[conspire] Recipe exchange (was: CABAL (in-person + Jitsi Meet), Sat. Feb. 11, 2023)

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Paul Zander (paulz at ieee.org):

>  Les,
> Thanks for the suggestion of candied orange rind.  It was easy to find
> recipes online. I never thought something made from healthy oranges
> could have so much sugar. 

I've also done candied lemon rind, which came out pleasingly -- the main
hitch being that you get put through a lot of work to reduce the amount
of very bitter white "pith" from the inner surface of the rind.

In general, and possibly with few exceptions, no matter what fruit you
start with, somebody has figured out how to turn parts of it into candy.

Pivoting to licensing and law:  Did you know, individual food recipes are
conclusively, by caselaw, inherently public domain?
https://www.findlaw.com/smallbusiness/intellectual-property/copyrighting-recipes.html

The recipes I use from day to day are part of a think sheaf of pieces of
paper, which is handy for me in the kitchen but -- so 1970.  I've lately
devoted a small amount of time to, well:

http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/recipes/
A bonanza of... er... three recipes, so far.  But I just wanted to talk
about the social and legal aspects:

1.  The reason individual food recipes _as such_ are public domain ab
initio is that copyright covers "creative elements" of expressions in
"fixed form" in covered categories (including writing) -- specifically, 
"original, creative expressions".  Outside the broad scope are:

1.  Ideas.  (Which might be patentable for a fixed period).
2.  Mere lists of things.  Titles, names, short phrases, slogans, etc.
3.  Functional (as opposed to creative) expressions, such as 
    "do [X] to accomplish [Y]".  Methods, procedures, systems, 
    processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, devices.  (Which,
    again, might be patentable.)
4.  Creative expressions not yet in fixed form, like your
    Pulitzer-winning novel you are holding in your head but haven't yet
    written down.


2.  But that doesn't mean that _anything in or with_ recipes is public
domain.

A subversive-for-its-time 1950s cookbook I go back to, time after time,
Peg Bracken's _I Hate to Cook Book_, is endlessly quoted on the Internet
for its recipes, and for a long time I assumed this was casual copyright
violation.  Like this classic:
https://www.cooks.com/recipe/tc41j77c/dr-martins-mix.html

That is _not_ copyright violation, because it quotes only the
ingredients and instructions (which are not expressive elements, hence
not copyright-eligible).  This rendition, which quotes a couple of Ms.
Bracken's surrounding amusing comments, might be de-minimus copyright
violation _as to_ those comments:
https://www.justfrances.com/dr-martins-mix/


3.  And, in particular, watch out for image files.  Don't casually 
copy them from nowhere-in-particular and assume nobody cares about the
copyright violation.  Individuals and companies are unpredictably real
soreheads about that, and even may seek to lean on you for damages.

Two days ago, when I first created
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/recipes/eggs-in-purgatory.html, I quoted
verbatim, with thanks and attribution (see point #4), a person on
NextDoor, whose rather vague recipe described what seemed to be a
spectacular and easy dish.  Also, his photograph was really good.

At that time, I copied the guy's recipe text verbatim, noting (as you'll
still see at the bottom) that individual recipes are ineligible for
copyright.  I thanked the guy publicly, and asked his permission to also
use his photograph.

He was, disappointingly, _very_ grouchy about my replicating onto the
open Web his recipe, and denied permission to re-use his photo, on
grounds that he is seeking to publish a cookbook.  Absolutely his right,
of course.

So, the first thing I did was find a visually indistinguishable
photograph on Wikipedia of a similar North African dish Shakshouka --
and insert -that- with copyright credit and citation of the creator's 
licence terms.  Then, on reflection, I decided that NYT Cooking's
much-more-detailed version of the recipe looked better than his, and
substituted in those details.

And I credit the NYT Cooking author by name, and link to the (paywalled)
copy of the recipe at their site -- my point being that I'm really that
certain that, yes, copying that recipe is legal, and I'm certainly not
going to hide the borrowing.  (That would not be right; see point #4.)

If you defeat the paywall (just disable Javascript for a moment), you'll
see that they say "© 2023 The New York Times Company" at the bottom.  
Is that legalistic bushwah?  Mostly yes.  But copying their photo would
have been a blunder.


4.  Always credit your sources, even if you think the law doesn't
require it.  Because it's the nice thing to do.  And makes people less
inclined to sue you, even if the law's not on their side.