Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cook's Magazine Claims Web Is Public Domain

Posted by timothy on from the gotta-break-a-few-eggs dept.

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."

16 of 565 comments (clear)

  1. The web is public domain? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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."

    1. Re:The web is public domain? by clone53421 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      The original website had a © notice at the bottom. It is not public domain.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    2. Re:The web is public domain? by shawb · · Score: 5, Informative

      Copyright is about whether or not a person has a right to make a copy of something. By downloading a song, you are creating a new copy. If you are not given the right to do this, it is copyright infringement.

      Whether or not the concept of copyright is beneficial to society is a completely different argument, and I personally agree that the current limits on length of copyright need to be revisited. However, downloading music that is still under copyright without the copyright holder's permission is blatant copyright infringement, and a violation of the law.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    3. Re:The web is public domain? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 4, Informative

      You were using a meaning of the term external to the domain of this discussion either to purposely confuse the issue to benefit an agenda, or just to be jackass.

      In the context of copyright law 'public domain' has a very specific meaning which has nothing to do with being 'publically available.' Using other (dubious) meanings of 'public domain' in this conversation is being willfully obtuse.

    4. Re:The web is public domain? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. A copy is defined in the law as a tangible object within which a work is fixed. It isn't possible to download tangible objects. If we could, that would be the end of the postal system. The tangible object in the case of downloading is the downloader's computer's hard drive, or RAM, or whatnot. And since the download didn't magically make itself happen, but was initiated by the downloader sending a request to the server, it is the downloader who is liable for infringement for the download. And the uploader for serving the file to the downloader.

      The cases that are brought are selected and structured as they are for merely tactical reasons. Uploaders are easier to find and gather evidence about. A person who only downloads -- a leech -- is harder to find, much less prove liable. Plus, if there were no more uploaders, the downloaders would go away on their own, but this does not really work vice versa. Thus, it is a better use of resources to go after uploaders. Going after the networks themselves is better still (which is why the first lawsuits were against entities like Napster), but they have gotten a lot slipperier.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  2. Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Informative

    More from the copyright office:

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

    --
    Do you have ESP?
    1. Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    2. Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable by dubbreak · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

    4. Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable by FellowConspirator · · Score: 4, Informative

      In this case, it's not relevant, however, since it's not a recipe in question, but rather an article on the origins of Apple Pie.

      Recipes are, as you say, not copyrightable.

  3. Re:In other words by spun · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  4. Re:Cookssource.com offine by annaraven · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 Also, someone found a Paula Deen recipe that was stolen, and notified Paula - who has contacted her legal department.

  5. The Facebook page... by colenski · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...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

  6. Re:Recipies cannot be copyrighted - or not so much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  7. Bad Title by Bootsy+Collins · · Score: 4, Informative

    The title of this submission should have read "Cooks Source". Cooks is a completely different magazine.

  8. Re:A recipe might not be copyrightable... by LordEd · · Score: 3, Informative

    On their facebook forum, their magazine has been deconstructed to show where all of their content came from. Its not just recipes, but articles and pictures as well

    For example, the image at http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=439516851748&set=a.439514776748.238553.196994196748 of their magazine is a copy of http://www.weightwatchers.com.au/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=38441. This is not a recipe.