The web is public domain? Thanks for the info, Cooks Source magazine!

[The_Hamster_King]

People steal other people’s work all the time, but you rarely get a plagiarist writing to her victim and saying that she should pay the thief for the privilege of being stolen from.

In 2005 a writer named Monica Gaudino wrote a little piece about how to make medieval apple pies and posted it to the Gode Cookery website here. If you scroll to the bottom you can even see the copyright notice.

A few days ago she discovered that Cooks Source magazine had copied her piece and printed it without asking. Assuming it was an honest error, she wrote asking for an apology, a published retraction, and a nominal donation to the Columbia School of Journalism. You can read about it hereon her LiveJournal.

What she got back instead was a snotty email about how the web is “public domain” and that she should be thankful that they took the time to edit her piece. Here’s an excerpt:

Yes Monica, I have been doing this for 3 decades, having been an editor at The Voice, Housitonic Home and Connecticut Woman Magazine. I do know about copyright laws. It was “my bad” indeed, and, as the magazine is put together in long sessions, tired eyes and minds somethings forget to do these things.

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! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally. Now it will work well for your portfolio. For that reason, I have a bit of a difficult time with your requests for monetary gain, albeit for such a fine (and very wealthy!) institution. We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me! I never charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written pieces, and have many who write for me… ALWAYS for free!

Christ, what an asshole!

The Cooks Source Facebook page is a pleasure to behold. Check it out before they take it down to put an end to the non-stop flaming.

[Ogre]

That’s truly a lovely sight. It’s hard to hide from the internet.

[Kolga]

Man oh man, nothing like ravening hordes of Netizens coming down hard on bullshit.

[Sweetums]

Monica is a friend of mine, so I was aware of this before it got posted.

Still, cooksource has no justification for their position. If the web is really “public domain” why do citation rules exist for web articles? Plain and simple the article was my friend’s intellectual property, and this magazine (which is for profit, and gains revenue from adds and subscriptions), stole it!

[The_Hamster_King]

It’s hit reddit and Boing Boing. Can 4chan be far behind?

Apparently people are using the discussion forums on the Cooks Source Facebook page to post more articles that the magazine has plagiarized.

[Smapti]

IIRC, recipes aren’t covered by copyright law.

That doesn’t make the mag’s response here any less dickish, though.

[Miller]

Remarkably stupid thing to say, especially given that Cook Source has a webpage where they reprint pages from their magazine. Apparently, those pages are now in the public domain, per the magazine’s editor.

[The_Hamster_King]

@Smapti

IIRC, recipes aren’t covered by copyright law.

If they were just copying recipes, there wouldn’t be a firestorm. But they’re copying entire articles from other sources that just happen to contain recipes.

[Bosstone]

@The_Hamster_King

The Cooks Source Facebook page is a pleasure to behold. Check it out before they take it down to put an end to the non-stop flaming.

Oh that is just truly hilarious. Anonymous is even getting advertisers to pull their ads from Cooks Source.

[Morgenstern]

There’s another possibility. Perhaps the Terms of Service agreement provided that anything posted at their site was theirs to use. I think there’s (or was) a similar provision here regarding what’s posted.

[Gangster_Octopus]

Do not piss off the Internets!!!

[dhkendall]

@Smapti

IIRC, recipes aren’t covered by copyright law.

That doesn’t make the mag’s response here any less dickish, though.

Not calling BS on you, as I don’t think either of us know the answer to the question, but my counter arguement is that cookbooks are copyright all the time! If they are nothing but recipes, why do they need to copyright?

Plus, there are some famous recipes that are well-known for being copyrighted: the formula for Coca-Cola, the 11 herbs and spices, the ingredients for McDonald’s secret sauce! Sure, the average person doesn’t know what they are, but one could figure it out (I’m guessing). And if you get close enough, and you start making your own Kentucky fried chicken, or Big Macs, or coca cola drink, and you can expect a visit from some representatives of the legal profession post-haste.

[Telemark]

@Morgenstern

There’s another possibility. Perhaps the Terms of Service agreement provided that anything posted at their site was theirs to use. I think there’s (or was) a similar provision here regarding what’s posted.

It wasn’t posted on their site, it was posted on a site the author apparently owns. This was theft, pure and simple.

I also love that the editor “corrected” the spelling mistakes that were apparently part of the Medieval theme of the site/article/recipe.

[Bosstone]

@Smapti

IIRC, recipes aren’t covered by copyright law.

@dhkendall

Not calling BS on you, as I don’t think either of us know the answer to the question, but my counter arguement is that cookbooks are copyright all the time! If they are nothing but recipes, why do they need to copyright?

Here’s what The US Copyright Office has to say:

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.

So if your recipe for scrambled eggs is:

2 eggs
1 cup milk

Then you’re hosed. But if it’s:

2 eggs
1 cup milk

Crack the eggs into a bowl and add the milk. Beat until the mixture is a uniform color. Pour into a preheated pan on medium heat and stir with a flat utensil. Cook until firm.

That’s protected by copyright.

[The_Hamster_King]

@dhkendall

If they are nothing but recipes, why do they need to copyright?

The content of a recipe is not subject to copyright, but the *wording *is. So its perfectly legal to take The Joy of Cooking, rewrite all the recipes using your own words, and sell the result as your own cookbook.

The other examples you gave (Coke, Big Macs) are protected as trade secrets, not copyrights.

[Miller]

@dhkendall

Plus, there are some famous recipes that are well-known for being copyrighted: the formula for Coca-Cola, the 11 herbs and spices, the ingredients for McDonald’s secret sauce!

I don’t think any of those are under copyright. They may be patented, but likely, they’re simply heavily guarded industry secrets.

[Scarlett67]

deleted – beaten to the punch

[The_Hamster_King]

@Miller

They may be patented, but likely, they’re simply heavily guarded industry secrets.

They’re almost certainly NOT patented, since patenting something requires public disclosure, while maintaining something as a trade secret requires that you take efforts to *prevent *disclosure.

[Duke]

Looks like Cooks’ Source is about to experience the Power of FARK. 4chan and Reddit can’t be too far behind…

[Pleonast]

@dhkendall

Plus, there are some famous recipes that are well-known for being copyrighted: the formula for Coca-Cola, the 11 herbs and spices, the ingredients for McDonald’s secret sauce! Sure, the average person doesn’t know what they are, but one could figure it out (I’m guessing). And if you get close enough, and you start making your own Kentucky fried chicken, or Big Macs, or coca cola drink, and you can expect a visit from some representatives of the legal profession post-haste.

You are confusing copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets (and maybe patents too).

A copyright gives the owner exclusive right to make reproductions of a creative work. A trademark gives the owner exclusive right to an identifying symbol for commercial purpose. A patent gives the owner exclusive right to a process or method. A trade secret is a like patent but is kept secret (patents must be publicly disclosed).

There are laws protecting the rights of owners of copyrights, trademarks and patents. Trade secrets are not directly protected. Secret recipes like Coke’s formula are trade secrets. If I started a beverage company that made an exact replica of Coke, that company would have no grounds to sue. (They could sue someone who stole the recipe or violated a contract.)

In general, a recipe cannot be copyrighted because it’s a process, not a creative work (the explanatory and expository text can be copyrighted, of course). A recipe could be patented, if it satisfied the criteria for patenting, like being new and inobvious.

(On preview, I see others have made the same points, but I wrote some details, so there. :p)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The original author should have her lawyer send a cease and desist letter to the magazine’s ISP for violation of the DMCA.