October 15, 2007 12:10 PM PDT

Pirates in the kitchen: Recipe copying 'rampant' online

Editors' note: The report cited in this article originally misstated the name of one of the Web sites studied. The correct Web site is RachaelRayMag.com.

The next big copyright battle may be fought in the kitchen.

Content tracking company Attributor recently conducted a study to get an idea of how frequently online recipes are copied and reposted to other sites. What it found might concern some recipe publishers.

Attributor collected all the original recipes that appear on Epicurious.com, Allrecipes.com and RachaelRayMag.com. The software then checked those recipes against what was available elsewhere on the Web, looking for what they call matches--or instances in which two recipes are similar enough to be possibly copyright infringing.

For the purposes of the study, Attributor researchers defined a match as any two recipes in which at least 50 percent of the content was identical. Then they looked more closely at the matches with low percentages of similarity and threw out those they thought couldn't be considered clear cases of copyright infringement.

Based on the results, Attributor found that copying recipes online is "rampant," said Rich Pearson, senior marketing director for the company. Attributor found just over 10,000 copies of recipes that originated on the three sites. In more than 60 percent of those cases, the reposted recipes weren't attributed to their original sources.

That's not shocking. But in an online world, having your content copied and posted elsewhere isn't just a matter of not getting credit where it's due. It can also hurt a company financially.

'Sploggers' eating up Web traffic
As part of the study, Attributor also conducted searches for titles of some of the recipes that were being reposted on multiple sites. In many cases, the infringing copies of recipes appeared higher in search results than the original versions. For instance, a Google search for chicken salad tea sandwiches (a recipe from Gourmet magazine available on Conde Naste site Epicurious) brings back a copied version of the recipe several places higher than the original. Similar results came back for recipes published by all three of the sites studied.

Attributor estimates that Allrecipes.com is missing out on a little more than 800,000 site visits each month and that Epicurious is missing out on 400,000 monthly visits because of sites Pearson calls "sploggers" that essentially thrive by copying other sites' recipes and optimizing them to appear high in search engine results.

Attributor dashboard

A screenshot of Attributor's dashboard. A recent study by the content tracking company showed that copied and reposted recipes often appear higher in search results than the original versions.

(Credit: Attributor.com)

With numbers like that, one might expect online publishers to keep a close watch on how their content is being reused. But recipes are a different beast from other types of content. For one thing, copyright law on recipes isn't all that straightforward. According to the U.S. Copyright Office, a list of ingredients isn't protected by copyright law, but the instructions and any other "substantial literary expression" that go with it may be. But does directing a reader to whip egg whites at speed 4 on his stand mixer constitute "substantial literary expression"? Possibly. But it wouldn't be the easiest copyright to enforce.

Another issue is that recipe sharing isn't exactly a new phenomenon. Dig around in just about any kitchen and you're sure to find a box full of recipes that have been copied from cookbooks and cooking magazines. Sharing recipes has been part of the culture of cooking for decades, if not centuries.

Even the very nature of recipes is based on taking others' ideas and making slight changes to them to suit individual tastes. Katherine Bell, online managing editor for America's Test Kitchen, acknowledges that recipes are a unique case when it comes to copyright infringement because just about every recipe is based, at least in part, on a previous one. She gives the example of a recipe for no-knead bread that appeared in The New York Times. The recipe proved wildly popular, and recipes for similar breads have been popping up in cooking sites and magazines since.

"It started as the idea of one person in New York and now it's a whole new genre of baking," Bell said. "That just illustrates how every recipe owes a debt to something before it."

Navigating murky waters
Still, when a company's business is based on driving traffic to its Web site, it's bound to take notice when other sites start chipping away at its profits. The traffic Epicurious and Allrecipes are losing to other sites translates to lost annual revenue of $1.6 million for Epicurious and $3.1 million for Allrecipes, according to Attributor. Those numbers are admittedly a rough estimate, but there's no question that lost traffic means lost money for Web publishers.

However, content publishers don't only deal in traffic and ad sales. Even they recognize that recipe sharing, when done minimally and with proper attribution, can be good for business.

"To some extent, it's great if people are talking about our recipes in other places," said Bell, from America's Test Kitchen. "It's publicity." But there's a limit to what is acceptable use.

America's Test Kitchen is a small outfit compared with the family of cooking magazines from publishing behemoth Conde Naste. It sells a bimonthly magazine called Cook's Illustrated and charges an annual subscription to access its recipes online. Being a small company that puts a lot of labor into developing each recipe--America's Test Kitchen can sometimes test a recipe up to 100 times before it's been perfected--it's in a unique position.

"We have more to lose (than other recipe sites) if people are posting our recipes online because we have fewer recipes, we've invested a lot in every single one, and there would be no reason for people to pay a subscription if they can get our recipes for free," said Bell.

If a Web site has reposted one of America's Test Kitchen's recipes, the company will ask that the site take it down. "But in practice, we're not out there patrolling the Web," Bell said.

Few sites, if any, would go after an individual for posting a recipe on his or her blog or MySpace page. Sharing recipes is, after all, part of the tradition of cooking. But sites are still struggling with defining the line between what's acceptable or even beneficial copying, and what's damaging their brand or profits.

Copyright management made easy
Attributor doesn't try to decide what kind of copyright infringement is tolerable. Rather, it tries to make it easier for publishers to track who is reusing their content and in what way. With Attributor's software, publishers can use a dashboard to quickly see where their content is being reposted, whether it's been attributed to them, or whether ads are being sold against their content.

Attributor even makes it easy to take action when content owners find instances of their content being reused inappropriately. The software looks up contact information for each site and gives the owner the option to send an e-mail asking for a link back to his or her site, propose a revenue share or send a DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) takedown notice.

Attributor representatives say they don't believe the ability to track where content is being reproduced will necessarily lead to more lawsuits. Rather, the company sees it as a way for content publishers to get leads for business partnerships, and as a way to track what content is resonating with the public.

The company hopes to have similar services for individuals by the end of the year.

Recent posts from Appliances and Kitchen Gadgets
Grill marks a la granite
The greenest lunch box
Bring your indoor kitchen out
Bottoms up! Lug heavy water bottles no more
Rotating fireplace turns up the heat
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 15 comments
I'm sorrry
by inachu October 15, 2007 1:23 PM PDT
You will be in violation of copyright if you use any more pepper in that sallad. Ohhh I am too late. You owe me money.
Reply to this comment
I'm not a big swapper of recipes, but...
by lmychajluk October 15, 2007 1:50 PM PDT
how do you know where these recipe sites came up with thier recipes?

If I see a recipe on AllRecipes.com, and the same recipe appears on "MyMomsRecipes.com" (ex.), how does one know whose was the original? Granted, there may be a copyright, but that just shows who was the first to copyright it (maybe). There may be some moms out there savy enough to post thier recipes on a family website, but how many of them think to copyright it? Then one of these recipe sites comes along and all of a sudden is now suing mom because 'thier' recipe is on the family's website.

Copyright/Trademark/Patent law is just spiraling the drain.
Reply to this comment
Genetically modify food to add DRM
by michaelo1966 October 15, 2007 2:27 PM PDT
Just think: chicken and mayo that can't be mixed together into chicken salad w/o paying a royalty because, everybody knows, somebody had to invent chicken salad and they deserve to be paid for it. Better yet, let's add patent protection and make anybody who uses chicken with any type of oil-based dressing pay. That will encourage people to make new recipe's because we don't have nearly enough of them already.
Reply to this comment
Copyright infringement of recipies
by RWallaceJD October 15, 2007 2:38 PM PDT
A "copyright" springs into being when an idea (e.g., a painting, text such as a novel or even a recipe, a compilation (for example of many recipies gathered together), etc.) is "fixed in a tangible medium of expression." A person does not now have to "register" a work to have a copyright, BUT registration with the Library of Congress (not the Patent and Trademark Office, which does not register copyrights) affords the copyright owner certain "rights," e.g., statutory damages, should that owner successfully enforce the copyright in a court of law.

Here, the act of taking the recipe, whether the taking is from a posting on a Web site or from a compilation of recipies such as in a cookbook, and posting it elsewhere is the prohibited act of copying, which act is infringement of the copyright -- most of the time, as when there is a profit motive such as placement higher in a listing of recipe sites with advertizing carried on those sites, etc. Query: Was the recipe attributed to the owner and the source site listed along with the copied material when posted on the new site?

I said "most of the time" because there is the concept of FAIR USE, which allows a person to copy a work (here the recipe) for personal, non-profit use. An example would be to print a single copy of the recipe from a Web site in order to prepare the dish for a meal. Here, the cook is not an infringer.

The area of copyright can be confusing at times. But, the wholesale copying of recipies and their posting on other Web sites appears, at first blush, to be blatantly illegal.

And so it goes....
Reply to this comment View reply
I like to add 2Tbsp orange zest + 2Tbsp juice...
by ColdMast October 15, 2007 2:52 PM PDT
... to the waffle recipe in"Better Homes and Gardens New Cook Book"

http://www.bhg.com/bhg/store/product.jsp?catid=cat120006&prodid=prod590004

is that a honey crisp apple? use of that apple in pies and strudels is strictly prohibited!
Reply to this comment
Is that really piracy?
by Santa Clauz October 15, 2007 3:03 PM PDT
Just as the article says, most, if not all, recipes are derivative work, unaffected by copyright. So whats the problem? Some new recipe website is stealing the Allrecipes' recipes, and they are unhappy, because... they stole them first? Mmm, Ok.
Reply to this comment
Attribution query response
by richiepear October 15, 2007 3:05 PM PDT
(Disclaimer-I work at Attributor and helped put together this study)

<Was the recipe attributed to the owner and the source site listed along with the copied material when posted on the new site?

Of the 10,000 copies found, slightly over 60% did not link back to the source site. Of the sites providing a link back to the original source, none ranked higher than the original in search rankings.
Reply to this comment
Warning! I'm American & Have Public Domain Rights!
by Damned_Liberal October 15, 2007 4:05 PM PDT
i don't work for any corporapes. but i do have fading rights as an American. one of them was called 'public domain.' such as: we have a shared heritage. so-called 'attributory' software that reduces this to a pre-determined, mechanistic decision is against intellectual freedom. the real piracy? your heritage being sold back to you for profit while they claim exclusivity. it's fascist. only the state (i.e. corporapes) can have ability to copywrong, THEY say. and finally: do the thousands of cooks who created cooking, the art of seasoning, the concept of cookbooks themselves receive royalties? if not, aren't the ORIGINAL holders of 'ad infinitum copyrape' being 'ripped off' by these EVILDOERS who download and repaste? got himmel... vat a Nazi ting to tink!
Reply to this comment
Ignorance Is Rampant
by good_nicks_taken October 15, 2007 8:08 PM PDT
I've never read such ignorant fake outrage comments since Tony Snow left the White House. Did you bother to Google the cited recipe? http://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/11854
Note the text besides the list of ingredients, (that alone can't be copyrighted.)
Now look at http://www.recipes-from-friends.com/sand/chicken-tea-sandwich.htm which displays Google ads for profit.
Also note the site http://recipecircus.com/recipes/Heavenly_Recipes/BabalooTeaParty/Chicken_Salad_Tea_Sandwiches_with_Almond.html

Epicurious could rank higher with some slight changes to how they format the URL of the recipe, but that doesn't give anyone the right to rip off their content.
Reply to this comment
Pirates not Pirates
by Dallisradamaker October 16, 2007 1:51 AM PDT
This article and many of the posted comments assume that there is such a thing as the crime of "stealing ideas". But outside the specialized realm of patent law, there is no such crime. There is a crime of "copyright infringement" but this concerns only the "expression" given to an idea. Ideas themselves always remain free of copyright under our law. This means that even if I am the first person to think up a new version of lasagne, I do not become the "owner" in any sense, of the lasagne dish I just "invented". Everyone is free to make "my" lasagne, write-up descriptions of how to make it, publish them in books, even without mentioning my name -- in short, to do anything they like with it. The only thing they may not do under the law is to copy my published description of how to make the dish. Even this limitation falls away to the extent all descriptions of certain acts necessary to make the lasagne are necessarily the same. No one can copyright the phrase "beat two egg whites until they are fluffy" for example.

So, on the web, a site that collects recipes from other sites by "cutting and pasting" commits copyright infringement. A site that collects recipes from other sites by dressing up the recipes it finds there in a new form of description, does nothing illegal. Ideas don't just want to be free. Under our law, they generally are free.
Reply to this comment
Pirates not Pirates
by Dallisradamaker October 16, 2007 1:54 AM PDT
This article and many of the posted comments assume that there is such a thing as the crime of "stealing ideas". But outside the specialized realm of patent law, there is no such crime. There is a crime of "copyright infringement" but this concerns only the "expression" given to an idea. Ideas themselves always remain free of copyright under our law. This means that even if I am the first person to think up a new version of lasagne, I do not become the "owner" in any sense, of the lasagne dish I just "invented". Everyone is free to make "my" lasagne, write-up descriptions of how to make it, publish them in books, even without mentioning my name -- in short, to do anything they like with it. The only thing they may not do under the law is to copy my published description of how to make the dish. Even this limitation falls away to the extent all descriptions of certain acts necessary to make the lasagne are necessarily the same. No one can copyright the phrase "beat two egg whites until they are fluffy" for example.

So, on the web, a site that collects recipes from other sites by "cutting and pasting" commits copyright infringement. A site that collects recipes from other sites by dressing up the recipes it finds there in a new form of description, does nothing illegal. Ideas don't just want to be free. Under our law, they generally are free.
Reply to this comment
Taking the High Road...........
by disc man October 18, 2007 4:10 AM PDT
Without getting to involved with what is or what is not pushing the bounds of Copy Rights, the one over looked portion of the original post is the effort to identify potential partners.

In most cases, those with any honorable character will atleast step forward an acknowledge the originator. Upon which they could add their own twist which manifests their own ideas.

Piracy is it's pure form, has the intent of stealing for monetary purpose. That we agree should be shown no mercy. However, exposing a tool that allows publishers the opportunity to evaluate a subject matter an it's overall appeal, again calls into question, what will you do with the new information. Spending your time and energy wisely by approaching the potential conflict with an education about the content an your willingness to work with a new potential could uncover avenues never before revealed.

Yes, there will always be Pirates, spending your valuable time on moving forward with the intent of bringing more converts inside your realm strengthens your presents. Most users basically are looking for their "5 Minutes of Fame". And by educating them to acknowledge the author which in turn exchange links the goal of traffic is achieved.

Let's be clear, huffing an puffing over web posts can be exhausting. If their making monetary gains, turn the sharks loose, lawyers fight better when there's money on the table
Reply to this comment
50% of Content
by Jane in KC October 18, 2007 6:07 AM PDT
The article said: "Attributor researchers defined a match as any two recipes in which at least 50 percent of the content was identical." This "standard" is flawed on its face, IMO.

Think about it! Any number of recipes for a loaf of bread contain exactly the same, or slightly varying, ingredients and method. Yet they produce different results. The same can be said of almost all "basic" foods. But relying on a software program instructed to compare recipes by looking for a match of only 50% of the content will leave you thinking everyone in the world cooks the same way, using the same recipes (in this case, recipes they have stolen from some website).

Sorry, but the old rule still holds: Garbage in, garbage out!
Reply to this comment
by victoriarose6201 June 19, 2008 10:57 PM PDT
Hey, buddy, http://www.recovery-soft.com has a partition manager software which is

even better than PQ, not matter in function or price, why not have a try? You will

find it excellent and worthy!!!

partition manage, partition, computer partition manage, harddisk partition manage,

harddisk manage,620
Reply to this comment
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement

About Appliances and Kitchen Gadgets

Having transformed the den and the living room, technology is about to revolutionize the kitchen and even the laundry room. Manufacturers are increasingly cramming silicon into everything from refrigerators to spoons, and you can count on CNET's technology experience to follow and explain these trends. In this blog, you'll find the good, the bad, the priceless, the useless, and everything that fits in between, brought to you by a team of culinary professionals and technology experts from CNET and its network of bloggers.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Appliances and Kitchen Gadgets topics

advertisement