Bloomberg chief editor: We publish too many mediocre and long enterprise stories

Re:Bloomberg chief editor: We publish too many mediocre and ... by cosmie on Friday July 17, 2020 @02:59PM (#23874139)

I can't speak to other forms of copyrights, but literary copyrights also protect derivative works[1].

It'd likely be hard to prove for isolated incidences or sufficiently generic recipes, but but if someone extracted and republished recipes en masse, you could establish that they're deriving those recipes from your works and violating your copyright.

Edit: See my comment here[1] for more details and an example of the issue you run into, particularly with the "steps" component.

[1] https://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-copyr...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23874340

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bloomberg chief editor: We publish too many mediocre and ... by ac29 on Friday July 17, 2020 @04:01PM (#23874848)

I would be very surprised if extracting a non-copyrightable recipe out of a copyrightable longer text wouldn't qualify as fair use.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bloomberg chief editor: We publish too many mediocre and ... by rimunroe on Friday July 17, 2020 @08:40PM (#23877818)

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that reasoning holds up. An uninformed reading of 17 USC 102(b) sounds like it directly contradicts your theory:

> In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

This seems like a good summary of a relevant case and the relevant copyright law[1]. The gist of it is that even if a work is copyrightable, that doesn't extend to facts contained within it (such as the ingredients and process required to make a dish).

[ Parent | on HN ]