Sincerest Form

[butterscotch]

i wish it wasn't the case steve, but i have been ripped off, i know quite a few people who have been ripped off, photographers, illustrators, etc. and it happens basically because you'd have to loads of time and money just to get what was due you in the first place, a larger paycheck. companies take your work and pretty much do whatever they want with it all the time.

i think it's awful, but the system itself is pretty hostile to creative people, and i doubt chefs would fare any better.

it seems the legal community is pretty useless when it comes to protecting creative folk

I hope it never happens that you (and all the other people on this topic who so casually stereotype and insult the legal profession) someday create something and need a lawyer to protect your interests. I do, however, know dozens of people who have been in that situation. In 100% of cases, they change their tunes as soon as they realize a lawyer is the only person in the world who can help them.

←

[cdh]

Enough with the bumper sticker straw man. 

←

Okay, let's focus on other straw concepts instead.

Here's a drawing I just made. It's an example of something that's eligible for copyright protection. I can make a limited edition run of ten of these and sell them on eBay. If somebody else copies this and starts selling it, I can go after that person under the copyright laws. Maybe even a raid on the factory.

Pretty picture , but probably a derivative work from a kindergardener's work product in 1989 when the automatic copyright regime started in earnest. You've got some 22 year old out there who could get a judgment and attorneys' fees assessed against you, if only they remembered that crayon time.

Now here's one of Ferran Adria's creations that you say isn't eligible for copyright protection. (Photo from the Daily Gullet courtesy of El Bulli).

←

Pretty photo. And copyrightable as such. Taking that photo shouldn't, however, give Adria the right to monopolize balancing an urchin between two pieces of slate with a clear nipple- like wotzit on top.

Edited April 9, 2006 by cdh (log)

[Fat Guy]

That's like saying Sol LeWitt shouldn't be eligible for copyright protection of a lopsided cube, or Ellsworth Kelly shouldn't be eligible for copyright protection of a wavy X. It seems you refuse to recognize the beauty and artistry in what Ferran Adria does. That's fine. Not everybody has to.

But let me ask this of all the people who smugly claim that cuisine can't be art: have you ever read any of the El Bulli books, or Alain Ducasse's Spoon book, and actually looked at and thought about the photographs? It's extremely difficult for me to believe that any rational person could look at that body of work and not consider it to be serious art in the medium of food. A few additional photos that El Bulli allowed the Daily Gullet to reproduce:

To me, these are worthy works of minimalist sculpture, reflecting high intellectual aesthetic achievements of humankind. Contemplating those photos is a transcendent experience for me, and for many other people I know. Perhaps not everybody agrees. But surely enough people do agree, so as to make these works as copyright-worthy as a straw chef, a straw man, a fake plant, an eG Forums post, an ugly quilt, a stupid greeting card or a garage-band homemade CD.

And of course I'm not talking about copyright protection for the photo. I'm talking about copyright protection for the dish depicted in the photo. It's absurd that Adria should be demoted to non-copyright-worthy status just because his medium is food. Make that exact same sculpture out of plastic and put it in MOMA and all of a sudden everybody agrees it's worthy (except those people who say Ellsworth Kelly . . .).

And it's not as though we have to establish that cuisine is art in order to establish that it should be protected by the copyright laws. Most of what is protected by the copyright laws is firmly in the category of craft. I'm sorry that it's difficult to imbue culinary art and/or craft with copyright protection, but difficulty doesn't make it the wrong thing to do.

[nick.kokonas]

I think it would be good humor and an interesting artistic statement, a la Duchamp, to make an exact visual duplicate of these dishes and others, but in plastic (like in Tokyo), and show them in a gallery as art. It certainly beats a urinal.

I would bet that would be well received and make the exact point that Fat Guy just made.

I would even bet that it will happen.

Edited April 9, 2006 by nick.kokonas (log)

[sizzleteeth]

I'm talking about copyright protection for the dish depicted in the photo.

←

Fat Guy, these are beautiful platings of food and beautiful photographs.

There are many beautiful platings of food done by thousands of people and thousands of beautiful photographs of those platings.

All of those things you named, ugly and beautiful - are all eligible for copyright.

All of those plastic representations of food are eligible (and equally incredible, I went to a whole row of stores in Tokyo that sold nothing but - but still, things of this nature are practiced on a very small scale comparably).

IF anyone is eligible for copyright then everyone is eligible for copyright and while I don't argue that food can rise to the level of art, copyrighting food is simply not logistically feasible simply based on sheer numbers, unless you exclude - because everybody cooks and most people who cook improvise and create recipes and take pride in what they create in all categories on all levels. Cooking, unlike the other things you mention, is practiced by most of the population of the planet and not just that, it is practiced by all those people nearly every single day - everything else you name - is not.

Even the example most practiced of all those examples, say music, cannot possibly compare.

The current estimated world population is about 6,508,587,269 and counting, lets say only half cook and only a quarter of that half "create" and the rest just follow recipes.

That means tonight virtually 813,573,408 enforceable copyrights have been created, and that number will more than double tomorrow morning and everyone is working from virtually the same materials be it home vs. home or Nabisco vs. Nabisco, chef vs. chef or chef vs. Nabisco.

Of course these numbers are not entirely accurate - but they are representative of the issue.

Using food additives used in commercial food for decades to make blocks of gel and spheres and meat noodles does not make your food special... I'm sorry... it doesn't.

It's beautiful and interesting and I agree with you in many ways that this seems unfair upon surface investigation, surely if Warhol's framed Campbell's Soup can labels are considered art then Adria's cuisine surely meets the bar.

So by that measure, so does everyone else's cuisine.

It would be an undertaking so massive it would likely collapse upon itself if for no other reason than so many arguably similar or identical things would be created nearly simultaneously - no one would ever figure out who really owned anything.

So no one owns anything.

Edited April 9, 2006 by sizzleteeth (log)

[Pan]

sizzleteeth, there is an art that is practiced much more than music: writing. It has been asserted in this and other threads that all text messages, emails, and snail mails are eligible for copyright. So if that's true, that's much more unenforceable than a copyright of culinary creations. How many emails, text messages, and snail mails are written and sent every hour, let alone day?

[inventolux]

I sorry, but I still don't understand what you want. Maybe because you were yelling at me in the reply. Are you talking about food here or are you talking about some technology you have invented?

My understanding is that this topic refers to getting credit where credit is due when another restaurant steals your recipe and plating technique and you are talking about Homeland Security and NASA stealing your food ideas?

I am going to have to ask my friends in the Mossad if they are interested in El Bulli's menu and/or utensils and serving dishes for national security.

I don't see anything wrong with creating a restaurant incubator. It would help people without restaurant experience gain knowledge from experienced restauranteurs. But, what is the difference between an incubator and someone doing a stage in a restaurant?

As for eating in your restaurant? I live in Israel. I have never been to Chicago, but I did look at  your website. I have read quite a bit about El Bulli, WD-50 and other restaurants such as these and it is not my cup of tea. I have been to plenty of top restaurants around the world that serve tasting menus and have enjoyed them. I know they require a lot of work and I do know something about the restaurant business. My uncle owned and was head chef of a German restaurant in my hometown. The restaurant is still in business under different owners, but he had the restaurant for 40 years. He is now 94 and I have the utmost respect for him.

←

No I was not "yelling". My caps lock didnt want to unlock for some bizarre reason. Technology is more the angle I am coming from. Patenting a cooking process is easily duplicated.

I am talking about any large entity stealing ideas from restaurants in general. Now with the explosion of experimental cuisine, understanding the patent process offers us opportunities that can bring added revenue back into the business. We should be compensated for our creative efforts. I see numerous new and exciting things in envelope pushing restaurants that have mass market appeal.

If this food is not your cup of tea then fine, I realize it can't be everyones. I think its dangerous to judge any food before it is experienced.

Edited April 9, 2006 by inventolux (log)

[Fat Guy]

Excuses, excuses, Sizzleteeth.

There are 11.5 billion pages on the web, according to a recent study. The copyright laws apply to most of those pages. Message board websites with a million-plus posts are a dime a dozen and the copyright laws apply to every post. The web is working just fine. It's a pain to enforce online copyrights, but it's possible to enforce plenty.

There are 120 million items in the Library of Congress. Many of those are books with several hundred pages, and the page isn't even the smallest unit of a book that's protected by the copyright laws. I'm sure if you were to break the Library of Congress's collection down into smallest copyright-protected units, you'd push into the billions or more.

I think, however, that you vastly overestimate the size of the universe of original culinary works. Most everybody who participates here in eG Forums discussions cooks at a higher level than 99.9 percent of the world's population. How many of us have ever created an original work of cuisine? I know I haven't. Have you? I've never even created anything as original as the Bloomin' Onion, no less the works of Ferran Adria. Even among professional chefs, the percentage that create is tiny, and the percentage that care to document those creations is tinier still.

The world of cuisine is not going to collapse under the weight of the copyright laws. There is, as far as I know, no example of any art or craft that has. The whole point of the copyright laws is to encourage creativity, or in the words of the United States Constitution, "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." (The term "science," back in the day, being a general term for knowledge.) Do I think the copyright laws currently go too far? I do. Life plus seventy years is absurd, as is the current high degree of control of performance and adaptation. But those are not questions specific to any art or craft. The culinary arts simply deserve whatever copyright protection any other art or craft currently has.

[Pan]

[...]I think, however, that you vastly overestimate the size of the universe of original culinary works. Most everybody who participates here in eG Forums discussions cooks at a higher level than 99.9 percent of the world's population. How many of us have ever created an original work of cuisine? I know I haven't. Have you?[...]

←

I suspect many people's answers would depend on how you define "original work of cuisine." I have a formula for a scrambled egg dish that I made up, though it was inspired by Italian sources. In that sense, it's an original work of cuisine, but the idea that something with no exact recipe based on some general principles and adaptable to whatever things are available in the various categories (green vegetables, cheese, wine, etc.) could be copyrightable is absurd. So, where would you propose to draw a clear legal line? A copyright law on culinary artwork would have to have clear boundaries to be sustainable and usable.

[sizzleteeth]

Excuses, excuses, Sizzleteeth.

←

Nope - no excuses - just a point of view.

Doesn't mean I've creating anything, doesn't mean I think blatantly ripping people off is right and doesn't mean I'm going to go clone Minibar anytime soon.

Just a simple point of view that food is different than words or music or sculpture or painting.

And I didn't mean that Avant Garde cuisine isn't special, much of cuisine is special to many in any number of ways - I just meant it doesn't deserve special consideration.

If you do it - do it for everyone.

And I wish you luck and success.

[inventolux]

THIS DOES NOT PRODUCE PROTOTYPES IT JUST PROVIDES SOFTWARE

←

Damn.. lost on a technicality based on a deeper level of scrutiny.

YOU WONT SEE DOUG BUSTING OUT A METHYLCELLULOSE CREAM WITH A LIQUID CENTER CORN DOG ON HIS NEXT SPECIALS MENU BECAUSE IT COSTS TOO MUCH.

←

First of all - I wouldn't say that because he might just do it.

Second - please explain to me how a corn dog puree (either all in one or each component seperately) and a methylcellulose cream are so expensive? As the technique for encasing would take little more than time and the ingredients certainly wouldn't cost much - but I suppose if you're talking about serving hundreds of them a day you might be right.

As for food stereolithography, that's a pretty old idea - I'm pretty sure I read an article on it in 2002 and I think people have been working on it since SLA and rapid prototyping machines came in to being some years ago with some success in all different contexts. I'm too lazy to post all the links so just do a search on food stereolithography.

People are working on having rapid prototyping reproduce organic materials, human tissue and/or are using it to design non-food prototypes of food before they make the food.

Allright I'll post a few, to cover a couple of different contexts:

David Ryan Design in Seattle recently prototyped chocolates for Starbucks (but not chocolate prototypes) using SLA to hammer out the manufacturing process:

http://www.moldmakingtechnology.com/articles/050109.html

or an even better and actually edible example:

Saul Griffith at MIT designed a 3d food printer out of Lego robotics and a heater, with software made for kids that prints 3d objects in things like chocolate and bees wax, so kids can design and build they're own toys and then eat them. (He also invented a portable molding mechanism to cheaply make lenses for eyeglasses in about 10 minutes with 40 cents worth of material for "reducing the cost of prescription eyewear widely available in developing nations" - among other nano-3d production inventions etc etc etc.)

His company Squid Labs runs Low Cost Eyeware and Squid Labs has gotten something like 14 million dollars in grants to further their projects. (So I guess the system works for someone.)

Now that is what I call "social enterprise".

Though back to SLA - I know I read some years ago about people developing types of corn starch that the lasers in 3D printers can fuse in layers like the non-food material they use now - I just can't remember where so I have to let that one go, I believe they even made reference to it as a "Star Trek Food Replicator" and though I can still find references with that phrase to projects producing work with regards to SLA and rapid prototyping machines reproducing molecules that might one day be able to reproduce food and of people working on ways to "fool our taste buds" into thinking we're eating something we're not in conjunction with that - I can't find that particular reference.

Anyway, all very interesting - but again, not your idea, nor your invention.

Though as you say - it can be expanded upon.

Which you are most certainly welcome to do.

←

Why hot dog stands wont be making liquid center corn dogs with cmc cream:

Labor, training, equipment maintenance etc..overheads, etc..

Maybe if you charge 10 bucks, but not 5. I am no expert in fast food establishments, but I have worked in plenty in my career.

Funny you mention Squid Labs, they are actually the engineers (Dan Goldwater specifically) working with Icosystems to produce the software for the space food replicator. Theres just one major glitch, they have no idea how to actually print food. This is why they have commissioned Cantu Designs into the project.

The company that used cornstarch for 3d modeling was Zcorp. www.zcorp.com They have since moved onto inedible substrates. Their current machines prototype at 11 microns per layer and there is just one problem. They have no idea how to print food this way and they cant figure it out. They have moved onto what they do best which is 3d modeling. I know because I have worked with engineers that work at zcorp.

Its like I said in previous posts. Ideas are useless unless there is action behind them. Now its my responsability to pay my employees for their creativity in this project and not let the government just have my technology. Its the right thing to do.

Edited April 9, 2006 by inventolux (log)

[Swisskaese]

No I was not "yelling". My caps lock didnt want to unlock for some bizarre reason. Technology is more the angle I am coming from. Patenting a cooking process is easily duplicated.

I am talking about any large entity stealing ideas from restaurants in general. Now with the explosion of experimental cuisine, understanding the patent process offers us opportunities that can bring added revenue back into the business. We should be compensated for our creative efforts. I see numerous new and exciting things in envelope pushing restaurants that have mass market appeal.

If this food is not your cup of tea then fine, I realize it can't be everyones. I think its dangerous to judge any food before it is experienced.

←

Fair enough.

If I am ever in Chicago, and you would be willing to make a Fishetarian tasting menu (I keep Kosher, but eat fish and vegetables in a restaurant), then I would be happy to try your food.

As I have said before, if it is technology we are talking about (i.e. machines, utensils or dishes), and they fit the criteria for a patent, then by all means they should be patented.

Steven,

Some of the plating designs remind of Henry Moore and Barbara Hepworth sculptures. What happens when some of these designs are actually (maybe not consciously) taken from artwork? What if they are similar? Do you want to fight it out in the manner of the Dan Brown case?

Edited April 9, 2006 by Swisskaese (log)

[Fat Guy]

If it's a question of inspiration and stylistic similarity, there's no copyright law issue. If a chef is copying a specific sculpture in food and selling it, there's an issue.

[sizzleteeth]

Funny you mention Squid Labs, they are actually the engineers (Dan Goldwater specifically) working with Icosystems to produce the software for the space food replicator.

The company that used cornstarch for 3d modeling was Zcorp. www.zcorp.com They have since moved onto inedible substrates. Their current machines prototype at 11 microns per layer and there is just one problem. They have no idea how to print food this way and they cant figure it out.

Now its my responsability to pay my employees for their creativity in this project and not let the government just have my technology. Its the right thing to do.

←

I hope not only do they get paid... but every single person who makes a significant contribution

to the project gets visible credit, down to the key grip who works on the movie set.

But you know those crazy media people, they'll get a-hold of it and print headlines that Homaro Cantu has invented 3D food printing at Moto. Which, when the day comes, might be true - but only

fractionally.

[sizzleteeth]

I doubt that a big food company are going to hire "the best chefs"

←

Already being done.

Food giant Nestle has turned to the Michelin-starred chef of top Spanish restaurant El Bulli in an effort to develop new flavours for chocolate.

Nestle wants chef Ferran Adria to help boost sales of its Cailler brand of chocolate bars.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4710918.stm

Now, I need to gather up a group here because after we're done with setting up this whole ability to copyright a dish deal I plan to move on to getting rights for interior decorators to copyright the way they arrange furniture in a house.

Can I see a show of hands?

Oh wait..... heh, duh... I didn't have my glasses on.

Edited April 9, 2006 by sizzleteeth (log)

[cdh]

If it's a question of inspiration and stylistic similarity, there's no copyright law issue. If a chef is copying a specific sculpture in food and selling it, there's an issue.

←

Not quite- case law says that access+substantial similarity=infringement. Inspiration implies access, and the substantiality of the similarity is a question of fact. This is a huge ugly can of worms.

[Fat Guy]

All this whining about how inconvenient it is to protect the creative works of culinary artists is reminiscent of similar whining throughout history by people who said the right thing was too hard to do. If the only objection left here is that culinary copyrights will be complicated, the only answer needed is that it doesn't matter. I think it also happens to be wrong -- whatever body of standards emerges to govern culinary copyrights should be no more complex than the standards governing sculptural copyrights -- but even if culinary copyrights turn out to be categorically more complicated than any currently existing species of copyrights, we should have them. The question of whether is answered independently from the question of how. In a case of true impossibility, one would have to consider the how in deciding the whether, but we're not looking at impossibility here -- we're just looking at some addressable level of complexity.

[sizzleteeth]

All this whining about how inconvenient it is to protect the creative works of culinary artists is reminiscent of similar whining throughout history by people who said the right thing was too hard to do. If the only objection left here is that culinary copyrights will be complicated, the only answer needed is that it doesn't matter. I think it also happens to be wrong -- whatever body of standards emerges to govern culinary copyrights should be no more complex than the standards governing sculptural copyrights -- but even if culinary copyrights turn out to be categorically more complicated than any currently existing species of copyrights, we should have them. The question of whether is answered independently from the question of how. In a case of true impossibility, one would have to consider the how in deciding the whether, but we're not looking at impossibility here -- we're just looking at some addressable level of complexity.

←

Nah, those aren't the only questions left - I think the question of whether copyrighting food is the right thing to do and whether or not everyone has the ability to do so, what is the definition of an original culinary creation etc etc - are still left.

But I think since you started these threads and are such the proponent of "doing the right thing" in this case - that you should put your money, time and life where your mouth is and do it, spearhead the whole initiative.

Afterall, "ideas are useless without action".

And I don't want to hear any whining.

Edited April 9, 2006 by sizzleteeth (log)

[Fat Guy]

I certainly think I'm doing my part, and you can be sure I'll do more.

[RyuShihan]

Will giant companies gobble up the food industry? Well, if you haven't noticed they already have! Industrial food companies like Nabisco, Nestle, Coca Cola, Mars, Hormel and many others are huge. They do dominate certain classes of pre-prepared food. That is nothing new, and nothing to be afraid of.

Will patents ruin cuisine? Patents have been filed on food for over a hundred years, so this is nothing new. Patent class code 099 is food and beverage equimpent, patent class code 426 is food or edible material composition. Food patents can also appear in other class codes. Some of the debate seems to revolve around the notion that there is a big change coming.

Did patent laws enable Bill Gates and Microsoft to steal other people's ideas? No, actually it is the other way around. Microsoft has paid billions to others in settling patent lawsuits, or licensing patents. The patent system gives small inventors the ability to have some leverage and something of a level playing field with big companies. Is the system perfect? Of course not, but patents are an important way for a small company or lone inventor to have clout with big corporations.

Could you patent most techniques in cuisine? No, anything which has been published previously by somebody else is considered "prior art". Expired patents can be used by anybody. There are lots of other rules in addition. Essentially all classical techniques are not available for patent. The Dippin' Dots inventor has a patent on one particular way of making ice cream granules, but when the patent expires everybody will have the right to do it.

Chefs (or amateurs) who invent really novel cuisine have the ability to file a patent, but in most cases involving high end cuisine, this will not make sense because the market is too small to justify the cost of the patent. But hey, that is their choice - they can choose to protect it, or choose not to.

Big companies have this ability too, and when it comes to pre-packaged food or other large industrial food markets they do patent extensively. I doubt that a big food company are going to hire "the best chefs" and patent small volume, highly labor intensive foods that require ultra fresh ingredients and appeal only to a tiny segment of the populace.

In addition to legal protection there is the issue of credit for invention.

There is a definite segment of innovative chefs who establish their reputation (and that of their restaurant) by inventing new dishes.

While they could patent at least some of their dishes, they tend not to, and basically donate them to the public (especilaly in cases where they disclose the secrets by publishing a recipe). However, it seem to me to be quite understandable that a chef who bases his reputation on being innovative would get pissed off if somebody copies directly without attribution. That is just an appliaciton of the same plagarism/priority system that exists in scientific or academic work.

TY nath for that collection of comments, that actually helped put some of the issues into a perspective my weee brain can understand. I can pretty much agree to most of what you said.

I hope those who do invent cool new things get their just reward because they deserve it and it moves culinarians forward to better life styles and a bigger feel for proffesionalism. Not to mention the pretty little plates are nice to look at. To bad more of the public can not afford to eat such great things on a less rare occasion.

Its hard for anyone who has a pre-conception to change their minds about an idea like copywriting food, I am not sure I would say I am sold on the idea but I am not intending to say its a bad idea either. Just some loopholes that I don't think can be filled easily, like what if a Chef stole his ideas from some country he visited and got the copyright stuff out and the place he stole them from was a small unknown and the Chef could care less about such ideas, then the man with the plan gets all the credit....(Conspiracy theories about Albert Einstein and working at the patent office made me think of that)

[joesan]

Steven - it's not "whining" just because it is an opinion contrary to yours.

I happen to think that cooking by its nature will not be as suitable for locking down under copyright as a) there is so much prior art b) most of the things we collectively admire has been built upon foundations set by others. If they hadn't allowed their findings to be used we wouldn't have got to the next level.

I believe every chef should get his dues by way of attribution, respect, kudos and reputation for what he/she has done. But as I said earlier I believe that the culinary diaspora will be the poorer for what you are proposing.

Certain processes and equipment do seem to me to be true inventions and as such protectable but, while I don't go as far as Sizzleteeth (seldom do ), I think most of it has been done before in the food processing industries.

I think what comes out of the best kitchens truly does approach "art" but I don't think it needs to have the protection (in some minds - restriction in mine) of a slew of legal devices on it. In fact I truly think it would hamper the provision of that art.

Seems to me this arguement is coming down to those who see the practice of gastronomy as a business and those who see it as civilising endeavour of mankind that is too important and fundamental to have the restrictions of commerce placed upon it.

Edited April 9, 2006 by joesan (log)

[Fat Guy]

Steven - it's not "whining" just because it is an opinion contrary to yours.

That's correct. It would also be whining if I agreed with it.

We should do what's right, not what's easy. Yes there's a lot of prior art and influence. Big deal. If anything, that just makes it harder to document the creation of an original work. The "it's too hard" contingent should be happy about that. It means there won't be a lot of culinary copyrights. Most chefs just don't operate at the level of creation, so we won't have to worry about them.

Seems to me this arguement is coming down to those who see the practice of gastronomy as a business and those who see it as civilising endeavour of mankind that is too important and fundamental to have the restrictions of commerce placed upon it.

←

So there should be no copyright protection for art, literature or music either?

[wesza]

Last night I watched my grand daughter perform in "Guys & Dolls" and after reading this thread again I thought how appropriate the song " Sue Me" was to it's application to this thread.

After being threatened to many times to mention thru the years being accused of copying various dishes that Chef's thought were unique enough to be proprietary it reminded me about our Attorneys responses to allegations.

In almost every instance we had no idea of exactly how the actual preparation of each dish was done, but my palette was such that I have almost always been able to come very close to copying anything described thru subtle variations without actually tasting the dish. Rarely did I actually need to taste the dish in person, but always could generally improve or break it down into a recipe or formula adaptable to our customers criteria.

I feel that almost anything being done today is not truly new, different or unique. Even though our list of ingredients, combinations and applications seems to be growing somehow I feel if it's edible it's probably been done before some where or some place.

Historically we haven't even come close in imaginative combinations to the dishes served in China, Europe, India or the Middle East, Africa or other places that we are aware about several hundred years ago.

It will always be feasible to improve on anything being cooked by a touch of this, or a little of that, timed my way or another way to improve any so called special dish to suit your customers taste. It's simply the magic of chemistry, touch and most important timing that makes something special.

So: Sue Me !

Irwin

[chankonabe]

I wonder if any chefs "worthy" of copywrighting their work actually care to? Heston Blumenthal has started an online archive of his creations for the generations, Adria has published absolutely everything, WD can't be far behind on a book deal. These things aren't secret. No body is losing any money from this, customers aren't choosing to stay home in Australia instead of flying to Spain for dinner.

Theres a quote from Daniel that I'm going to absolutely mangle, something about "food not being art but the end result can often times be quite artistic"

Food just isn't able give the full range of emotions to be a true or pure art. Just because something is sublime and beatiful doesn't make it. Show me food that embodies despair, that strikes fear and terror into the hearts of diners. Create a dish that makes the someone lonely, or paranoid, or disgusted, not that people cant be disgusted at whatever, but cook a dish to convey that emotion. It isn't possible, if it's done it isn't food anymore, it's art.

[Pan]

[...]I feel that almost anything being done today is not truly new, different or unique. Even though our list of ingredients, combinations and applications seems to be growing somehow I feel if it's edible it's probably been done before some where or some place.[...]

←

In the ancient words of Kohelet, the Preacher, in the Book of Ecclesiastes (quoted in English translation here):

What has been is what will be,

  and what has been done is what will be done;

  there is nothing new under the sun.

Is there a thing of which it is said,

  “See, this is new”?

It has already been,

  in the ages before us.

The people of long ago are not remembered,

  nor will there be any remembrance

of people yet to come

  by those who come after them.

Great, poetic words, and in many ways a larger truth, but seemingly belied on the temporal and prosaic level by patent and copyright law. And, paradoxically, we very much remember these old words by Kohelet and learn from them today.

But Fat Guy, I do not agree with you that it's a good idea to simply extend copyright protection to cuisine without first devising clear law that can be subjected to reasonable interpretation. As you know, laws have often been thrown out for vagueness. The boundaries of copyrightable works of cuisine have to be defined at least somewhat before a satisfactory legal application can be devised. Otherwise, we leave things wide open for almost any outcome from the law being completely thrown out to its overbroad application, don't we?