Interesting point. As I understand it recipes are the most copyvioed
form of writing. The basic ideas of what makes recipes work are of
course beyond copyright, but the specifics present big problems because
your aunt may have passed on a favorite recipe that she took from a
copyright cookbook to your mom, and for you to take and publish that
recipe could be a breach of copyright. But if the original cookbook was
reprinting a traditional recipe maybe it may not be copyright after all
no matter what the book's general copyright notice says.
In practical terms, unless there has been an exact copy from a copyright
source, the presumption should be that a specific recipe is in the
public domain. A wholesale copying of everything in a book should still
be discouraged.
That being said, the same rules about copyright should apply to
Wikibooks as to Wikipedia, so it does not have a bearing on deciding
which project should have the recipe.
Ec
Rick wrote:
Aren't most recipes copyrighted?
RickK
Matthew Larsen <mat.larsen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I agree that recipies should be included in the main wikipedia -
providing they are not stupid and do actually work. I would love to
give a shot at cooking things (Delia Smith gets on my tits) and
anything to help me learn to cook would be great.
This may lead to edit wars with people fiddling each others recipies,
so this will have to be watched.
Mabye a wikirecipies site?
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 03:35:51 -0400, Sj <2.718281828(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 19:05:17 -0400, Delirium wrote:
>
>
>>I'd say a fairly high percentage of our articles on drugs have something
>>that at least one government will find objectionable, so we'd have to
>>tag pretty much all of them.
>>
>>
>This might not be a terrible idea. It should be as easy as possible to provide
>various views of the encyclopedia which are inoffensive, in turn, to
>a) governments, b) children, c) the pious, etc. Giving reusers the
>ability to
>choose a limited subset of encyclopedia content is not censorship (though
>one might argue that it makes targeted censorship easier). I can think of
>a few cases in which I would find it appropriate to remove "a fairly high
>percentage of our articles on drugs," among other things, from a particular
>snapshot or CD.
>
>