YES... all the stuff that you said was wrong (that I originally mentioned)... is 100% correct. ...all the stuff I noted that you didn't question (you ignored) ...you should stay away from.
Actually you were and still are wrong on all three points I raised. Mainly, because you use the term recipe to decribe only the list of ingredients when in many cases in includes far more than just the unprotected elements. You continue to ignore the fact that "recipes" are not always just mere lists of ingredients and so your blanket advice that one can just " take a few recipes from each collections that would be OK" is just bad legal advice.
In my first post I specified: For the most part recipes would normally be considered fair use provided: (they are... as demonstrated in copyright law and by the Copyright Office own circ.) 1. you don't reproduce complete collections (a complete collection MAY BE copyright protected as demonstrated in copyright law and by the Copyright Office own circ.) 2. you avoid reproducing any creative descriptions. (as demonstrated in copyright law and by the Copyright Office own circ.) Then I addressed your comments with even greater specifics: 1. Avoid copying imagery. 2. Avoid copying illustrations 3. Avoid copying literary work that isn't directly related to the formula of producing the final product 4. Avoid reproducing a complete collection ..and yet you claim I only mentioned "listed ingredients"... OK - without mentioning any of the specifics I did note: what else... what did I miss? In addition: 1. Show me a single recipe that is a "recipe" that doesn't include the parts I clearly noted and that is registered (thus copyright protected). 2. Please find a single case that supports your position that has gone to litigation. 3. Please find any case law that supports your suggested position and refutes mine. This thread isn't about magical hypothetical recipes that might exist somewhere on Earth ... this is a specific member with specific question using a noted specific website that you can review for yourself to address the "kind of recipes" to make your advice about. Please refute my position with something substantial other than I offer bad legal advice based on nothing but the Washington Post & International Association of Culinary Professionals. BTW - What type of law do you practice?
1. Actually this thread was specifically dealing with hypothetical recipes. If not, we would be doing the analysis with the specific recipes. He said he was copying recipes and wanted to know if it was stealing and if it was right. "So what do you think? Am I doing something wrong?" He gave a link. I have no idea if that is his site or the site he is copying, but it hardly matters. Without knowing the exact recipes he was copying it is impossible to do the analysis. His question was a general question. 2. I am not sure what you want me to prove. I already said that I think we are saying the same thing. I just thought your choice of languge referring to what one could copy as a "recipe" was misleading. What they can copy is certain unprotected elements of a recipe. I am not sure why you are trying to make more of that distinction that is there. There is not some wide gap between what we are saying. But when you claim that you right, I posted again why I thought you were not. You don't have to agree with me, I don't mind. In fact, nearly every case that gets argued has people who have differing views on what the law means. 3. Primarily civil/business litigation.
Even if one is absolutely 100% righteous, anyone can sue for no better reason than "they can"... Course... you can equally be 100% guilty of infringement and still use a defense of fair use and be totally vindicated. The best argument usually wins. For sure... and long after the jury is out I'll still argue... just because I can.
There is a little saying that about the law that I think is amusing: If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have neither, just argue.
I've now added a text on all images and at the bottom each post that contains a recipe from another site, something like: Picture from x or This recipe is from x Is that alright?
It is stealing someone worked hard setting it up and to cut and paste from another site word for word is not ethical.....search engines want unique content so create it yourself.
You mean you would intentionally edit the recipe so it would be "unique"? Wouldn't that make it unusable? Instead of bake in oven of 1 hour you would deep fry or grill? ...steam instead of broil ...dice instead of slice See the problem with using "ethics" or "search engines" as your baseline... the flavor of the original recipe is lost... and the problem with changing recipes "to untested forms" for the sake of "non-tasting requirements"... you can severely damage the creative aspects of food prep.
I think it would be helpful to credit the source or the author in someway somewhere, not because it will help in avoiding any possible legal action, but because it's good karma, good karma will flow back to you as a result
They'll probably notice you took them eventually. Sweden's not a big country and there aren't that many Swedish-language recipe sites about. It doesn't appear to be a very litigious country so I doubt they would try to sue you. But they could complain to your webhosting company and have your site/s suspended. Anyway, if you want to use content from other sites you should ask first, and accept it when they answer with a no.
...but then you could have a "HUGE" lawsuit... coming back at you... especially if the host doesn't provide any rebuttal options... it's called coercion. If you involve others to force an action that you don't wish to implement (or can't yourself)... that is a much bigger problem. If one doesn't plan to go to court... they are best to simply ignore 'everything".
Yoiks! I hadn't thought about a recipe being copyright, but I only use them for personal use. There are so many websites giving you recipes. Quicker to look up than a book.
Johtish, There are places selling plr recipes by the 10,000's for less than a dollar. A much easier solution I think.
Wow, a big argument back and forth where the two main people pretty much agree with each other but still continue the argument... that was some interesting reading! :-P Anyhow, glad I happened to come across this, as I as well have recently created a recipes section on a website I own. I'm already picking up search engine traffic on them as well, so I guess I've picked a couple of good ones. As a side note, here's what I did with the recipes to make sure they're unique. Instead of just copy/paste, I have two screens... on one screen I keep the source recipe up and on the other I actually type the recipe in making minor modifications, such as: 1 cup(s) -> 1 cup 1 tsp -> 1 teaspoon 1 TBSP -> 1 tablespoon 1 1/2 cups -> 1 and 1/2 cups I'll also make minor modifications to the wording of preheating the oven and what not. Why? Simply because Google penalizes for duplicate content. I don't want a crawler to come across a page I have and realize that more than half the content is exactly like another website's page out there. I try to create a fairly unique page in the eyes of the search engine which I feel will be a better result than any other site out there that has that particular recipe. Anyhow, just my two cents.
...and if the matter ever went to court you would find the exact same thing occurring... attorneys of both parties vigorously defending their interpretation or slant of the law.
Very true.. though usually in court the attorneys have different interpretations of the law, whereas it appears you two have the same view... just worded differently.
hmmm... even in your interpretation of duplicate content to avoid negative SEO aspects from search engines is in error. Those "tweaks" change nothing... Surely you don't plan to rank for "cup" or "teaspoon" or "preheating"... that is where you might see a decline in results because you have nothing unique to offer for ranks for search of "cup" or "teaspoon" or "preheating". But there is no search engine impact on non-queried phrases. Duplicate content itself doesn't exist without a "link" between original and copy and even then: not copying the creative dialog of the original author - because that would be copyright infringement... solves all duplicate content issues. ...minor changes of 20% or less of content has no positive or negative impact. Lastly, I love to debate for no better reason than to debate... to argue even aspect until they are exhausted (which they never are)
Nope, I don't plan on ranking for any of those keywords. However, as Google has changed their methods and algorithms more than once, I'd rather play it safe and have totally unique content where at all possible. You have to remember - a page with a recipe may not be very large at all, so changing the wording on the ingredients and instructions could very well be more than 20 percent of the content for that page. Debate is what keeps the mind active. Bring it on!