Sincerest Form

[matthewj]

Let us look at the idea of creative property. When one looks at a work of art let us say Van Gogh, Sunflowers, and tries to copy it, this is not stealing. But if the same person tries to pass off the painting as being their own is it stealing then? They did not steal the actual painting and pass it off as being theirs. They just simply copied that picture. This is where it gets tricky. Everybody knows Van Gogh and that painting, so no one would take that person seriously if they ever considered passing that off as there own.

There were many students of Van Gogh, and he himself was student to other painters, and tried his hand in similar copies of known works; was he considered a thief or not? The tricky part is this. Is food art. Yes and no. It is art, but it is also a business.

What Ferran has done revolutionized cooking, and the way everyone looks at eating. But he has been exploring this juncture since the early eighties, 1983. I do not know about you but I was 8. Ferran, and his original staff, just did not come up with these ideas and roll with it. This is and was a long process. So it did not come overnight. So to patent these creative processes that the other chefs are claiming I believe is nonsense. Everyone knows the originator, but that originator, also studied and used other methods from other chefs. example. Michel Bras, Jaques Maximum. They did not claim any authority on their ideas, they just kept doing what they are doing and doing it well.

This new movement food is extremely interesting, but like all movements there are extremes, but that allows for creative exchange of ideas.

I think that a lot of chefs are claiming autonomy over such ideas, but they must come from somewhere. The great chefs are the ones who say, look I got a lot of ideas from other people, and this is my take on it. Example; Jaques Maximum, Did truffles macaroni and cheese in the seventies. Robuchon did cauliflower with lobster gel and caviar in the eighties. Did TK steal, No. He learned from these gentlemen and spun his food in another direction.

We need to learn from all ideas and all angles to make the creative process happen, but one must realize that is is also a business ad there can not be one with out the other. This kind of food is extremely creative, but it is also very expensive, I am wondering what the fall out will be in years to come. This just raises the bar.

[chankonabe]

I just read in Gastronomica that the J.M. Smucker Company has been trying (to no avail) to patent a certain kind of PB&J. a crustless and somehow especially sealed PB&J but nonethe less... a PB&J.

Edited March 30, 2006 by chankonabe (log)

[butterscotch]

Again, a total misrepresentation of what happened. It was not merely a creative process or technique in this case. Copying vebatim has nothing in common with a creative exchange of ideas, in fact it's the opposite of creative.

Nobody has a problem with the kind of evolution you cite, but:

Did you see the set of photos on the first page? Did you read the near identical menu descriptions?

No one knew Van Gogh when he was alive, do you think these chef's dishes are as famous a s Sunflowers are? In Australia? So this chef assumed "everyone knew" all these dishes were copied? Do you think the people who gave him awards and called him innovative knew that the majority of his menu copied other chefs?

Do you think he would have received those accolades if he gave the credit that most here think he should have?

And you're very right, it costs to be creative. That's part of the reason some don't bother trying.

Everybody knows Van Gogh and that painting, so no one would take that person seriously if they ever considered passing that off as there own.

...........

  So to patent these creative processes that the other chefs are claiming I believe is nonsense.  Everyone knows the originator, but that originator, also studied and used other methods from other chefs.  example.  Michel Bras,  Jaques Maximum.

This new movement  food is extremely interesting, but like all movements there are extremes, but that allows for creative exchange of ideas.

 

We need to learn from all ideas and all angles to make the creative process happen, but one must realize that is is also a business ad there can not be one with out the other.  This kind of food is extremely creative, but it is also very expensive, 

←

[matthewj]

I have seen the Photos on the first page. I do not disagree that the photos are identical, but I also read the following posts after that. I merely wanted to maybe illustrate some perspective on a lot of these posts claiming sole proprietorship that allude to some ownership or rights to a creative process.

The Van Gogh was to illustrate a point. Many people of course know the work. So to pass it off as your own would be foolish, because eventually people would find out. It seems that the chef took the liberties to copy, and he was found out. Hence these posts. Like I said it would be foolish for someone to pass off someones work as there own

[butterscotch]

weren't you saying way back when that it was wrong to call this copying plagerism because that only applied to academic work- a building on of ideas, research knowledge etc, specifically in academia?

other people pointed out to you after that that plagerism applies to literature and creative works as well, as it seemed you had been ignoring that ripping off creative work was also a no no. At any rate, creativity didn't figure into your explaination of why plagerism is wrong.

here again you argue that creative (visual and aural) works deserve less protection than other work? why is it less deserving in particular?

why is it any crazier to protect an artwork than it is to protect "nonfiction"?

work is work, original is original.

do you think that anything creative is fair game to be immediately appropriated, even in a commercial setting?

i'm not suggesting law enforcement here, just calling a hack a hack is enough for me. 

Ummm... you're attributing to me a position I have never taken.. where does this idea that nonfiction is special come from?

←

[butterscotch]

yes, it would be foolish to copy someone famous' work. and i guess if this guy didn't get all these awards and press coverage....if he was just a so-so copyist, no one would ever have known.

either way, he sort of ends up in the same... not so great place.

it has a certain elegance.

The Van Gogh was to illustrate a point.  Many people of course know the work.  So to pass it off as your own would be foolish, because eventually people would find out.  It seems that the chef took the liberties to copy, and he was found out.  Hence these posts. Like I said it would be foolish for someone to pass off someones work as there own

←

[deco75]

Do you think the people who gave him awards and called him innovative knew that the majority of his menu copied other chefs?

Do you think he would have received those accolades if he gave the credit that most here think he should have?

←

I think it is important to note that all awards and accolades were received or decided well before his trip to the US.

This is not a statement of defence, but a statement of fact. Speculate from it what you will.

[srhcb]

If you folks are really into this may I suggest a good book?

The Idea of Property by Laura Underkuffler, a Professor of Law at Duke:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019925418...5Fencoding=UTF8

"This book examines the central issue in property theory, as it intersects with law: what property is, as an idea, and the power that claimed individual property rights should have against competing public goals. Drawing upon areas as diverse as land use, the body as property, personal information as property, cultural property, and state redistributive claims, the author shows that there are deep reasons for property's protective power, or lack of it, in these and other cases." - Editorial Comment, Amazon.com

It's not light reading, (or cheap!), but it gets to the basis of the discussion; just what is property.

SB

[alexw]

I've sat musing over this for quite some time, and some fascinating debate has ensued.

Amazed it hasn't veered off track too much but now we have got a little too deep into copyright territory.

I thought I would return to the first page and see what started it again.

whilst the train here seems to be about "ownership" of both techniques and recipes and how the boundaries should be drawn, I notice personally the one thing that raised my heckles when I compared the pictures, mirror image.

My personal opinion based on these 5 dishes alone is that it is completely wrong in the day and age of internet to merely copy the dish in it's entirety.

But then i ask the question, is my salad dish different to anyone else's. has my simple pre-theatre chicken chasseur been cooked and served like this before? this shit can keep me awake at night (not really)

the dishes in question here are not traditional classics, Achatz and Dufresne are trying their level best to be ahead of the game in their technique and presentation development.

this doesn't mean that as soon as something has been invented it isn't fair game, because I'm sorry I beleive it is, my laboured point here (and there is one and I'm getting closer to it) is that as soon as something hits the open market and is enjoyed and understood, then we as chefs should be inspired and take a new flavour combination or a different technique and use it to the fullness of our skill, this way the journey can continue and food can then genuinely evolve.

we have all copied recipes exactly from books (ok maybe Chef Cantu hasn't) just to understand the process, I will try it for the family and then get opinions back. Heston did his training from eating and practising from exact recipes.

The difference here is that chef Robin has got to the stage where he can execute the exact dish, and then stopped and gone to make some money from it. WRONG!!!!!!

I know nothing of his past before this debate, so will not venture opinion on anything except what I have seen visually here.

When I sat down to write this note, I said "do not bash him about this", sorry I appear to have failed, a quick note to chef Robin, remember you attained your awards before this debarkle ensued and I'm sure by non-direct copying, you have skill and flair, basically you have done it before and sure you can do it again.

Alex.

[Fat Guy]

Two more newspaper stories appeared today regarding this issue.

The first, from the Sydney Morning Herald, titled "A grain of truth and a pinch of salt," appears to be a fairly extensive piece -- the online version runs four pages. I think it's the best piece done to date on the issue, and it contains some welcome questioning of the "you can't copyright a recipe" conventional wisdom -- though I think the larger point to be made is that this isn't copying of a recipe (the idea) but rather copying of a finished dish, the preparation, plating and even naming (the execution of the idea) so I'm not sure the recipe copyright issue is even relevant. Unfortunately, Wickens continues to cling to the claim that "I didn't try to claim the credit for them" (for the replicated dishes, that is). The repetition of this statement is, at least for me, the reason it's hard to let the Wickens matter rest. The Morning Herald, in my opinion correctly, observes, "Wickens's defence appears to express regret primarily for being caught." I think it's also worth pointing out that the statements, repeatedly made, that Wickens never tried to take credit for the dishes is absurd. It would be like an author saying, "I copied that other author's words, but never claimed they were mine." Well, you put your name on the book, you put your name on the menu, and these aren't dishes like Caesar salad that are part of common culinary knowledge and culture. Serving them and not attributing them equals claiming they're yours.

The second, which is now I believe the third story in the Age about this, is titled "Is copying a fancy dish flattery?" I think this statment, based on interviews with two chefs, is a good summary: "But there is a difference, Grossi and Claringbold say, between inspired creation and mimicry. One is a perfectly acceptable way for a chef to build their own style, the other morally questionable."

[alexw]

and these aren't dishes like Caesar salad that are part of common culinary knowledge and culture.

←

The dish takes care of the accreditation in itself

[ludja]

yes, it would be foolish to copy someone famous' work.  and i guess if this guy didn't get all these awards and press coverage....if he was just a so-so copyist, no one would ever have known. 

either way, he sort of ends up in the same... not so great place.

it has a certain elegance. 

The Van Gogh was to illustrate a point.  Many people of course know the work.  So to pass it off as your own would be foolish, because eventually people would find out.  It seems that the chef took the liberties to copy, and he was found out.  Hence these posts. Like I said it would be foolish for someone to pass off someones work as there own

←

←

Not just foolish, but if it is a direct case of copying and no attribution, it is also immoral and independently wrong whether or not one is caught. I think I learned this distinction as a child when my parents taught me that it was wrong to cheat or lie independent of being caught or even if I felt the ends justified the means.

Do you think the people who gave him awards and called him innovative knew that the majority of his menu copied other chefs?

Do you think he would have received those accolades if he gave the credit that most here think he should have?

←

I think it is important to note that all awards and accolades were received or decided well before his trip to the US.

This is not a statement of defence, but a statement of fact. Speculate from it what you will.

←

I'm glad that the chef received awards before this incident and that you also pointed it out here. Perhaps it will aid, in some measure, in rebuilding his reputation and more concretely, it may indicate that he has the means to independently and creatively make his own way in this field.

[Fat Guy]

As mentioned above, those who plagiarize rarely need to. If you have the technical skill to copy the food served at Alinea and WD-50, it's probably harder to create the exact replicas than it is to do something different enough to call your own.

[Fat Guy]

Do you think the people who gave him awards and called him innovative knew that the majority of his menu copied other chefs?

Do you think he would have received those accolades if he gave the credit that most here think he should have?

←

I think it is important to note that all awards and accolades were received or decided well before his trip to the US.

This is not a statement of defence, but a statement of fact. Speculate from it what you will.

←

Deco, you're clearly well-versed in the local scene down under and in the facts here. Do you think you could draw us up a timeline? I'd be interested to know when Interlude opened, what awards and reviews it received and when, when Wickens traveled to the US to observe and dine, etc.

Also, on the topic in the Australia forum, you called out several other restaurants in Australia that you felt were copying dishes from Fat Duck and other places. I think it would be interesting to repeat that list here. Is this type of conduct endemic to Australia? Is it global?

[butterscotch]

yes i agree it's pretty immoral too, and i learned that from my parents as well.

very good call. that said, lots of people teach their kids that everything is theirs for the taking.

from what i know of human nature, i would be really suprised if this plagerism sprang up suddenly, realigning his moral compass like that ... it makes no sense to me at all, being that he was so succesful already. if it did suddenly happen on his trip to the US, then it's even more facinating to me.

i don't know how anyone can backtrack and find evidence that the menu was any more creative before his trip to america or not. i'd find it really interesting to know. i don't pretend to have the kind of knowledge or resources to verify this, and i'm not sure it would be possible without having old menus or photos from interludes and knowing a great deal about chefs' dishes at better places in austrailia, possibly the UK (where another dish was said to be from) wherever else this chef had staged at or visited. it's possible things could have been copied from books as well.

i'm not sure if anyone here knows the whole story, right now it seems to be a mystery.

yes, it would be foolish to copy someone famous' work.  and i guess if this guy didn't get all these awards and press coverage....if he was just a so-so copyist, no one would ever have known.  

either way, he sort of ends up in the same... not so great place.

it has a certain elegance. 

Not just foolish, but if it is a direct case of copying and no attribution, it is also immoral and independently wrong whether or not one is caught. I think I learned this distinction as a child when my parents taught me that it was wrong to cheat or lie independent of being caught or even if I felt the ends justified the means.

Do you think the people who gave him awards and called him innovative knew that the majority of his menu copied other chefs?

Do you think he would have received those accolades if he gave the credit that most here think he should have?

←

I think it is important to note that all awards and accolades were received or decided well before his trip to the US.

This is not a statement of defence, but a statement of fact. Speculate from it what you will.

←

I'm glad that the chef received awards before this incident and that you also pointed it out here. Perhaps it will aid, in some measure, in rebuilding his reputation and more concretely, it may indicate that he has the means to independently and creatively make his own way in this field.

←

[butterscotch]

and how would you propose we we verify he was not copying from less famous sources at all before the trip to the US? because i'm not sure what you are claiming is the least bit relevant if we can't.

i have a hard time believing things suddenly took such a strange and unoriginal turn at Interludes because of one trip. but hey, i'm cynical, and i believe this is an issue of character.

everyone claims it's a first infraction when they get busted, and most try and minimize the situation that they are not totally drunk (or totally copying) when they most obviously are. and very often when people get away with things... well, they get bolder. that's human nature 101.

but if his menu was so much more original back then when he received awards, why would he sabotage himself like this? to go from not copying anything without credit ever to doing so for most of the menu.... such a huge sudden leap, it makes no sense at all to me.

i've never had much insight into the motivations of people who do things i regard as sleazy, so i couldn't begin to speculate. but it seems like there's still a lot of puzzle pieces missing here.

Do you think the people who gave him awards and called him innovative knew that the majority of his menu copied other chefs?

Do you think he would have received those accolades if he gave the credit that most here think he should have?

←

I think it is important to note that all awards and accolades were received or decided well before his trip to the US.

This is not a statement of defence, but a statement of fact. Speculate from it what you will.

←

[RyuShihan]

Wow, this is fascinating. As a young culinarian I knew I could get in trouble for copy and paste during culinary school. In fact I did, but proved I had cited properly and the teacher didn't know it was allowed with citations. What I didn't know was that such ramifications could enter into my culinary career. In fact what surprises me most is that I thought most of the food I made WAS a copy, of what others before me had made.

Anyone can easily see that taking somone elses ideas and taking credit for them is just bad, but shouldn't it be a thing for Karma to sort out....Versus paying the already rich lawyers? I would think it would make Chefs feal great to know their ideas are being passed around and Globalised. That a new concept was becoming the new trend, that they will eventually go down in the hostory book immortalised as a for-runner of something great. Those who copied might get some credit but wasn't it also that copying that causes a movement to move forward? Isn't the bad press nothing more than fuel to the evolution of an idea?

I have studied Martial Arts for many years now and have studied many different styles. So many times I have seen a reverse punch called many different names. By many different Masters of their craft. I have seen countless Martial artist claim they have invented the new style that incorperates all other styles. In the end all they do is make the next generation start, and further push the Arts to the next generation. When somone is a student of another Martial artist and then opens their own studio with a new name to the style but it is 100% the same, should he be sued? Should he even really be scrutinized? Yet, somone invented the word legal and now money and lawyers destroy the ability to copy anything.

The worst part I see is making money off of another persons idea....sitting down and taking it could be worst to others, but isn't that nothing more than an opinion and which side of the fence you are on?

I really hope cooking doesn't become and endless supply of patents and copyrights to declair who can cook what and how. Like martial arts its a trade and an art, its pure.

Once the purity is gone, how much fun will it be?

[reachej]

As mentioned above, those who plagiarize rarely need to. If you have the technical skill to copy the food served at Alinea and WD-50, it's probably harder to create the exact replicas than it is to do something different enough to call your own.

←

This is very far from being true IMO. In general, technical proficiency is much easier to achieve than creative inspiration. That's why every 16 year old who gets an electric guitar learns to play Purple Haze (granted, some better than others), but not too many end up being Jimi Hendrix. It's no different for cuisine. Certain aspects of creativity just cannot be taught, replication can be.

EJ

[joesan]

I think I'd have to agree. It's manifestly easier to just replicate something.

To copy something you need the technical skill. To create it you need the technical skill Plus creativity, vrtuousity etc.

If you followed the FG's argument to its logical conclusion if I copy Recherche a la Temps Perdu out faithfully enough I can trump Marcel Proust. (That's a joke )

Edited April 1, 2006 by joesan (log)

[Fat Guy]

Try copying one of those dishes at home and you'll see.

Sure, it's easier to copy great literature than it is to write great literature, but that's because great literature can be copied with a photocopy machine or by retyping it into a word processor. There is no equivalent of a photocopy machine or word processor for cooking. Likewise, the Jimi Hendrix example is backward: the hardest thing would be to play exactly like Jimi Hendrix, and for anyone who had the skill to play exactly like Jimi Hendrix it would be easier just to play than to mimic him exactly. It wouldn't likely come out better than Jimi Hendrix, but it would be easy to be different. Not to mention, giving credit takes no effort, but that's a different issue.

If you think about how cooking works for a moment, you'll see that it's more difficult to copy a technically demanding dish from a restaurant exactly than it is to produce something different. If a dish has three technically demanding elements it's easier to reproduce one of them and serve it with garnishes you already know how to make, on whatever serviceware you have around or can get from your local supplier, than it is to reproduce all three elements of the original dish exactly and serve them on identical serviceware from halfway around the world in a picture-perfect copy of the original. It doesn't take a creative genius to make prawn noodles with lobster instead of prawns and to serve them with, say, a piece of lobster.

A chef who introduced minor variations such as these might not be terribly creative, but he wouldn't be a plagiarist. If you look at the photos on the first page here, what you see is the work not of someone who needed to copy, but rather of someone who wanted to.

[joesan]

Steven - the Proust thing was a little joke - it doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

But I can't agree with your premise though. I think you are not differentiating between craftsmanlike cooking and truly creative cooking.

I agree that when you look at the "he who must not be named"' examples he is a good craftsman and is able to copy the dishes to a high standard. And that takes some skill I agree. Quite a lot in fact to get them looking so passably close to the originals. But as I said earlier it must de facto take more skill to both come up with the concept of the dish and be able to craft it.

I can see that you probably mean that good skills would be required to replicate but I cannot agree that that could ever be better than to come up with the original ideas and then execute them. To me that is the difference between good craftsman like practitioners (of which there are legion) and true artists (of which there are considerably less).

[Fat Guy]

I agree with that, however what I said was "If you have the technical skill to copy the food served at Alinea and WD-50, it's probably harder to create the exact replicas than it is to do something different enough to call your own."

[joesan]

Mmm...looks like we just have to agree to disagree on this one. I can't see that theres anyway that it can be harder to copy than create. Does this mean the copyist is more talented than the originator?

[Fat Guy]

I don't think we have to agree to disagree. I think I have to explain myself better. I'm not saying it's easier to create the dish than it is to copy it. I'm saying that, especially with dishes involving so much technical proficiency, it's easier or certainly just as easy to follow the process with enough variation to avoid outright plagiarism than it is to copy exactly in the manner of a plagiarist. Nor am I saying the variant dish will be as good. It will, however, be different. At this point, though, if I haven't made my point clearly enough I'll just drop it.

[reachej]

OK, maybe it's easier to make something different. But to make something different that's at least as good or better, not so easy. If you have the technical skill to recreate something difficult, you probably also know when your creations don't stack up. The problem can be that people gain an understanding of what's exceptional and what isn't before they are able to create things that really are exceptional (and they may never be able). Those people are not ready to be in positions where exceptional creativity is called for, such as chef of a restaurant that touts its "exceptionally creative cuisine." With so much on the line, and pressure to create, the realisation that the inspiration is not there could conceivably lead one down a dark road. Easier then to copy than create. Just a hypothesis.