"The moment of clarity faded, like charity does..."

Given the kerfluffle over the Cooks Source copyright issue and the fact that I posted a recipe last night, let's go over the basics:

Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients. Nor does it protect other mere listings of ingredients such as those found in formulas, compounds, or prescriptions. Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook. (U.S. Copyright Office, Circular #1: Copyright Basics)

Judith Griggs allegedly admitted to lifting substantial literary expression (actually, all of illadore's article, whole cloth) from a copyrighted source and reproduced it without permission, thinking she'd get away with it.

On the other hand, I wrote about my experiences, and provided my own description, to the combination and modification of ingredients provided by another recipe. So I'm in the clear, whereas Judith Griggs is probably going to suffer from her slam-dunk admission that she ignored US Copyright Law and taunted the writer while doing so.

The sad fact is, if Griggs had actually made illadore's recipe-- if she was actually, you know, a cook-- and reported on her experiences with it, she'd likewise be in the clear (although a nod to the source is always appropriate and graceful). But the short dialogue with illadore seems to illustrate that she produces a raft of ad-filled magazines on a variety of issues, targeting the one-in-five Americans who don't use the Internet, and doesn't have time to cook.