Question on sharing scanned cookbooks...

[AnnCook]

I buy up lots of book lots from auctions and estate sales. Consequently I wind up sorting through a good number of cookbooks which I scan into my computer to keep my shelves happy.

Was wondering if I was allowed to share scans considering that most I find are now either public domain or out of copyright. Is it considered lending or is it a no-no?

I'm still trying to figure out the ins and outs of what's allowed on forums and don't want to share something that could be questionable.

 

[PrincessFiona60]

If there is any question of copyright, we prefer it to not be posted. It is much better to link to a resource.

 

[GLC]

I do know the answer, but in accordance with the management's desires (understandable), I'll point you to resources and outline some of the issues you will be using them to settle. I think it's safe enough to say that, if you are confident a work is in the public domain, you can copy and share all you want. Google does. The Gutenberg Project does. Both, by the way, have many cookbooks, including some very interesting ones that go back to ancient times. Of course Google also had to pay $125-million to settle a copyright suit after they tried to push the issue too far.

The following sites have about all anyone could want on copyright. It's impossible to write accurately about copyright without a lot of what-if's and maybe's. But don't try to concoct a legal theory that suits you. If you have to nitpick to fit your activity into the right side of the law, it probably isn't.

10 Big Myths about copyright explained

Copyright | American Library Association

http://humanities.arizona.edu/sites...or Copying and Scanning Copyrighted Works.pdf

This one is specific to the duration of copyright.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf

If a book is still in copyright, there are a great many "what ifs" in copyright that just can't be fully answered for a particular case. It's become even more complicated in recent decades as digital scanning and storage came within the abilities of everyone. Libraries, being very careful, have begun scanning some of their out-of-print (but still in copyright) books and allowing ONE digital loan at a time. They reason that it's fair to make one copy of the book they own, but they don't risk making multiple copies to loan.

It also becomes a matter of ethics, because the targets of legal efforts are things like the massive copied movie sites. It almost always comes down to what you think is right and fair to authors.

 

[CWS4322]

I buy up lots of book lots from auctions and estate sales. Consequently I wind up sorting through a good number of cookbooks which I scan into my computer to keep my shelves happy.

Was wondering if I was allowed to share scans considering that most I find are now either public domain or out of copyright. Is it considered lending or is it a no-no?

I'm still trying to figure out the ins and outs of what's allowed on forums and don't want to share something that could be questionable.

What do you mean by "public domain"? Do you mean it is available on the Internet? If so, then I'd say share the link. The legal definition for "public domain" does not mean there is not a copyright holder. Example, one of my ancestors' papers are available to the public, held by a historical society, BUT the copyright is owned by my family. And, you can research this information on the Internet and there is a copyright notice. It depends on the date and country re: expired copyright. Without research, you will not know if s/one else has "bought" the copyright from the the person/estate that originally held the copyright. I know of a gentleman who buys copyrights and then reprints the books and sells them. Stay on the safe side--share a link or PM the recipe with credit information.

 

[Andy M.]

...Stay on the safe side--share a link or PM the recipe with credit information.

This is not the safe side. If an item is copyrighted, you cannot share it legally. Providing the 'credit information' is merely a way of your saying, "I know it's copyrighted but I'm going to share it anyway." That can be used against you to prove you broke the law knowingly.

 

[CWS4322]

This is not the safe side. If an item is copyrighted, you cannot share it legally. Providing the 'credit information' is merely a way of your saying, "I know it's copyrighted but I'm going to share it anyway." That can be used against you to prove you broke the law knowingly.

Well then, the posts that folks share where credit and (c) are included should also not be posted on this forum.

FWIW, it depends on the country in which you are in. In some, you can share 10% of the content without being in violation of copyright law and depends on how the copyright notice is worded and how one is sharing the information, e.g., for educational purposes, and where the book was printed. BTW, expressed permission, in Canada, means that you MUST have written, not email permission, from the copyright owner. And you must request it each and every time. At least it did the last time I asked my lawyer when I was asked to violate copyright law and refused to do so for a client (I also lost the client--but was that a client for which I wanted to work?).

 

[AnnCook]

In some, you can share 10% of the content without being in violation of copyright

The 10% rule is such a headache. Ran in to that one sharing Bible study online. I was doing a side by side comparison of translation vs reiteration and turns out 10% can apply overall OR 10% per chapter depending on publishing house.

With Biblical references that means very choppy quoting and lots of copyright issues.

 

[Andy M.]

Specifically regarding recipes, ingredient lists are not covered by copyright but the instructions/directions are. You have to "significantly rewrite" the instructions to avoid © issues.

 

[Hoot]

I generally rely on the wise counsel of the good folks that run this site to keep me on the straight and narrow about such issues. They do a great job of minding the store, so to speak.

 

[Cerise]

I buy up lots of book lots from auctions and estate sales. Consequently I wind up sorting through a good number of cookbooks which I scan into my computer to keep my shelves happy.

Was wondering if I was allowed to share scans considering that most I find are now either public domain or out of copyright. Is it considered lending or is it a no-no?

I'm still trying to figure out the ins and outs of what's allowed on forums and don't want to share something that could be questionable.

Welcome, Ann.

Is there a FAQ here re same?

I have thousands (if not more) of recipes, I store on my computer in my Mastercook Program from various sources, as well as my own. If the recipe exists on the web, I try to research & provide a link.

Just wondering, are you planning on posting (let's say) a recipe a day from another source? (Unsure why the question arose.)

If you have made the recipe, tell us why you like it, or post TNT (Tried and True), or post your method in your own words. As I understand it (?) photos have copyrights as well. Hope that helps.

 

[Greg Who Cooks]

Was wondering if I was allowed to share scans considering that most I find are now either public domain or out of copyright.

If an authoritative source says it is "public domain" then you can share it. It may be problematic determining if the source is indeed authoritative. As far as out of copyright, how do you know? That too could be difficult to determine.

What do you mean by "public domain"? Do you mean it is available on the Internet? If so, then I'd say share the link.

I've found plenty of copyrighted material on the Interet, material that is almost certainly being used without permission (e.g. a recipe stating the source is some cookbook when I know the cookbook is copyrighted). I'm pretty sure CWS4322 means that you should post a link to the site with the recipe rather than posting the recipe itself. Then the copyright infringement becomes an issue between the copyright owner and the infringing website. Links by themselves are not copyright infringement.

This is not the safe side. If an item is copyrighted, you cannot share it legally. Providing the 'credit information' is merely a way of your saying, "I know it's copyrighted but I'm going to share it anyway." That can be used against you to prove you broke the law knowingly.

I agree, and this is a widely believed misconception, that copyrighted material can be used if the user gives credit to the copyright ownner. The only way that works is when it starts out "used by permission" and the person using it has received permission (usually written) from the copyright holder.

Well then, the posts that folks share where credit and (c) are included should also not be posted on this forum.

FWIW, it depends on the country in which you are in. In some, you can share 10% of the content without being in violation of copyright law and depends on how the copyright notice is worded and how one is sharing the information, e.g., for educational purposes, and where the book was printed. BTW, expressed permission, in Canada, means that you MUST have written, not email permission, from the copyright owner. And you must request it each and every time. At least it did the last time I asked my lawyer when I was asked to violate copyright law and refused to do so for a client (I also lost the client--but was that a client for which I wanted to work?).

Another misconception is that copyrighted material must have a copyright notice. Unfortunately that is not the case, although any smart copyright owner will attach such a notice.

Copyrighted material is often used on the Internet without permission, so absence of a copyright notice is no indication that it is not copyrighted. However, presence of a copyright noticed is a good indication that it is copyrighted.

A list of ingredients cannot be copyrighted. Whenever I want to refer to or quote a copyrighted recipe from the Internet I'll add my own description of what it is, post a list of ingredients, and then after "method" I post a link to the copyrighted site where the method can be found.

You should always assume a recipe is copyrighted unless (1) you created the recipe yourself, or (2) you have definite, reliable information that the article is in public domain or is otherwise not copyrighted.

BTW there is no 10% rule in the US. US law permits small quotes of material may be used for example in a book review. Quoting one recipe to "review" a book is NOT a review, it's an attempt to work around the law and is in actuality a copyright infringement.

In the US here is the best source for answers to all copyright questions:

U.S. Copyright Office - Frequently Asked Questions

 

[roadfix]

If you're going to share them among friends I wouldn't worry about it. I'm sure millions of others do it, especially with music, for instance.
But I would not share material on a public forum.

 

[GLC]

This is a good example of why the site management prefers no copyright advice be posted. Almost every reply that purported to interpret the law had at least one incorrect or purely guessed at piece of information or one likely to be misinterpreted.

And people talk about "fair use" like they know the answers. When it involves the Internet, there are few reliable answers. Web sites don't like to get demand letters because of what their users post on the site. Do what you want personally, because no one is going to come after you for giving a few friends digital scans of a cookbook. Violations are expensive to prosecute. (No, the FBI won't do it for you.) The copyright holder has to prosecute the suit. It's rarely worth it.

But web sites worry, because the law is far from settled (not that it ever is), and there are violations that many users never think of, such a contributory infringement, which can occur when you think you're properly providing a link, rather than embedding the copyrighted material in your post, and it turns out the linked site is unlawfully displaying the material. How do you prove up the defense that you didn't know? Worse, how does the web site prove it up? They normally don't have to, because "safe harbor" rules say that they can comply promptly to a removal demand and be okay, but no one want to have to mess with it.

So, the site management mostly has to just keep an eye on things and make the best calls they can about whether to allow something. Which means that most allow recipes and such, if they don't recognize them as verbatim copies, or the poster doesn't outright say it's from such and such cookbook.


At the end of a serious post, I like to lighten it with something like a relevant cartoon. But there are cartoons about copyright. And there are cartoons in the public domain. But it's apparently very hard to find a cartoon about copyright that's in the public domain.

So make up your own cartoon idea and stare intently at the box below until it appears.

 

[Greg Who Cooks]

GLC, by your argument DC should not allow linking to external material at all because in the end nobody can ever know for certain if the site they're linking to has a legitimate right to use the content.

Also, by some arguments, rewriting the method is not sufficient distance to avoid infringement issues because the rewritten method becomes a derivative work, and derivative works are still the protected property of the original copyright owner.

Taking it all to the logical extreme you should not be able to post any recipes in the forum at all unless you wrote them yourself or have proof the recipe is public domain. (The latter could be very difficult to prove.)

I think at some level we have to resort to practicality. We know we can post a list of ingredients. We know we cannot post the method part of a copyrighted recipe. We need some sort of guidelines for determining what the dividing line is between these two extremes. Or otherwise the rule has to be "you can't post it unless you created it yourself."



I'm curious how you'd rule in a few instances of my posts. I've posted several times about Pioneer Woman's recipes. I've written a bit of an introduction in my own words, cut and pasted the ingredient list, then posted link to PW's blog where the full recipe is available. The blog has a clear copyright notice indicating it is copyrighted material.

Should these posts be deleted? If so I'll volunteer to go through all my posts and inform DC management which of them contain links to copyrighted material.

 

[Andy M.]

...Almost every reply that purported to interpret the law had at least one incorrect or purely guessed at piece of information or one likely to be misinterpreted...

I'm eager to see your correct interpretations of the information.

 

[Greg Who Cooks]

I'm eager to see your correct interpretations of the information.

Well I know which of my information GLC considers incorrect (the links). It will be interesting to see which other information is objectionable.

I know GLC has some knowledge in this area, as I do too. I have written and published several magazine articles and as an author I went to great length to understand my legal rights.

There is a lot of information to be gained by reading the US Patent Office link that I provided above. I consider it to be a authoritative source for members and websites located in the US. Note also that the US has copyright treaties with other countries so it applies in many cases even to websites and persons outside the US, although legal action would probably have to be pursued in the foreign country.

 

[GLC]

GLC, by your argument DC should not allow linking to external material at all because in the end nobody can ever know for certain if the site they're linking to has a legitimate right to use the content.

I merely point out that each site owner must make their own decisions. One of those is whether they wish to deal with a demand, should the situation come up. Obviously, nearly all discussion sites allow links, if for no other reason than that posts would become very long, if the information had to be passed without links. If a site wants absolutely no chance of that particular issue, they certainly would ban links.

As to attempting to provide correct advice, moderation has already expressed the desire that no direct advice be given and that links to information sites be used instead. I'm not deliberately going to defy that, other than the appropriate advice to question every bit of advice and go to the sites you are able to evaluate yourself quality. There's been enough already.

 

[GLC]

My mistake.

I'm going to go ahead and call one on myself. I read the first reply in the thread as indicating giving copyright advice was inappropriate. Reading it again, I see that it actual means that if copyright is in question at all, the material shouldn't be posted but represented by link. My error.

So return to your regularly scheduled program. I still do not give specific copyright advice. I see far too much erroneous advice floating around, and there's no reason someone should accept mine, especially when I'm saying so much casual advice shouldn't be taken.

It's really of no consequence, so far as the original post is concerned.

 

[Greg Who Cooks]

I think this is a subject that should be discussed frequently, so that all members and site staff is made aware of copyright issues. This is an important topic that justifies continued discussion.

I believe that an Internet forum such as DC has a responsibility to keep in frequent discussion a dialog with members about copyrights, in order to justify that they have made diligent effort to avoid copyright infringement on their site and to justify that they have taken active measures to continue to respect copyright laws, and that they have demonstrated active effort to avoid copyright infringement on their site, and to demonstrate that they have taken active measures to address copyright infringement when such has occurred.

As we know, members are able to post anything they want without advance approval from site management. Most posts stand fine. It is the rare post that infringes any copyright.

I have reported several posts myself as "violating copyright law, illegal use without permission to use." In every case the posts or topics have been deleted. About half the time I receive a "thanks" message.

As far as I'm concerned DC is doing everything they deem necessary to address copyright infringement whenever they see it or are informed of it on this forum site.

I cannot imagine any scenario where DC forum management would not want to have we members discussing necessary steps to avoid copyright infringement, or steps that must be taken when it is observed. (Report it!) If management wanted to avoid discussion of this topic then it could be misconstrued as willfully ignoring copyright infringement on their site.

I don't accept that. I'm convinced that DC management wants members to be fully informed about copyright issues, wants members to understand exactly what is appropriate and what is not, and I'm sure DC management is willing to discuss the issue at any length until members understand how to make good posts without violating copyright laws.

 

[GLC]

You're right. See my follow-up that was probably posting while you were writing.