The link to the article is below, sorry about that !!!!!!!!

Here is a link that might be useful: Food Blog Alliance article

Interesting article. I am not a lawyer, but do have at least a passing interest in the use/abuse of copyright and the chilling effect it has on innovation.

Seems like lots of folks want legal protection for everything they say, write or think. The kicker is that the more someone tries to 'lock down' their content, the more likely people are to just ignore their content altogether when it's not particularly original in the first place.

One of my pet peeves are websites that attempt to disable the right mouse button on the web page. The idea is that it will prevent people from downloading their images (it doesn't), but most of the time I am trying to copy a word or phrase to the clip board so I can google on it and learn more. (BTW, if you run into a website like I described, you just hold the right mouse button down, hit enter on the keyboard to dismiss the box that popped up and then release the right mouse button and the right mouse button menu pops up as normal ;)

Justaguy, I agree with you 100%. In fact if you go into the blog 'Once Upon a Plate' and try to copy/paste her instructions, you get that nonsense and the funny part is, the recipe that's on front right now, SHE copied from Martha Stewart!! What's the point here?!? My feelings with her, it was offensive. Don't put a recipe on there if you aren't going to share it. So her blog's been taken off the list.

Whenever I have a recipe for something that I've come up with, my name is on it solely to say that this is how I do it. Not to claim ownership. Because as that article said, too many times the dish has already been put together by multiple people. And yes, IF it's a highly specialized dish, then I acknowledge that I've used that person's recipe as a guideline.

Interesting information Mitch.

When it comes to recipes I think it is only polite to quote the source and I try to do that but I must admit I don;t always know the source or I will attribute it to a poster here who really got it from a poster there! LOL

My personal feeling is that once you put things out on the internet you are inviting people to use the information.

I feel differently if it is information or images from which people make their living or for which they charge. In that case I feel that we should be respectful of copyright. Unfortunately sometimes it is hard to make the distinction.

Whether it is legal or not is a bit of a moot point. It is highly unlikely the courts will be interested in law suits that charge that someone reprinted a recipe from the internet without attribution.

However. like I said, if you do reprint a recipe it is only polite to identify the source.

In fact if you go into the blog 'Once Upon a Plate' and try to copy/paste her instructions, you get that nonsense and the funny part is, the recipe that's on front right now, SHE copied from Martha Stewart!!

That is pretty funny in an ironic way, isn't it? I noticed that my instructions on how to bypass the pop up box and still copy the text don't work on that site. However, CTRL+C does. So very silly.

I do agree that it is 'the right thing to do' to attribute credit where it is due. It's the measures some go to in a futile attempt to put info on the web and 'protect it' against theft or 'unauthorized' use that I find sad. The blog you mention is a prime example of someone being stupid with their copyright claim. It just turns people off to the blog and that's probably not what the owner really wants.

Dirtgirl & justaguy, Mari of Once Upon a Plate is one of the nicest people you'll ever meet. I believe she has had issues with others taking her photos for their own use and not crediting her for them. As far as her recipes are concerned, there is a print function she generously provides so that you can print the recipe for your own use. It is untrue that you can't highlight the recipe, right-click, and save it to a Word or text document on your own hard drive. Easy peasy.

Lori :D

Lori, I am sure she is a lovely person, I certainly am not going to disparage a person I don't even know, but her 'lock down' of her website rubs me as highly irritating. There may be a printable page, but the main page disallows the use of the right mouse button entirely. It's something I find annoying on any web site I encounter and I make a practice of not going back to sites using such annoying copyright measures. I am not alone in this which means she is losing traffic due to her chosen method of futilely attempting to enforce copyright.

If I were so inclined (I am not) I could just use a free application (heck, just a firefox extension) and it would download every single image on her entire site without trouble. Her method of trying to protect her images is both annoying and ineffective.

The question then becomes, why do it at all?

There will always be jerks in the world and anyone who posts anything on the web is going to sooner or later have a run in with a jerk or twelve. Just the way it is. Annoying people you wish to attract is not an effective solution to the problem ;)

I was going to send her an email about this trying to help her protect her image copyright without alienating potential traffic, but my quick scan of her page didn't show a 'contact me' link. There probably is one, I just didn't care to spend the time hunting for it given the intimidating number of copyright notices she has all over her site.

I just don't understand why people are so obsessed with the fact that the internet is effectively 'public domain' and people will use the data and information in any way they see fit. It's how it is and nothing is going to change that.

I certainly agree good manners are important and thus giving proper attribution is 'the right thing to do', but why annoy those who would do the right thing while futilely attempting to prevent the less well mannered from doing what they are going to do regardless? It's a lose-lose situation.

Lori, I did see her little note to "printable" recipes, after I looked around for the author of the blog, but I'll have to tell you that is not a good option for me. To explain, even though I have heavy duty cable internet, the blogs with lots and lots of stuff on them take a long time just to load their home pages. If I have to move around in them, one page to another, it takes forever.

And justaguy is right, at my old office I had a software called grabit that you can 'grab' anything you want off of any place in the computer. And no, I'm not giving away any secrets - a google search shows up all of these things.

You should read one of the posts on the Home Decorating forum - these people are finding pictures of their living rooms being used in websites. Once you've posted your pictures to the internet, people can and unfortunately will take them.

I have listed my paintings on ebay many times but never bother to make the photos of them protected. It just doesn't work. Most of the other artists there have realized this too. And you can bet those photos are copied and that your paintings will be reproduced!! (if you're any good - ha!) But I try to look at it like flattering.

Beth

Proper attribution is indeed 'the right thing to do', since Once Upon a Plate happens to be on focus for the moment. However, incorrect attribution is rampant by unknowing bloggers. Regarding her current post, I noticed that she's linking the recipe to another blogger 'Joy the Baker' and not Martha Stewart who rightfully should have been linked to.

Case in point, she's giving attribution to the wrong person, and I also noticed in some posts she gives credit w/o linking to the recipe. Giving credit to whom it actually belongs to is the 'right thing to do'.

To play devil's advocate -- why lock your front door or you car? People who have a mind to break into your house or car will do ao anyway.

My dad was a locksmith, and he always said that there was no way to make anything completely secure, that locks simply keep honest people honest and the best they can do against someone hell-bent on taking something is to slow them down or not make the amount of work involved to get to the desired item worth their time and effort. That's really what all the blocks to copying are about -- making someone who wants to take something have to work for it.

I can sort of understand making bloggers and writers wanting to make others work for it. There are people who only too happy to pass things off as their own work. How many times has a lazy coworker taken credit for work someone else spent hours doing? Ask any teacher how many student copy wholesale from the internet and try to pass it off as his/her original work. The only different between sixth grade and now is that copying someone else's homework has gotten a lot easier.

So, I see both sides of it. I think it comes down to good manners, and those seem to diminish as our technology increases. The relative anonymity allowed by the internet decreases the relationship element; we cease to treat each with the same courtesy we would show in a face-to-face relationship. We still, as a culture, have a very strong ideal of personal ownership, the definition of which is quickly becoming out of date in relation to our increased exposure.

To play devil's advocate -- why lock your front door or you car? People who have a mind to break into your house or car will do ao anyway.

My home is not open to the general public, it's by invitation only. If my home were open to the general public, I wouldn't lock my front door during the hours it was open to the public ;)

If my home were open to the general public and the door was locked I bet a lot of potential visitors would just leave instead of knocking and waiting.

If you went to a department store to do some shopping and the door was locked, how much trouble would you go through to get in before you just went to a competitor's store?

The bottom line as I see it is there is no value in annoying those you wish to attract. It just reduces the number of people who actually visit, feeel welcome and hang around.

When the motive for annoying those one wishes to attract is to preserve ownership rights of something it's like Wal-Mart saying they will only let people in with an appointment and after they pass a background check. Wal-Mart wouldn't be very successful with such a business model. Instead they let everyone in even though they know a small percentage of people will shoplift. It's the cost of doing business in the brick and mortar world and it's not different in the virtual world.

Lori, it looks like the best think Mari could do is watermark her photos (even though that can be removed too), and that way she wouldn't have to take the chance of running off any potentional traffic. It's like Beanthere was saying about the technology creating anonymity, it also keeps people from knowing that Mari is an extremely nice person and not take offense.

And in her defense, she did attribute correctly Verbena. She acknowledges that Martha Stewart originated the recipe, but that she got if off of Joy's blog. She doesn't have to link it - in fact, she probably couldn't have linked it to Martha.

Well, I'll let you guys in on something - Mari is not hurting for traffic to her site in any shape, way, or form. She just hit 600,000 on her site (in a relatively short period of time - that is a LOT for an amateur cooking blog), and has hundreds of followers as well. I'm thinking that Dirtgirl and Justaguy are seriously among the minority. And as far as being irritated, instead of pointing out the single site you dislike, have a more positive outlook and look at all the other sites you can take whatever you want from...

Lori ;D

Like I said, I can see both sides. I completely agree with you that once you put something on the internet, you cannot control what happens to it and what other people do with it. However, I also understand why people might be annoyed at someone taking material and passing it off as their own.

And you have a good point that homes aren't public area. On the other hand, I'm not sure comparing the average blog with a Wal-Mart of other profit-making venture is a more accurate analogy. Yes, some bloggers, like Pioneer Woman and such, are looking to make a profit. They want to sell books, or products of some kind. Blogging has become (or they want it to become) their paying job. Don't you think that is a fairly recent innovation in blogging, though? I believe the majority of bloggers are just people who are looking for a social outlet and to share something they enjoy, and they donÂt think of their readers as potential customers or income generators. ItÂs only recently that what started as a social or creative outlet has become "how do I make money doing this." And I think it surprised a lot of these people when, suddenly, they see their own words and pictures elsewhere, claimed by someone who just copy/pasted. What were we all told as kids? Do your own work. Don't take what's not yours. Give credit where credit is due. ItÂs still a surprise to a lot of people that those social mores donÂt apply in cyberspace. I think itÂs just normal that those people will respond to what they perceive as ill-mannered behavior the same way they would in real life situations: put things in place to dissuade the behavior. ItÂs old school, yes. ItÂs ineffectual, yes. ItÂs also kind of basic human nature to want to protect something you feel is yours. I canÂt prove it, but I think the more technically experienced the blogger, the less they try to use copy blockers. For one thing, they know the blocks are futile; for another, the highly experience "cyber-resident" (for lack of a better term) is going to know that the behavior of people on the internet is very different from what to expect in "real life".

The whole blogging phenomenon is sort of amazing in that it is the first time anybody (and, it seems, everybody) -- regardless of the level of influence, affluence, technical ability, knowledge, experience, and/or social ties -- can get maximum exposure for anything they want to say. All you need is access to a computer, an internet connection, and time. There are quite a few people now who "know" more people on-line than off-line and who consider their on-line relationships closer and more important than their off-line ones. ItÂs going to be interesting to see how it shapes social behavior.

I feel like I should point out that my posts have nothing to do with Mari or her website. I've never seen it and have no idea who she is. (Although if Lori recommends it, I'd probably like it since we seem to like similar blogs.)

I'm talking about blogging in general.

Well, I'll let you guys in on something - Mari is not hurting for traffic to her site in any shape, way, or form. She just hit 600,000 on her site (in a relatively short period of time - that is a LOT for an amateur cooking blog), and has hundreds of followers as well.

That is terrific for her, but this isn't about her. Her blog was used for an example of copyright enforcement that is annoying and drives people away.

That she has a lot of hits is great, but what percentage of potential fans are turned away by the copious copyright notices on every page and the disabling of the right mouse button? 50%? 10% 1% .00001%?

Ultimately she has driven away some percentage of potential fans while doing absolutely nothing to prevent her text or images from being 'stolen'.

If she was effectively preventing image theft(and there was anyone offering to buy them) then perhaps the trade off would be worth it, but she isn't. If she loses a single potential fan, it's one more than was necessary and the amount of theft she will experience remains unchanged.

Her tactics have a definite downside with no upside.

It's much like why would I spend a dollar to purchase a song from a website that uses rights management that requires me to play it in a certain player and no other when I can download it for free and play it in any device I want?

If the website didn't use rights management I could spend my dollar and get a song I could play/use any way I wanted. Will a bunch of people 'steal' the song regardless? Of course. It still makes no sense to irritate those who 'do the right thing' and purchase the song by limiting it's usefulness to them. Those people willing to 'do the right thing' are the very ones that should be catered to as they become loyal, often paying customers. The thieves will always be thieves and will always find a way to steal.

WEll I have to agree with Lori. I doubt that Mary is losing very many would-be followers because she has her photos protected. Once Upon A Plate is a favourite of mine.

I have found some of my photos being used on other sites without any acknowledgment so I understand why Mary has hers protected.

As for giving credit, even here on the CF it is the custom to give credit to the person that posts the recipe. In most cases the poster gives credit to where they originally obtained the recipe. I've noticed that the same thing applies in the blog world. When I try a new recipe and post about it on my blog, I give credit and link back to the blog I found it on.

Ann

Like I said, I can see both sides.

Me too. I read your post in it's entirety and regard it as a very astute, well put post.

To me what it ultimately boils down to is whether or not taking measures to enforce copyright is a good business decision. Even in the case of bloggers who blog with no profit motive, they derive satisfaction as the number of distinct visitors increases. Choices which limit the number of visitors who stick around are undesirable.

I do understand that the blogger in question may simply lack technical prowess and think her disabling the right mouse button protects her, but it's annoying to anyone who wants to right click anywhere on her site, it isn't just limited to right clicking on photos.

That makes everyone who right clicks for any reason feel unwelcomed and it's as if they were just accused of being a shoplifter. For profit or for fun, it's just bad business to treat every customer like a criminal.

Beanthere, she has a beautiful site, just as Lori does too. And I have given both as sites I've bookmarked in the thread on blogs.

And I too am amazed at the cooking blogs out there. Until I came to the cooking forum, I never knew of such an animal! It blows my mind and I've actually wondered what the people who publish cookbooks feel about this.... does it promote sales, or take away from them...

There was an article last week on MSN's home page about the possibly of internet failure and I can believe it's a possibility! When you think of the billions of people across the globe using it... sooner or later, it's gotta break.

Speaking as one who was around using typewriters and carbon paper..

You feel treated as "a criminal"???? Seriously???

I think you've made your point. And the fact is, Mari is a friend of mine and a friend of Ann's. Please stop referring to her blog in this discussion. It's hurtful to hear hyperbole disparaging my friend.

Next subject, please.

Lori

I think the root issue may be even broader than you suggest. Maybe the big question is how do legislate (and I'm using the term loosely) courtesy? How, in cyberspace, do we encourage respectful use of resources? I don't know. I used to think netiquette would organically evolve. Now I'm not so sure.

Some bloggers definitely get satisfaction from ever-increasing hit counts. Yeah, it can be an ego feed; I can see that. I think there are some bloggers, though, who prefer quality (or, rather, common ground) over quantity and would prefer 200 interactive readers rather than 1000 silent ones. Everyone is going to have a different motivation for blogging. And of course now we have the whole "fakesphere" thing to deal with -- marketing ploys disguised as forums and blogs. ugh. But I digress.

I'm trying to decide if I find the blocks off-putting...I don't think I do. Now, whether that is a true opinion or it's been colored because we're debating it, I can't fully say. I think I tend ot be more forgiving of it if it's not a commercial site. (And I realize that probably sounds backward from the expected.)

I admit, I'm one of those people who plays by the rules. All my software is fully licensed. All my music is legit. I ask before I copy photos. I donÂt hot-link. I don't even take extra napkins at McDonalds or accept samples of things I know I'd never buy. LOL! To me, itÂs just the right thing to do. ItÂs a modified version of the Golden Rule crossed with the much more cynical belief that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Ok, I could banter this all night and reach no conclusions. Time for dinner!

Dirtgirl, IMO, anytime the technology becomes available for a large number of novices to suddenly be able to achieve what used to be considered profession results, the perceived value of that activity decreases. Web designers used to make a lot of money to do what you or I can now do relatively easily and cheaply. It wasnÂt that long ago when only professionals had digital cameras. Now you can buy your five year old a Barbie digital camera, and just try finding a cell phone without one! There are so many things that used to be prohibitive to the average person either because of price or skill set that we donÂt give a thought to doing now.

I have an acquaintance who is a food writer and cookbook author, and the whole cookbook vs blog thing is a HUGE debate among cookbook authors now. There was a big panel on it not too long ago -- I think it was the James Beard Foundation that hosted it. As both a blogger and a print writer, he struggles with it himself. There's the excitement of the internet potential, and yet there's the big question of "How do you pay the mortgage doing it?" Print publishing is becoming less profitable every year, especially for authors. With cookbook writers, itÂs an especially sticky situation because, as the original post was saying, you canÂt copyright a recipe; you can only copyright the style of writing and collection as a whole.

My opinion, which my friend and I have debated, is that this mindset that everything on the internet is public access and therefore free for the taking has got to change in order for writing to continue to be something you can make a living doing. And that's a hard thing for me to say because I'm kind of a closet socialist at heart. I love the idea of equal access to and the the sharing of resources. But you still have to pay the mortgage?

You feel treated as "a criminal"???? Seriously???

Yes. I right click on the site because I see a word or phrase I want to do more research on. I want to right click, copy it to the clip board and then paste it into google. I get a copyright protected box that pops up. It temporarily prevents me from making legitimate use of the site. The implication is that I was trying to steal. That's why she has the copyright box pop up, in a futile attempt to foil image thieves even though I had no desire to steal her images. I think you've made your point. And the fact is, Mari is a friend of mine and a friend of Ann's. Please stop referring to her blog in this discussion. It's hurtful to hear hyperbole disparaging my friend.

With the utmost respect, I think your friendship with this person has you excessively emotional about a topic that is being discussed rather dispassionately. Nobody is trying to talk trash about her as a person, that would be plainly wrong. It's her use of copyright technology and it's wisdom that is under discussion.

Perhaps you would like to refer her to this thread and she can comment on why she feels the need to use ineffective methods that result in some percentage of potential followers feeling as though they are treated like thieves.

Mari, her personhood, her morality etc. are not being discussed. Her public blog and it's use of copyright enforcement are. That's fair game. It's not even her blog or her choice of copyright protection that are the issue. the issue is much larger than her blog or her choices.

Did you know that every time Ford rolls a gas/electric hybrid off the assembly line they pay a royalty to Toyota? The reason is that Toyota filed patent applications for every imaginable gas/hybrid tech before they started work on the Prius and today nobody can do anything with gas/hybrid tech without paying Toyota. This has resulted in gas/hybrid tech not evolving for years as nobody is going to innovate just to pay Toyota royalties.

Does this make Toyota evil? Not really. Toyota previously got screwed over by another company who filed patents on every imaginable variation on a different tech and every car Toyota rolled off the assembly line they had to pay royalties to another company who did flat out nothing more than be a legal patent owner. Toyota simply adopted a 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em' philosophy.

The real issue is how copyright and patents are being used/abused in the world today and how it has a chilling effect on innovation and how those who choose to enforce copyright often do so to their own detriment.

Then again this is the cooking forum ;)

Yes, I agree that it's not going anywhere. For me it was all about just getting a recipe, RECIPE, not photos. But I can see all points made.

And Lori, I'm not trying to be disparaging about your friend. If you say she's a good person, then I believe you. And, for what it's worth, this has probably brought her a few people in a good way. It's like someone mentioning the Tastespotting blog on another thread "that aren't they the ones who copied AnnT's photos". I went to check it out and after a lot of scrutiny, decided I liked the blog and wasn't quite sure how they could have done something like that on purpose with the way it's set up. But the point being, it brought me to the blog.

Next time, I will not mention names if I have an issue with something...

Thank you, Dirtgirl. I think that's very compassionate and sensitive of you. I do appreciate that -

Lori

Dirtgirl, Just to clarify, it wasn't Tastespotting that posted a photo of mine without permission. I'm quite happy when Tastespotting posts any of my photos. In fact, bloggers have to submit their photos to Tastespotting with the hopes that they will accept the photo to share on their site. The same goes for Foodgawker and Photograzing.

Ann

Yes Ann, after seeing the comment and going to investigate the site, I didn't see how it could have been true. It would have to have been accidental, but it would still have linked back correctly. And, as I said, it turned out that it was a great discovery for me since I enjoy the site so much now. She represents you and a lot of others in a beautiful and 'easy to use' site.

It was sad that she was incorrectly named, but it worked out good.

Going off a little on a tangent and just to mention, if you are using Blogger and have your Settings set to allow search engines to crawl your blog, as most people do since in many cases that's how people find you, then both your text and photos will appear in a Google or Yahoo search according to your tags or your photo subject.

And from there folks will just pick and choose the pictures or text that they want. And unless you use embedded (invisible) watermarks...used in cases where you're are selling photos professionally and want to go to court over a theft....or those very large watermarks that cross the photo from one side to the other....as do stock photo sites, people will continue to take your photos and use them as they like. One has to just accept it as a flattery....better to be seen than not or else not put them on the web at all.

I only say this because I have seen so many photos of mine used on other people's blogs that I don't worry about it any more. Even photos and texts written here on Garden Web and the Cooking Forum have appeared in a Google search page, and that's where many people find the photo they're looking for. I've only once been asked for permission to reproduce a photo of mine, in which case it was for a publication and not for the web.

Just this morning I was in contact with a Spanish fellow who posted my photo of Sopas Mallorquinas on his webpage. He assured me that he didn't get it from my blog, which means that he found it elsewhere on the web, probably in an image search. And if you do a Google image search for

I've have stated on my sites in a non-threatening way that the photos are mine but free to use as long as I'm given a credit and a link to my pages, so I don't disable the right-click function because anyone can take a screen shot of whatever they want from the web which makes disabling the right click function pointless. So far I haven't received a credit when a pic of mine has been used without my knowledge.

So it is true that unless you are a professional trying to earn a living from your photos on the web, the best thing is to take it as a compliment that someone thought it was good enough to copy. And with recipes we post here on the CF, I think we're all being quite correct by quoting the source.

SharonCb

Like Sharon, I often find my photos being used on other websites. But in many instances credit is given. Especially when they have taken the photo either from my Smugmug Album or my Blog.

The only time permission was ever asked for though was for a publication. A British Hotel used one of my Sticky Toffee pudding photos in a magazine advertisement.

I honestly don't mind when one of my photos is used elsewhere, but it is nice when credit is given. It is a little annoying and slightly amusing when you find one of your photos along with a recipe that doesn't even match the picture, being used, and the person is actually taking credit for the photo.

Ann

Sharon and Ann, the thing is, both of you take pictures that are not just professionally beautiful, you both have a way of capturing the food in such a way that it makes you WANT that food. I guess the word is tantalizing. That's why those people steal your photos! Wrong, but what do you do..

Beth

This reminds me of a similar subject, I posted about here, a few years ago, where other sites were using my photos, including one of my son. The latter did not show my son's face. Most of you know I'm not too keen on showing pictures of my kids on the internet.
But this, was actually a picture of his hands, holding fresh cherries. The writer who used that photo, gave full credit to my website, but it was her flirtatious comment about my boy, that ruffled a few feathers, including my own.

All in all, I've been lucky, most people who have used my work, have accredited my website and/or blog. But there is always a small group, who are only too happy to plagiarize. It all started with the poor sap who invented the wheel.
And, for some, the advent of the internet has made it much easier to leave your conscience at the door.

I should add that Mari is also a dear friend of mine, and she's someone who practices good blogger etiquette. Whenever she uses one of my recipes, she won't just merely mention my name, she will also link to me.
So, if she wants to make it a little more difficult for some to use her pictures, it is her blog, her prerogative.

That said, I honestly don't feel justaguy was questioning Mari's integrity, but rather complaining about websites, in general, whose practices to protect their content, may be considered a nuisance.

And, since justaguy already mentioned his step to work around the disabled right mouse, another way is to use the Prt Scr [print screen] on your keyboard. But you would be surprised how many people still don't know, or don't care to learn its use.

So, if disabling the right mouse button slows down a few individuals from taking others' photos and passing them off as their own, then I will respect the blogger's decision to do so.

Sol

"I think there are some bloggers, though, who prefer quality (or, rather, common ground) over quantity and would prefer 200 interactive readers rather than 1000 silent ones."

Or rather than 1,000 sycophantic ones and 5,000 people trying to promote their own blogs.

Or rather than 1,000 sycophantic ones and 5,000 people trying to promote their own blogs.

Hmm. I'm not quite sure the message you're trying to convey. Mari has been a friend of many, and a regular member here, years before the blogging revolution.

That said, I believe the symbiotic nature of sycophants and psychopaths, like birds of a feather, flock together.

Sol

To infer that bloggers are the only ones with a personal agenda is ridiculous. Look at all the people here who use the CF as a platform just to 'hear themselves talk'. :-P

That's quite true Lori.

There are some, thankfully only a few, that chime in only when there is controversy yet seldom contribute to the just plain Cooking threads.

That said, I honestly don't feel justaguy was questioning Mari's integrity, but rather complaining about websites, in general,

Thank you for saying that! It's was very nice of you.

justaguy,

I didn't think you were questioning anyone's integrity either. As a matter of fact I thoroughly enjoy your thoughtful and very well written posts. The salt one really got me thinking and I have been spending way too much time trying to figure out why Canadian pickling salt and American pickling salt are so different in texture.

Answer so far.......just because.

Would love to see you stick around.

"That said, I honestly don't feel justaguy was questioning Mari's integrity, but rather complaining about websites, in general,"

And same here. I've read that blog but never read the comments.

This brings a question to my mind.

Say I read a recipe somewhere, and make it.
I'm not real fond of it 'as is', so I make several changes.
Or maybe I really only use a very basic 'skeleton' of a recipe, changing several ingredients and/or amounts.

I feel the finished product is enough different than the original, I change its name, and call it mine.

Am I commiting a criminal act? Is that plagarism?

Where is the line drawn?

I really want to know!

Rusty

I feel the finished product is enough different than the original, I change its name, and call it mine.

Am I commiting a criminal act? Is that plagarism?

Where is the line drawn?

Since there are no recipe police the line is ultimately drawn in your own mind/conscience.

If you make significant deviations from the recipe then it's your own. On the other hand if you believe you would never have even attempted the dish without the recipe then I think it's fair to claim the recipe as your own and say 'inspired by'.

Rusty, if you take a recipe and make some minor adjustments, such as changing just the amounts of seasoning, or just substituting lemon for orange, than I would give credit to the original owner. But if you got the idea for a particular dish but changed it completely so it wasn't recognizable from the original then go a head and call it your own. I'd still probably say that the recipe was adjust from or inspired by.

There are very few recipes that are totally unique when it comes to ingredients, but often the method or the instructions are what make the recipe special.

Ann

Another interesting discussion on Chowhound

Here is a link that might be useful: Recipe Plagiarism