9 ms·

You can't copyright cocktails or other recipes because copyright only protects the artistic expression, not the mechanical process. Cocktails could conceivably

You can't copyright cocktails or other recipes because copyright only protects the artistic expression, not the mechanical process. Cocktails could conceivably be patentable, if they were sufficiently novel and non-obvious, which very few cocktails are likely to be. If you used a sufficiently visually distinctive glass and created a fanciful name, you might be eligible for trademark protection -- that wouldn't stop someone making the same cocktail, but would prevent them using your identical glassware and name in a way that might lead to confusion that the cocktail was approved by you. Oh! And if you choreographed an interesting process of making the drink, with a specific sequence of unnecessary but distinctive motions (think "bartender dance"), you could copyright your performances of the dance act and possibly prevent others from stealing your show. The less elaborate your performance, the less protection you're likely to get, and copyright doesn't prevent, for example, parody. But generally, intellectual property rights are not intended to vest in ordinary creations like mixed drinks.

OJFord 4y ago
Are collections copyrightable? Knowing that recipes aren't I've wondered before why (sufficiently popular to make it worthwhile) recipe books aren't a race to the bottom with cheaper clones. The smart move of course (employed e.g. by Delia Smith) is to publish them for free online too. I own one of hers but for convenience sometimes check a recipe I've found in it on my phone, so far they've all been there so I think it's complete.
- paranoidrobot 4y ago
  Cookbooks are copyrightable for a few reasons, to my understanding. There's usually some creativity in their assemblage "The recipes of my family/time in $X country". It's generally not just slapping together 500 cookie recipes. There's photos, artwork, some kind of story being told about how/where/why. The recipes themselves are usually more than just a list of ingredients, there's some originality in how the recipe is laid out, how to prepare it, and something else.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > The recipes themselves are usually more than just a list of ingredients, there's some originality in how the recipe is laid out, how to prepare it, and something else. You can't copyright the "how to prepare it" part either.
    - paranoidrobot 4y ago
      If there's some level of creativity/originality in the preparation, then that is copyrightable.
      - kadoban 4y ago
        I am pretty sure that'd be a patent. I suspect it'd be really hard to get an effective one on a coctail though. I know there's a bit more to it than adding the ingredients and mixing (or not), but there's not a _lot_ more to it than that.
        paranoidrobot 4y ago
        I think you are confusing the raw facts of how to prepare it (generally not copyrightable), and any original creative aspects of the preparation instructions. So, I might incorporate into the instructions about what advice my grandmother said about making it, and that might be copyrightable. Relating it back to the original story: You can't copyright the cocktail, but you could copyright the performance of making it.
        OJFord 4y ago
        So the actual text is copyright, like any textbook, just not the same method paraphrased? Seems fairly obvious put like that. I suppose it becomes less intuitive when the text is just a straight forward bullet point instruction, so one's not really different from the other.
        4y ago
- chrismcb 4y ago
  Data is typically not copyrightable. But the layout is. How you present it is.
  - cwillu 4y ago
    > As a general rule, the U.S. Copyright Office does not accept vague claims of “format” and/or “layout.” The general layout or format of a book, a page, a slide presentation, a website, a webpage, a poster, a form, or the like, is not copyrightable because it is a template of expression. These terms should be avoided and, if used, will be questioned by the registration specialist. https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-... Example given in 906.5 (separate pdf, but linked from the above): > Fred Foster publishes a one-page newsletter titled Condo Living that provides information for residents of his condominium complex. Each issue contains the name of the newsletter, a drawing of the sun rising over the complex, two columns reserved for text, and a box underneath the columns reserved for photographs. Fred attempts to register the layout for his newsletter. The registration specialist will reject the claim in layout, but may register the illustration if it is sufficiently creative.
  - redtexture 4y ago
    Debatable in part. Law case books, reporting court cases, with particular page numbering (formatting in your terms), do not amount to a defensible copyright, so the West Publishing Companies case numbering citations do not amount to a defensible copyright claim, and those page numbering citations can be freely used by other publications.
HideousKojima 4y ago
Your best bet is to keep the ingredients secret. But like with all things, the Simpsons already did it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_Moe%27s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_Moe%27s
sbassi 4y ago
I understand you can copyright the name, so other people could still copy the drink but with another name.
- hypertele-Xii 4y ago
  That's trademark.
atwood22 4y ago
How is a recipe fundamentally different than a program?
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  It exists under a more sensible copyright regime.
- kube-system 4y ago
  Complexity and creativity are important aspects of copyright. An obvious and simple piece of code likely won’t qualify for copyright protection either. function add (int x, int y) { return x+y; } is probably ineligible
  - jazzyjackson 4y ago
    indeed, it's a sore spot for patentability too. It's been argued that if the program is math and the math can be done by paper and pencil, then it's too abstract for a patent, which are meant for machines and processes. But compression algorithms have received patents, and could be done by pencil and paper by a determined student... it's a bit like porn I suppose, "know it when I see it" > These cases are difficult to apply in practice because, as Chief Judge Randall Rader lamented in Accenture, "No one understands what makes an idea abstract."[7] The court's analyses and disagreements can be more easily understood, however, by focusing on the "mental steps doctrine," which is a subcategory of abstract ideas. In this rubric, purely mental processes are not patentable, and consequently methods that can be performed by a person with a pencil and paper cannot be patented. The recent Federal Circuit decisions are consistent with the mental steps doctrine, and even sometimes allude to it, but they do not rely on it. https://www.hansonbridgett.com/-/media/Files/Publications/mentalsteps.pdf https://www.hansonbridgett.com/-/media/Files/Publications/me...
johntb86 4y ago
> You can't copyright cocktails or other recipes because copyright only protects the artistic expression, not the mechanical process. It's interesting that you can copyright a song (not just a performance of it, but the actual song) or a dance, but not a cocktail recipe. In all cases they're essentially a set of instructions for making something enjoyable to the senses.
- colejohnson66 4y ago
  A musical performance is copyrightable because it’s an artistic expression of the actual musical instructions (sheet music).[a] It’s why Beethoven isn’t copyrighted (despite many ContentID claims), but performances of Beethoven’s works are. Choreography instructions are also likely uncopyrightable, but the performances of one would be. Since recipes are just instructions, they’re not copyrightable. In short, if it’s data/instructions, it’s likely not copyrightable. But the act of using said data, however, if done “creatively,” is. That distinction is very murky though, and there’s over a century of case law to go with it. [a]: EDIT: I was wrong, sheet music is copyrightable. Beethoven is just out of copyright.
  - splatzone 4y ago
    But sheet music is copyrightable, and it's a set of instructions isn't it?
    - frostburg 4y ago
      Yes, like a novel, but the sound of a note isn't.
    - cperciva 4y ago
      Beethoven's compositions are in the public domain because he died before Mickey Mouse first appeared on screen, but specific copies of his works may still be covered by the editor's copyright. For the benefit of non-musicians: Editors, especially of older works, routinely correct mistakes (and sometimes disagree about whether the composer made a mistake!) and depending on how verbose the composer was may add their own indications of speed and volume; in some cases you get instrument-specific annotations as well, e.g. fingerings and bowings in violin parts. The Bach solo violin partitas are immediately recognizable as the Bach solo violin partitas no matter who edited them, but if you're familiar with the editions you can definitely tell which one a violinist learned!
ravenstine 4y ago
Cocktails are really better suited as trade secrets, just as Coca-Cola doesn't have a patent that would give insight to competitors. If a bartender wants to protect their cocktail, it had better be novel in the first place, and the ingredients should be kept vague (eg. don't specify the brand of whisky). Seems like a waste of energy to consider, though. The drink quality and the experience is more important than the novelty of a drink.
- markdown 4y ago
  > The drink quality and the experience is more important than the novelty of a drink. Good point about the experience being about far more than the recipe/drink quality. One can prove this simply by drinking great wine out of a wine glass and a mug or plastic cup.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  Yeah, "the best martini in town" is unlikely to be based on a trade secret. People expect a gin taste, so it's probably the quality of the ingredients, the presentation, and the experience, as you said. There are certainly some unusual liqueurs that an average bar wouldn't stock, so if you manage to find one that people go nuts over, you should probably keep that as a trade secret.

OJFord 4y ago

Are collections copyrightable? Knowing that recipes aren't I've wondered before why (sufficiently popular to make it worthwhile) recipe books aren't a race to the bottom with cheaper clones. The smart move of course (employed e.g. by Delia Smith) is to publish them for free online too. I own one of hers but for convenience sometimes check a recipe I've found in it on my phone, so far they've all been there so I think it's complete.

paranoidrobot 4y ago
Cookbooks are copyrightable for a few reasons, to my understanding. There's usually some creativity in their assemblage "The recipes of my family/time in $X country". It's generally not just slapping together 500 cookie recipes. There's photos, artwork, some kind of story being told about how/where/why. The recipes themselves are usually more than just a list of ingredients, there's some originality in how the recipe is laid out, how to prepare it, and something else.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > The recipes themselves are usually more than just a list of ingredients, there's some originality in how the recipe is laid out, how to prepare it, and something else. You can't copyright the "how to prepare it" part either.
  - paranoidrobot 4y ago
    If there's some level of creativity/originality in the preparation, then that is copyrightable.
    - kadoban 4y ago
      I am pretty sure that'd be a patent. I suspect it'd be really hard to get an effective one on a coctail though. I know there's a bit more to it than adding the ingredients and mixing (or not), but there's not a _lot_ more to it than that.
      - paranoidrobot 4y ago
        I think you are confusing the raw facts of how to prepare it (generally not copyrightable), and any original creative aspects of the preparation instructions. So, I might incorporate into the instructions about what advice my grandmother said about making it, and that might be copyrightable. Relating it back to the original story: You can't copyright the cocktail, but you could copyright the performance of making it.
        OJFord 4y ago
        So the actual text is copyright, like any textbook, just not the same method paraphrased? Seems fairly obvious put like that. I suppose it becomes less intuitive when the text is just a straight forward bullet point instruction, so one's not really different from the other.
        4y ago
chrismcb 4y ago
Data is typically not copyrightable. But the layout is. How you present it is.
- cwillu 4y ago
  > As a general rule, the U.S. Copyright Office does not accept vague claims of “format” and/or “layout.” The general layout or format of a book, a page, a slide presentation, a website, a webpage, a poster, a form, or the like, is not copyrightable because it is a template of expression. These terms should be avoided and, if used, will be questioned by the registration specialist. https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-... Example given in 906.5 (separate pdf, but linked from the above): > Fred Foster publishes a one-page newsletter titled Condo Living that provides information for residents of his condominium complex. Each issue contains the name of the newsletter, a drawing of the sun rising over the complex, two columns reserved for text, and a box underneath the columns reserved for photographs. Fred attempts to register the layout for his newsletter. The registration specialist will reject the claim in layout, but may register the illustration if it is sufficiently creative.
- redtexture 4y ago
  Debatable in part. Law case books, reporting court cases, with particular page numbering (formatting in your terms), do not amount to a defensible copyright, so the West Publishing Companies case numbering citations do not amount to a defensible copyright claim, and those page numbering citations can be freely used by other publications.

HideousKojima 4y ago

Your best bet is to keep the ingredients secret. But like with all things, the Simpsons already did it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_Moe%27s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_Moe%27s

sbassi 4y ago

I understand you can copyright the name, so other people could still copy the drink but with another name.

hypertele-Xii 4y ago
That's trademark.

atwood22 4y ago

How is a recipe fundamentally different than a program?

thaumasiotes 4y ago
It exists under a more sensible copyright regime.
kube-system 4y ago
Complexity and creativity are important aspects of copyright. An obvious and simple piece of code likely won’t qualify for copyright protection either. function add (int x, int y) { return x+y; } is probably ineligible
- jazzyjackson 4y ago
  indeed, it's a sore spot for patentability too. It's been argued that if the program is math and the math can be done by paper and pencil, then it's too abstract for a patent, which are meant for machines and processes. But compression algorithms have received patents, and could be done by pencil and paper by a determined student... it's a bit like porn I suppose, "know it when I see it" > These cases are difficult to apply in practice because, as Chief Judge Randall Rader lamented in Accenture, "No one understands what makes an idea abstract."[7] The court's analyses and disagreements can be more easily understood, however, by focusing on the "mental steps doctrine," which is a subcategory of abstract ideas. In this rubric, purely mental processes are not patentable, and consequently methods that can be performed by a person with a pencil and paper cannot be patented. The recent Federal Circuit decisions are consistent with the mental steps doctrine, and even sometimes allude to it, but they do not rely on it. https://www.hansonbridgett.com/-/media/Files/Publications/mentalsteps.pdf https://www.hansonbridgett.com/-/media/Files/Publications/me...

johntb86 4y ago

> You can't copyright cocktails or other recipes because copyright only protects the artistic expression, not the mechanical process. It's interesting that you can copyright a song (not just a performance of it, but the actual song) or a dance, but not a cocktail recipe. In all cases they're essentially a set of instructions for making something enjoyable to the senses.

colejohnson66 4y ago
A musical performance is copyrightable because it’s an artistic expression of the actual musical instructions (sheet music).[a] It’s why Beethoven isn’t copyrighted (despite many ContentID claims), but performances of Beethoven’s works are. Choreography instructions are also likely uncopyrightable, but the performances of one would be. Since recipes are just instructions, they’re not copyrightable. In short, if it’s data/instructions, it’s likely not copyrightable. But the act of using said data, however, if done “creatively,” is. That distinction is very murky though, and there’s over a century of case law to go with it. [a]: EDIT: I was wrong, sheet music is copyrightable. Beethoven is just out of copyright.
- splatzone 4y ago
  But sheet music is copyrightable, and it's a set of instructions isn't it?
  - frostburg 4y ago
    Yes, like a novel, but the sound of a note isn't.
  - cperciva 4y ago
    Beethoven's compositions are in the public domain because he died before Mickey Mouse first appeared on screen, but specific copies of his works may still be covered by the editor's copyright. For the benefit of non-musicians: Editors, especially of older works, routinely correct mistakes (and sometimes disagree about whether the composer made a mistake!) and depending on how verbose the composer was may add their own indications of speed and volume; in some cases you get instrument-specific annotations as well, e.g. fingerings and bowings in violin parts. The Bach solo violin partitas are immediately recognizable as the Bach solo violin partitas no matter who edited them, but if you're familiar with the editions you can definitely tell which one a violinist learned!

ravenstine 4y ago

Cocktails are really better suited as trade secrets, just as Coca-Cola doesn't have a patent that would give insight to competitors. If a bartender wants to protect their cocktail, it had better be novel in the first place, and the ingredients should be kept vague (eg. don't specify the brand of whisky). Seems like a waste of energy to consider, though. The drink quality and the experience is more important than the novelty of a drink.

markdown 4y ago
> The drink quality and the experience is more important than the novelty of a drink. Good point about the experience being about far more than the recipe/drink quality. One can prove this simply by drinking great wine out of a wine glass and a mug or plastic cup.
AlbertCory 4y ago
Yeah, "the best martini in town" is unlikely to be based on a trade secret. People expect a gin taste, so it's probably the quality of the ingredients, the presentation, and the experience, as you said. There are certainly some unusual liqueurs that an average bar wouldn't stock, so if you manage to find one that people go nuts over, you should probably keep that as a trade secret.