No one is taking (copying) their material. Just taking a picture of it.
If another chef went and made the same or a similar meal and presented it the same way, then there might be some kind of copyright infringement.
If someone buys something (in this case the meal), then it is theirs. It ceases to be the chefs as he sold it to the customer. If the customer wants a picture of his property, then he has that right.
If he/she has worked hard to provide a great experience, lighting, movement, sound, color, to set off a great meal then they have a right to say "look if you want TO PAY THE BIG BUCKS FOR THIS experience then you have to BE HERE in this present moment abide by my rules.
If someone buys something (in this case the meal), then it is theirs. It ceases to be the chefs as he sold it to the customer. If the customer wants a picture of his property, then he has that right.
Not necessarily; if I sell you a book you cannot photocopy it; ditto for a sound recording. That's what copyright law prevents. However, you generally are permitted to make a copy of a copyrighted work you own for archival purposes, so photographing the food might be permissible, but sending it to others is not (anymore than you could send copies of a CD or DVD to others). Even in fine arts this applies; I own the original of a watercolor painting that was also sold as a lithograph--under copyright law I couldn't just photograph it and distribute it as that is solely the right of the owner. However, when things are displayed publicly, like an architectural work, e.g., the public is also generally allowed to photograph it and distribute copies of the photograph(s), so a lot would come down to whether a restaurant is a public or private area. The law isn't fully developed in this area, so it's hard to know what the courts would decide.
Likewise, there is also the ability of the owner of the restaurant to regulate behavior of the patrons in his establishment. Just as a movie theater might ban texting, so might a restaurant ban photography inside the establishment. Generally, the ban would have to be posted or otherwise communicated to the patrons, but this could be another way to prevent the photos (although, again, what the owner could do if you ignored the ban is not entirely certain; (s)he could ask you to leave, but I don't think he'd have any way to force you to delete any photos you took).
Rubato doesn't have the mental capacity to enjoy food and to fire off a quick snap of it. Figures.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Big RR, thanks for the response. Seems a lot of this is in the "gray area" when it comes to the legal end of it.
I don't really think of food as "art". Some chefs, most likely, disagree with me. Even if I thought of the entree as art, I don't see where taking a picture of it would diminish it in any way. In fact it might help with advertising the place. In this digital age, advertising is no longer "word of mouth" it's texts/twits/facebook with pictures/videos/likes/naked ladies.
Actually oldr, there is no grey areas here at all. Intellectual copyright involves taking somebody's work, idea or vision and presenting it in a different context without express permission. A chef can easily be seen as an artist. They may well have created a dish with a vision in mind for it's presentation... This vision could involve music, lighting, environment, etc. It's no different to some arsehole taking a sample of a beautiful piece of music and inserting it into a Miley Cyrus song. It's not what the creator wished for it and that should be respected.
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Sean wrote: If it's not what the creator wished for it and that should be respected.
As I said earlier, some chefs /restaurants actively encourage it.
Want a photo of my latest batch of pasties?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
You'll get no argument with me on that. (Unless the chef is a really pretentious up his own arse twat who couldn't make a decent pasty to save his life!)
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
It's no different to some arsehole taking a sample of a beautiful piece of music and inserting it into a Miley Cyrus song.
Sean, here's the problem I have with that analogy, (and your earlier live concert taping analogy)...
In both of those cases, there's a "commercial component"....
There's a potential monetary "loss" to the artist, (or artists) and a potential monetary "gain" to the person doing the taping...
That consideration is completely absent here...
A person who has taken a photo of their meal (that they paid for) is in no way reducing the value of that dish to the Chef, nor is there any conceivable marketable value to the photo...(Last I heard, the gossip sites and scandal sheets weren't paying top dollar to the Paparazzi for providing pictures of expensive entrees.. )
So there's no chance of anyone seeing a crap, amateur photo of the dish on Facebook and saying, "I was going to go to that restaurant but the food looks pretty ordinary so I won't bother now..."?
There's your potential monetary loss!
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Gob wrote:
Want a photo of my latest batch of pasties?
SMF wants to see an example of your crimping skills... and also wants to know your ingredient list. She says that she'll show you hers if you show her yours...
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Sean wrote:Actually oldr, there is no grey areas here at all. Intellectual copyright involves taking somebody's work, idea or vision and presenting it in a different context without express permission. A chef can easily be seen as an artist. They may well have created a dish with a vision in mind for it's presentation... This vision could involve music, lighting, environment, etc. It's no different to some arsehole taking a sample of a beautiful piece of music and inserting it into a Miley Cyrus song. It's not what the creator wished for it and that should be respected.
But no one's trying to gain (money wise). If they are then copyright or some other law may come in to play. It's just a picture. If another chef sees that picture and tries to copy the "presentation/layout" then there could be a problem. But the problem lies with the other chef, not the picture taker.
And as far as lost business because someone sees the photo and says it looks yuckie. Well people post amature reviews of resturants all the time. I don't see this as being any different.
And I agree that if requested there be no pictures, one should not take pictures. I just think it's a bit "snobish" to even request that no pictures be taken. If the place has a website, do they post pictures of food there? Pictures of food on the menus? If the chef is trying to "promote" his resturant you would think they would advertise just how "great" his meals look and, more importantly, taste.
oldr_n_wsr wrote: "...
But no one's trying to gain (money wise). If they are then copyright or some other law may come in to play. It's just a picture. If another chef sees that picture and tries to copy the "presentation/layout" then there could be a problem. But the problem lies with the other chef, not the picture taker.
... " .
Violating copyright is a crime even without monetary gain. Try watching the FBI warnings on movie DVDs. And it should be. Part of the reason for copyright is to prevent someone else from using your creation in a way you do not approve of. David Byrne successfully stopped a Republican from using his music for a campaign because he said it suggested that he approved of that person.
using your creation in a way you do not approve of
So if I design/create/build a widget and someone buys that widget and then uses the widget in a way I don't approve of, I can go after them for copyright infringement?
I believe DVD's are copyrighted so they are covered by law. Is playing frisbee with the disc a copyright violation? Is taking a picture of that disc (and it's jacket) a copyright violation? Is recording it so if I happen to scratch the original disc I can still watch a copyright violation?
I don't see a meal being copyrighted. If it was, there might be a leg to stand on. It's the chef making the claim that his "creation" is being misused. WhichI believe it is not. A picture is being taken of it. It is not being maligned nor altered nor misused in any way.
Sean wrote:Actually oldr, there is no grey areas here at all. Intellectual copyright involves taking somebody's work, idea or vision and presenting it in a different context without express permission. A chef can easily be seen as an artist. They may well have created a dish with a vision in mind for it's presentation... This vision could involve music, lighting, environment, etc. It's no different to some arsehole taking a sample of a beautiful piece of music and inserting it into a Miley Cyrus song. It's not what the creator wished for it and that should be respected.
Sean--so long as that song has been publicly performed before, US compulsory licensing law allows anyone who wants to perform the song publicly (and record it) and to put their own individual artistic interpretation on it. So Miley Cyrus can perform the "beautiful music" essentially as she sees fit by paying the statutory licensing fee.
Granted no license fee is paid here, but then I don't owe an architect anything for photographing his/her building if it is in a place of public accommodation. the law is not settled here, and it may be that photographing a dis in a restaurant is no more copyright infringement than photographing an architectural work. Again, the restaurant my ban photography altogether, but breaking the restaurant's rule does not amount to a crime or even copyright infringement; at best it's breach of contract.
Sean wrote:Actually oldr, there is no grey areas here at all. Intellectual copyright involves taking somebody's work, idea or vision and presenting it in a different context without express permission. A chef can easily be seen as an artist. They may well have created a dish with a vision in mind for it's presentation... This vision could involve music, lighting, environment, etc. It's no different to some arsehole taking a sample of a beautiful piece of music and inserting it into a Miley Cyrus song. It's not what the creator wished for it and that should be respected.
Sean--so long as that song has been publicly performed before, US compulsory licensing law allows anyone who wants to perform the song publicly (and record it) and to put their own individual artistic interpretation on it. So Miley Cyrus can perform the "beautiful music" essentially as she sees fit by paying the statutory licensing fee.
Granted no license fee is paid here, but then I don't owe an architect anything for photographing his/her building if it is in a place of public accommodation. the law is not settled here, and it may be that photographing a dis in a restaurant is no more copyright infringement than photographing an architectural work. Again, the restaurant my ban photography altogether, but breaking the restaurant's rule does not amount to a crime or even copyright infringement; at best it's breach of contract.
That's not quite true... First off, by acquiring a licence you are not allowed to do whatever you like with it, there are restrictions set out. A good example is 'Grease'. If you were to buy a licence to perform the musical 'Grease' from Samuel French, you would soon find that there are certain songs you could not include in your production... most notably ' You're the One that I Want' and 'Hopelessly Devoted to You'. These songs were written for the movie, were not part of the original book and permission to perform them means jumping through all sorts of legal hoops and dealing with multiple agencies at great expense.
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
using your creation in a way you do not approve of
So if I design/create/build a widget and someone buys that widget and then uses the widget in a way I don't approve of, I can go after them for copyright infringement?
I believe DVD's are copyrighted so they are covered by law. Is playing frisbee with the disc a copyright violation? Is taking a picture of that disc (and it's jacket) a copyright violation? Is recording it so if I happen to scratch the original disc I can still watch a copyright violation?
I don't see a meal being copyrighted. If it was, there might be a leg to stand on. It's the chef making the claim that his "creation" is being misused. WhichI believe it is not. A picture is being taken of it. It is not being maligned nor altered nor misused in any way.
The problem oldr, is that you are confusing Mechanical Copyright with Intellectual Copyright. It's a minefield, and one that I am all too familiar with!
The bottom line is this... Any chef who creates a unique dish is legally and morally entitled to protect the integrity of that dish. It really doesn't matter whether we agree with that or not.
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Any chef who creates a unique dish is legally and morally entitled to protect the integrity of that dish.
Does taking a picture damage the integrity of that dish?
It is not diminished in any way (unless taking a picture of it somehow steals it's soulsole)
I do have my name on a few patents and intellectual copyrights from previous employment (Chyron Corp and ChyTV). Don't see where this is equivalent. A picture of my completed circuit does not diminish it in any way. But if that picture were used to replicate the circuit by another and sold and/or used somehow then there could be a violation. Same with program code.
Gob wrote:
Want a photo of my latest batch of pasties?
SMF wants to see an example of your crimping skills... and also wants to know your ingredient list. She says that she'll show you hers if you show her yours...
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
)