Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 43

Thread: OT Copyrights

  1. #1
    Dimitri Guest

    Default OT Copyrights

    FWIW

    I consulted an attorney yesterday and here is a synopsis of some of what I
    understood was said:

    1. Although recipes are seldom copyrightable a book or a body of work is
    copyrightable.
    2. Since the RFC cookbook produced a profit (even though for charity)
    this fact strengthens the copyright position of the "Chaotic Kitchen
    Cook.Book"
    3. Since there is a possibility the book could be reprinted for profit
    once again the protection of the book under copyright laws in pretty damn
    good.

    Ergo - IMHO any scumbag who willingly scans a book without the copyright
    holders permission and republishes the body of work including the
    descriptions written by the contributors is opening themselves up for civil
    litigation.

    Dimitri



  2. #2
    Sqwertz Guest

    Default Re: OT Copyrights

    Dimitri wrote:

    > Ergo - IMHO any scumbag who willingly scans a book without the copyright
    > holders permission and republishes the body of work including the
    > descriptions written by the contributors is opening themselves up for
    > civil litigation.


    By who? RFC is not a legally recognized entity.

    -sw

  3. #3
    Steve Pope Guest

    Default Re: OT Copyrights

    Sqwertz <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Dimitri wrote:


    >> Ergo - IMHO any scumbag who willingly scans a book without the copyright
    >> holders permission and republishes the body of work including the
    >> descriptions written by the contributors is opening themselves up for
    >> civil litigation.


    >By who? RFC is not a legally recognized entity.


    Not true. Under U.S. law, since RFC made a profit on the
    cookbook, it is a partnership. In theory, RFC would obtain
    an EIN, file a partnership return, and the charitible
    contributions should flow through to the individual partners
    on a Schedule K, who might then be able to deduct their
    partnership share of the contribution on their form 1040,
    Schedule A, offsetting their reporting of the partnership income.

    Or, you could just blow all of the above off and not
    worry about it.

    Steve

  4. #4
    ChattyCathy Guest

    Default Re: OT Copyrights

    Dimitri wrote:

    > FWIW
    >
    > I consulted an attorney


    Ah. I see you must have those 'Dial 0800 xxx xxxx for free legal advice'
    numbers in the USA too?

    --
    Cheers
    Chatty Cathy

  5. #5
    brooklyn1 Guest

    Default Re: OT Copyrights


    "Sqwertz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:gp91np$fkq$[email protected]..
    > Dimitri wrote:
    >
    >> Ergo - IMHO any scumbag who willingly scans a book without the copyright
    >> holders permission and republishes the body of work including the
    >> descriptions written by the contributors is opening themselves up for
    >> civil litigation.

    >
    > By who? RFC is not a legally recognized entity.
    >
    > -sw


    Singley or severally any and all who contributed to the book have legal
    standing to sue. Of course unless someone knows of an attorney who will
    take the case pro bono we know that's not going to happen. Besides I'd
    enjoy far more satisfaction learning that the douchebag rusty and his entire
    family suffered a heinous death.



  6. #6
    George Shirley Guest

    Default Re: OT Copyrights

    Dimitri wrote:
    > FWIW
    >
    > I consulted an attorney yesterday and here is a synopsis of some of what
    > I understood was said:
    >
    > 1. Although recipes are seldom copyrightable a book or a body of work
    > is copyrightable.
    > 2. Since the RFC cookbook produced a profit (even though for charity)
    > this fact strengthens the copyright position of the "Chaotic Kitchen
    > Cook.Book"
    > 3. Since there is a possibility the book could be reprinted for
    > profit once again the protection of the book under copyright laws in
    > pretty damn good.
    >
    > Ergo - IMHO any scumbag who willingly scans a book without the copyright
    > holders permission and republishes the body of work including the
    > descriptions written by the contributors is opening themselves up for
    > civil litigation.
    >
    > Dimitri
    >
    >

    As a sometime writer I agree with the attorney and you Dimitri. Now, who
    is the de facto owner, aka copyright holder, of the RFC cookbook? Since
    individuals contributed the recipes, which, as I understand it, are
    unprotected if they stand alone, then some person or legal entity needs
    to be the copyright holder. IMHO.

  7. #7
    brooklyn1 Guest

    Default Re: OT Copyrights


    "Steve Pope" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:gp9297$lic$[email protected]..
    > Sqwertz <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Dimitri wrote:

    >
    >>> Ergo - IMHO any scumbag who willingly scans a book without the copyright
    >>> holders permission and republishes the body of work including the
    >>> descriptions written by the contributors is opening themselves up for
    >>> civil litigation.

    >
    >>By who? RFC is not a legally recognized entity.

    >
    > Not true. Under U.S. law, since RFC made a profit on the
    > cookbook, it is a partnership.


    Not true. RFC made no profit, the contributors are who made a profit, they
    can sue. RFC has no legal standing for any reason whatsoever, it's neither
    a sole proprietorship, a partnership, a corporation, or an entity of any
    sort. Only those individuals, individually or severally, who contributed to
    the book have legal standing... whether they subscribed to RFC (voluntarily)
    or not. Any one or several contributors can sue separately or a number of
    contributors may cause a class action suit. That's the easy part. The
    more difficult part, knowing what a bunch of cheap bastids most rfc'ers are,
    is to find an attorney who will take the case pro bono. That's highly
    unlikely. But it's not so unlikely that the rusty douchebag gets to see his
    family drown and then it's discovered that he has terminal pancreatic
    cancer.



  8. #8
    Melba's Jammin' Guest

    Default Re: OT Copyrights

    In article <gp9297$lic$[email protected]>,
    [email protected] (Steve Pope) wrote:

    > Sqwertz <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >By who? RFC is not a legally recognized entity.

    >
    > Not true. Under U.S. law, since RFC made a profit on the
    > cookbook, it is a partnership.

    (snip)
    > Steve


    No one profited, Steve. Everything above expenses went to Second
    Harvest.
    --
    -Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
    http://web.me.com/barbschaller
    "What you say about someone else says more
    about you than it does about the other person."

  9. #9
    Steve Pope Guest

    Default Re: OT Copyrights

    brooklyn1 <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Steve Pope" <[email protected]> wrote in message


    >> Under U.S. law, since RFC made a profit on the
    >> cookbook, it is a partnership.


    > Not true. RFC made no profit, the contributors are who
    > made a profit, they can sue. RFC has no legal standing for
    > any reason whatsoever, it's neither a sole proprietorship,
    > a partnership, a corporation, or an entity of any sort.


    Okay, not RFC in general, but those involved in the
    cookbook form a partnership. To be considered a partnership
    there is no action required other than pursuing a joint economic
    activity. Under US law, if it's not anything else,
    it's a partnership.

    Who can sue is a slightly different question. Did recipe
    contributors sign a release? If not they own the copyright
    if they wrote down the recipe (the "fixed in a medium" test).

    Steve

  10. #10
    notbob Guest

    Default Re: OT Copyrights

    On 2009-03-11, Dimitri <[email protected]> wrote:


    > Ergo - IMHO any scumbag who willingly scans a book without the copyright
    > holders permission and republishes the body of work including the
    > descriptions written by the contributors is opening themselves up for civil
    > litigation.


    Cool. Let's look for deep pockets. Lets sue the dirtbag who posted those
    recipes and the ISP who he posted through.

    nb

  11. #11
    zxcvbob Guest

    Default Re: OT Copyrights

    Steve Pope wrote:
    > brooklyn1 <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> "Steve Pope" <[email protected]> wrote in message

    >
    >>> Under U.S. law, since RFC made a profit on the
    >>> cookbook, it is a partnership.

    >
    >> Not true. RFC made no profit, the contributors are who
    >> made a profit, they can sue. RFC has no legal standing for
    >> any reason whatsoever, it's neither a sole proprietorship,
    >> a partnership, a corporation, or an entity of any sort.

    >
    > Okay, not RFC in general, but those involved in the
    > cookbook form a partnership. To be considered a partnership
    > there is no action required other than pursuing a joint economic
    > activity. Under US law, if it's not anything else,
    > it's a partnership.
    >
    > Who can sue is a slightly different question. Did recipe
    > contributors sign a release? If not they own the copyright
    > if they wrote down the recipe (the "fixed in a medium" test).
    >
    > Steve




    IMHO, the contributors and the editors would jointly own the collection
    as a whole. Few if any of the recipes would the copyrightable standing
    alone. Just because it's a recipe book, the editors would actually have
    more standing than the contributors.

    Was there any artwork?

    All this is just an academic exercise, right? Nobody is really that
    pissed about the recipes being scanned are they? (Sheldon excepted, of
    course)

    Bob

  12. #12
    Steve Pope Guest

    Default Re: OT Copyrights

    Melba's Jammin' <[email protected]> wrote:

    > [email protected] (Steve Pope) wrote:


    >> Under U.S. law, since RFC made a profit on the
    >> cookbook, it is a partnership.


    >No one profited, Steve. Everything above expenses went to Second
    >Harvest.


    I understand this, and there is little reason to treat
    it other than as a non-activity. But technically,
    charitable contributions are subtracted from profit
    only one someone's tax return. If the activity
    rose to the level of generating an information return
    (say, someone bought more than $600 in cookbooks)
    one might have to consider filing a return for this
    activity. I would at minimum keep good records.

    I think the threshold below which the entire activity
    is unreportable is $400.

    Steve

  13. #13
    zxcvbob Guest

    Default Re: OT Copyrights

    notbob wrote:
    > On 2009-03-11, Dimitri <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Ergo - IMHO any scumbag who willingly scans a book without the copyright
    >> holders permission and republishes the body of work including the
    >> descriptions written by the contributors is opening themselves up for civil
    >> litigation.

    >
    > Cool. Let's look for deep pockets. Lets sue the dirtbag who posted those
    > recipes and the ISP who he posted through.
    >
    > nb



    Sue Al Gore for making it possible. (I still want my money back for
    that Global Warming of his...)

    Bob

  14. #14
    Mr. Bill Guest

    Default Re: OT Copyrights

    On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:11:03 -0500, Melba's Jammin'
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >No one profited, Steve. Everything above expenses went to Second
    >Harvest.


    If you took in Three Dollars the IRS wants to know about that....just
    be sure ALL the necessary paperwork has been filed with State and
    National authorities. Don't even think of claiming you are Timmy
    (Tax Cheat) Geithner!!


  15. #15
    ChattyCathy Guest

    Default Re: OT Copyrights

    Sqwertz wrote:

    > Dimitri wrote:
    >
    >> Ergo - IMHO any scumbag who willingly scans a book without the
    >> copyright holders permission and republishes the body of work
    >> including the descriptions written by the contributors is opening
    >> themselves up for civil litigation.

    >
    > By who? RFC is not a legally recognized entity.


    Picture this...

    Mr/Ms Consumer is standing in line at the checkout in the stupidmarket
    with his/her shopping cart full of goodies.

    The queue is rather slow moving and he/she is bored. To alleviate some
    of the boredom, he/she looks around, nods and smiles at the other
    people in the queue, then sighs loudly in the hopes that the cashier
    might hear it and get the hint to hurry up.

    Time passes and the queue hasn't moved much.

    Now he/she is *really* bored so he/she glances at the headlines on one
    of those scandal rags that they often have on display at the checkout
    (which *nobody* ever buys because they're crap and because there are
    better things to spend one's hard earned cash on) and what does he/she
    see in Big Bold Type?

    "USENET GROUP REC.FOOD.COOKING SUES RUSTY FOR BREACH OF COPYRIGHT!"

    Mr/Ms Consumer vaguely wonders who or what Usenet and/or
    rec.food.cooking may be - and what either of them have to do with
    Rusty - for (maybe) half a millisecond. Then he/she yawns, looks around
    again, nods and smiles at the other people in the queue and wishes the
    line would get a move on...
    --
    Cheers
    Chatty Cathy

  16. #16
    Melba's Jammin' Guest

    Default Re: OT Copyrights

    In article <gp9a27$us7$[email protected]>,
    [email protected] (Steve Pope) wrote:

    > Melba's Jammin' <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > [email protected] (Steve Pope) wrote:

    >
    > >> Under U.S. law, since RFC made a profit on the
    > >> cookbook, it is a partnership.

    >
    > >No one profited, Steve. Everything above expenses went to Second
    > >Harvest.

    >
    > I understand this, and there is little reason to treat
    > it other than as a non-activity. But technically,
    > charitable contributions are subtracted from profit
    > only one someone's tax return. If the activity
    > rose to the level of generating an information return
    > (say, someone bought more than $600 in cookbooks)
    > one might have to consider filing a return for this
    > activity. I would at minimum keep good records.
    >
    > I think the threshold below which the entire activity
    > is unreportable is $400.
    >
    > Steve


    I stand corrected.

    --
    -Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
    http://web.me.com/barbschaller
    "What you say about someone else says more
    about you than it does about the other person."

  17. #17
    Sqwertz Guest

    Default Re: OT Copyrights

    Steve Pope <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Sqwertz <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Dimitri wrote:

    >
    >>> Ergo - IMHO any scumbag who willingly scans a book without the copyright
    >>> holders permission and republishes the body of work including the
    >>> descriptions written by the contributors is opening themselves up for
    >>> civil litigation.

    >
    >>By who? RFC is not a legally recognized entity.

    >
    > Not true. Under U.S. law, since RFC made a profit on the
    > cookbook, it is a partnership.


    But... who is RFC? The same people who are supposedly violating the
    copyright.

    I hereby give written permission for people to re-publish the RFC
    cookbook.

    -sw

  18. #18
    Dimitri Guest

    Default Re: OT Copyrights


    "Melba's Jammin'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]..
    > In article <gp9297$lic$[email protected]>,
    > [email protected] (Steve Pope) wrote:
    >
    >> Sqwertz <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >By who? RFC is not a legally recognized entity.

    >>
    >> Not true. Under U.S. law, since RFC made a profit on the
    >> cookbook, it is a partnership.

    > (snip)
    >> Steve

    >
    > No one profited, Steve. Everything above expenses went to Second
    > Harvest.
    > --
    > -Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ


    However, in principle the contributors and/or editors agreed in advance to
    donate any and all profits above expenses to Second Harvest ergo there was a
    profit.

    In addition at the time if second Harvest had non-profit standing the
    contributors and/or editors would have been able to deduct their portion of
    the "profits from their taxes as a legitimate deduction.

    Dimitri


  19. #19
    Dimitri Guest

    Default Re: OT Copyrights


    "ChattyCathy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:h3Wtl.44479$[email protected]..
    > Sqwertz wrote:
    >
    >> Dimitri wrote:
    >>
    >>> Ergo - IMHO any scumbag who willingly scans a book without the
    >>> copyright holders permission and republishes the body of work
    >>> including the descriptions written by the contributors is opening
    >>> themselves up for civil litigation.

    >>
    >> By who? RFC is not a legally recognized entity.

    >
    > Picture this...
    >
    > Mr/Ms Consumer is standing in line at the checkout in the stupidmarket
    > with his/her shopping cart full of goodies.
    >
    > The queue is rather slow moving and he/she is bored. To alleviate some
    > of the boredom, he/she looks around, nods and smiles at the other
    > people in the queue, then sighs loudly in the hopes that the cashier
    > might hear it and get the hint to hurry up.
    >
    > Time passes and the queue hasn't moved much.
    >
    > Now he/she is *really* bored so he/she glances at the headlines on one
    > of those scandal rags that they often have on display at the checkout
    > (which *nobody* ever buys because they're crap and because there are
    > better things to spend one's hard earned cash on) and what does he/she
    > see in Big Bold Type?
    >
    > "USENET GROUP REC.FOOD.COOKING SUES RUSTY FOR BREACH OF COPYRIGHT!"
    >



    Sounds right to me!!!!

    ;-)

    Dimitri


  20. #20
    brooklyn1 Guest

    Default Re: OT Copyrights


    "Melba's Jammin'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]..
    > In article <gp9a27$us7$[email protected]>,
    > [email protected] (Steve Pope) wrote:
    >
    >> Melba's Jammin' <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> > [email protected] (Steve Pope) wrote:

    >>
    >> >> Under U.S. law, since RFC made a profit on the
    >> >> cookbook, it is a partnership.

    >>
    >> >No one profited, Steve. Everything above expenses went to Second
    >> >Harvest.

    >>
    >> I understand this, and there is little reason to treat
    >> it other than as a non-activity. But technically,
    >> charitable contributions are subtracted from profit
    >> only one someone's tax return. If the activity
    >> rose to the level of generating an information return
    >> (say, someone bought more than $600 in cookbooks)
    >> one might have to consider filing a return for this
    >> activity. I would at minimum keep good records.
    >>
    >> I think the threshold below which the entire activity
    >> is unreportable is $400.
    >>
    >> Steve

    >
    > I stand corrected.
    >
    >

    Why stand corrected... Steve is not correct. RFC had nothing to do with any
    profit. Only the contributors made a profit (those who contributed recipes,
    those who engaged in promotion, and those who made a purchase) that they
    collectively agreed to donate their profit hasn't a whit to do with RFC...
    and in fact not all the RFC subscribers participated. and I'll bet some
    participated who never subscribed to RFC. RFC plays no role whatsoever
    regarding the profit or the copyright, not in any legal sense, none! RFC is
    only the street corner where some folks set up their lemonade stand... to
    hide the fact that they're a bunch of pimps and hoes. LOL




Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32