
 
Yes, the Internet is tough to police copyright infringment, but just because someone else breaks the law, doesn't mean we should as well.
 
 

Ha! Since I have uploaded over 2,000 images to the internet tracking them down and taking action would be a full time job. I don't care if they go viral but I do get ticked off when someone does try to claim credit as their own. I'll just publicly call them out. Since I deliberately prepare my uploads in low res and low quality JPEG I don't worry too much. I never post my high res original RAW files. The downside is people don't really see the full quality of my photo work. I could watermark my photos. TMZ does that very effectively but it is more of a visual nuisance. The Tiger Woods wrecked Escalade photos are examples of TMZ's watermark.

When I worked for AOL (1988-97) and managed over 30,000 uploads in Mac Graphics, AOL copyrighted the body of the content and that got a lot of people upset. They were not copyrighting the individual photos. They were still owned by the photographer. It was confusing. What they were protecting was another service ripping off the uploads and remarketing them. So in a way they were protecting the individual contributors. My problem was policing copyright infringements. It was next to impossible but the policy was to pull a file no matter what the complaint. I once had a conference call with Playboy attorneys, AOL attorneys and AOL CEO, Steve Case hashing out some problems and I was in my jammies at home just like Hugh Heffner. I thought I knew my Playboy magazines in my younger years but some got by me and my staff. We got to be fairly good at rejecting the more obvious copyright infringements, but it was next to impossible. I got to the point of rejecting all model photos unless the uploader could prove he held the copyright. That got to be interesting. I was receiving "proof" constantly mostly from the porn industry in Southern California. It was good to have a post office box. There were standards what could be posted but they were basically clothing and advertising with them. Then when you rejected uploads we went through round after round of cries of censorship. It was interesting going to MacWorld in San Francisco every year. The sleaze guys sought me out so I tried to keep a low evasive profile.

Scorereader


MH: I once had some moron try to tell me that anything on the Internet was public domain.

The Internet has made copyright tough to police by individuals. but there are programs now that search for cartain images, for example, and can find them. It's amazing technology that hopefully can help creators of original works to protect their work.

BTW- roadfood has yet to file an OSP designated agent for this site to the Copyright Office.

I know that Roadfood has not done that. It's why I keep pointing out the dangers of permitting the posting of copyrighted material here. I get the impression that the powers that be don't give a damn. I guess they must be rolling in dough enough to not care about what it can cost them.

That's an interesting little piece of history Davydd!

Davydd: I definately think it's a good policy to not allow uploads unless they can prove they are the copyright owners.

Outside of the Internet: Wal-Mart, Walgreens, Kinko's and others have corporate policies that they won't copy any photo that looks like a studio made (or professionally made) photo. In particular, portraits. This all stemmed from Wal-Mart who paid out some big dough to a photography company a few years back.

Of course, some pics, like those made by a studio in the 1940s that no longer exists and the copyright owner is impossible to determine since the work would be considered unpublished and there's no notice on the photo, are impossible for people to prove they have permission to copy the photo.
 
Orphan works legislation has been in committee in congress for a few years now. With the google problem right now of out of print books getting illegally scaned and freely distributed, I'm not sure if an orphan works legislation would be passed. Not too mention some other pressing issues in congress...ya know some small matters they need to get out of the way before working on this "important" orphan works legislation...things like, the economy...and health care. Small stuff.

But, even on some outside chance this orphan works legislation gets passed, I don't see major corporations changing their corporate policy. It's just too risky, and they've already been burned.

Watermarks are a good idea, for sure. But, the average person on facebook, who displays a great photo on facebook, doesn't know that Asian companies frequently scan for photos and use them in advertising. You'd never know your photo was used unless you or someone you know actually saw it.

But, I digress.

Scorereader


One other common area is with recipes.

The listing of ingredients is not subject to copyright protection.  However, the text of the description of how to make the dish is generally protected. So, one area to be careful is in reprinting recipes from cook.com, recipebazaar, etc. etc.

Cutting and pasting the directions is generally a no-no. Although, it is not a violation of copyright to follow those directions and send us a picture of your results!

This is a fascinating topic, but as I recall from my law school copyright class, the merger doctrine would apply to reprinting of many actual recipes.  If the text or description of the steps involved in a recipe (the expression of the idea) are essentially one with, or inseparable from the dish itself (the idea), it isn't necessarily a copyright violation.  For example, you can't copyright a basic recipe for carrot cake, including ingredients or text of the description of steps involved, as the idea and the expression of the idea are one.  Ideas are not copyrightable.

You can, however, copyright unique compilations of recipes, and unique artistic contributions to book design, etc.

But, as the law professor always advised us to say, please check with your attorney on any updates as to case law on copyright...it changes so often, it is really a bear to keep up with. 

True, the process itself cannot be protected. That means that a person can follow those directions exactly and make the product, and sell the product and that is not a copyright infringment. However, the way in which the process is described, that is, the expression of the method in writing, can be protected. What is protected is the written words, not the method itself. Therefore, anyone is free to use the method, but not copy the words expressing the method.

True, basic things like "preheat oven to 450 degrees" cannot be protected, but it's the expression of the recipe as a whole.

We can all write down how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. It is unlikely that we will express that process in the same exact way. Copyright protection is in the expression, not the idea of making the sandwich, nor the idea of writing down the directions. Anyone is free to write their own directions on how to make the sandwich. And, it's likely the descriptions could be similar, but unlikely they will be the same.

We each have our own way of describing things - especially in the realms of cooking and giving directions.

Books generally give other info, like tips and things to look for, which fall outside the realm of "method" and make the individuality of the recipe even more apparent.

Compilation is an option, but that is only in the selecting and ordering of the recipes in the book. So that someone can't copy the book's order and selection of recipes - even if they create their own directions. It's a differnet type of claim entirely.

"However, the way in which the process is described, that is, the expression of the method in writing, can be protected. What is protected is the written words, not the method itself."

Actually,  the way the process is described, or the expression of the method in writing is what the merger doctrine of copyright law holds cannot be copyrighted.  If there are a limited number of ways (or words) to express the method, then the words have limited (if any) copyright protection.

"We each have our own way of describing things - especially in the realms of cooking and giving directions."

And the merger doctrine would claim that even though we each have our own way of describing things, there are a limited number of words or combination of words that can be used to describe the steps in a recipe, so the words would have limited (if any) copyright protection.

My law school studies in copyright and patent law have been recent, but I believe poster Pigiron actually practices IP law.  It would be interesting to get his input here.

There are some references if anyone interested does a search for "merger doctrine copyright law recipes." 

Here's the gov's brief (and really not very helpful) take on it:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

Here's a Washington Post article on it:
http://www.washingtonpost...3/AR2006010300316.html

It's highly unlikely, he said, that anyone would be sued for putting someone else's published recipe -- with or without attribution -- in a charity cookbook or posting it on the Internet where it can be disseminated to millions of cooks almost instantly. In fact, said Vaidhyanathan, an assistant professor of culture and communications at New York University, it would be unusual even to receive a nasty letter about it.

tacchino


Actually,  the way the process is described, or the expression of the method in writing is what the merger doctrine of copyright law holds cannot be copyrighted.  If there are a limited number of ways (or words) to express the method, then the words have limited (if any) copyright protection.

 
Unlike the doctrine of fair use, as codified in 17 USC 107, the merger doctrine is not part of copyright law. It's an affirmative defense employed in copyright infringment case. Meaning one admits to copying and leaves it to the judge to decide if the merger doctrine could apply to the directions.
 
So far, only the mere listing of ingredients is uncopyrightable, because that list of
ingredients is essential to expressing the method of preparing the dish.

Under the law, a recipe is  copyrightable to the extent that it goes beyond providing a

list of ingredients and contains descriptive instructions capable of being expressed in multiple ways.

 

I've seen 10 different descriptions on how to make fettucine alfredo on this site. And that's this site alone; everyone described it in their own way.

 

I'm going to copy a couple recipes to illustrate my point (Fair Use). Here's Giada's recipe as per food network:

 

" Cook the pasta in a large pot of boiling salted water until tender but still firm to the bite, stirring occasionally, about 4 minutes. Drain.
 
Stir 2 cups of the cream and the lemon juice in a heavy large skillet to blend. Add the butter and cook over medium heat just until the butter melts, stirring occasionally, about 3 minutes. Remove from the heat.
 
Add the pasta and toss. Add the remaining 1/2 cup of cream, and Parmesan to the cream sauce in the skillet. Add the lemon zest, nutmeg, salt, and white pepper. Toss the pasta mixture over low heat until the sauce thickens slightly, about 1 minute. "
 
here's Emeril's
 
"Cook the fettucine in a pot of rapidly boiling salted water until al dente. Drain in a colander, reserving 1/4 cup of the pasta cooking liquid.
 
While the pasta is cooking, melt the butter in a medium saucepan over medium-high heat. Add shallots and saute until tender. Add heavy cream and bring to a boil. Cook until sauce has reduced slightly, about 5 minutes. Remove from the heat.
 
Return the pasta to the pot it was cooked in, set over medium-high heat along with the reserved cooking liquid. Add the butter-cream mixture and half of the Parmesan and toss to combine thoroughly. Season with salt and pepper, to taste. Sprinkle with remaining Parmesan and garnish with parsley, if desired. Serve immediately."

 
notice the method is more or less the same, but the descriptors used are different. This is important when looking at case law on the subject of the merger doctrine. If there exists more than one way to express the idea, then the merger doctrine would not apply.

 

Now, obviously, the methods to making fettucine alfredo are so similar, the idea that only the copyright owner of the original work would be able to prepare derivative works, would not hold much value with this kind of common food item.

 

However, since these recipes contain original copyrightable authorship, copying them exactly is risky business.

 

 

 

 

 

You guys may be getting a bit more detailed than most care to read here or understand. So all I have to say is Giada better not say, BAM! and Emeril should abstain from showing any cleavage.

I think the main point to take is that copying a recipe exactly as written, is risky.

AND, the owners of this site, should register a designated agent for claims of infringment in order to avoid culpability with works that have been reprinted on this site by its users.

BAM is probably under trademark by now and Giada's cleavage should be publically displayed often. (Her show is so much better with the volume off) ;o)

What about the first post in this thread?
http://www.roadfood.com/Forums/tm.aspx?high=&m=555887&mpage=1

look, I'm not going to go through every post and say whether it could constitute a copyright infringement or not.

Suffice to say, if one doesn't obtain permission to use preexisting material, one is open to a charge of copyright infringement, regardless of the likeliness of prosecution. As is this website for continuing to display such offenses without registering with the Copyright Office a designated agent to receive notices of copyright infringing material on the site.

More importantly, it's simply bad form to steal someone else's work and utilize it in your own way, whether you attribute authorship or not.

Most people don't seem to care on the Internet, though. It's a sad state of affairs when people think it's ok to steal.

Ideas are not copyrightable.

 
Intellectual property rights? (genuinely curious, not trying to be argumentative.)

stricken_detective

Ideas are not copyrightable.

 
Intellectual property rights? (genuinely curious, not trying to be argumentative.)

Copyright protects “original works of authorship” that are fixed in a tangible form of expression.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ31.pdf
 
The expression of the idea can be protected, not the idea itself. The framers of the constitution wanted to reward creations, but also protect the free flow of ideas and information. For example, you can write a script about the coming of age of a teenager and your script would enjoy copyright protection;however, anyone is free to employ the same literary concept of a coming of age story.
 
 
 

 

Someone - perhaps the owner of the website it also appears on, just put up this post:
http://www.roadfood.com/Forums/tm.aspx?high=&m=558690&mpage=1#558702

A quick google search shows the post is the entire contents of this web page:
http://www.longislandsbest.com/BBQ.html

which is a frame within the main site:
http://www.longislandsbest.com/

Scorereader is right, that we are starting to see a lot of copyright infringement on this site. I think trademark laws are unfair when it comes to a manufacturer of schlock buying the trademarks of a high quality producer that went belly up (often because they refused to cheapen the product and move production to China) and then the new manufacturer slaps that revered trademark on a piece of junk. But I think copyright laws are fair. Stealing someone else story, photos, etc. is just plain wrong.

It does get mighty old -- all of this theft of intellectual property.

I don't know if any of you saw this news story in the last day or so...
 
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131091599&sc=fb&cc=fp
 
Sometimes, it is better to police yourself than to fight things with lawyers.  It's tough for "the little guy" to do.  However, when your story gets told and re-told (or tweeted and re-tweeted), the repercussions for the offending party may be far worse than had they initially dealt with the situation when it arose.   Hopefully, this will bring about some increased attention to the problem of internet thievery.   There will, no doubt, be a lawyer who does see this and aid the woman who was initially wronged.  
 
The days of this magazine are short.

The magazine has, due to its own idiocy, opened a can of worms. What was once a problem with one woman, will turn into a problem with many major corporations (like Martha Stewart, et al.). I agree, the days of that magazine are numbered.

(Deleted by poster)

 

 

 

you do realize it's ok to post a pic of something that is in the public domain, right?