Slashdot Mirror
Cook's Magazine Claims Web Is Public Domain
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."
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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