Food porn crackdown

[Sean]

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.

Again, copying your circuit would be Mechanical Copyright oldr. It's hard to draw a comparison between a logical circuit and an artistic vision for Intellectual copyright purposes but I'll try... Imagine if you designed a circuit for an integral part of a Mars Rover. Some wag gets a photo and posts it online with the caption, "This circuit was designed by oldr_n_wsr as the speech circuit for a new Furby doll".

Would you be impressed?

[Lord Jim]

Any chef who creates a unique dish is legally and morally entitled to protect the integrity of that dish.

Which of course is not an issue here, since a person taking a photo of a meal they have paid for in no way shape or form detracts from the "integrity" of that dish...(Whatever that means)


I certainly agree that a chef, (assuming he owns the restaurant; which in the case of most of these hoity toity types they do...) has a legal right to prevent photos being taken of the food his kitchen prepares, even if one has paid for it....

It's a privately owned business establishment; as the owner, he can set whatever rules for his patrons he cares to...

For example, he could remove all the chairs and require that the diners at his restaurant all eat while standing on one foot...

Or he could require that they all wear red rubber noses and Bozo fright wigs while consuming his gastronomical delights...

And all of those requirements would make just as much logical sense as the photo ban...

As for the "moral" dimension...

To be honest, I really don't see how this rises to the level of having a "moral" component attendant to it one way or the other....(Except to say that "arrogance for arrogance's sake" is not particularly moral, and when one looks at this objectively, that's clearly what's in play here...)

How about this as a rule of thumb:

"If I have sufficient rights of ownership to a "piece of art" such that I can shove it in my mouth, grind it up with my teeth, pass it through my digestive tract, and shit it out my entrails, I also have sufficient rights of ownership to take a picture of it"

Sounds like a reasonable standard to me....

[Sean]

But it IS a issue Jim. What if I was a rival chef, took a photo of the dish and deliberately showed it in its worst possible light? What if I photoshopped a cockroach into it and got a friend to post it on Facebook?

Anyway, the bit you quoted says it all... It doesn't matter a jot what you think your rights are or should be. The law is there to protect the creator... as it should be!

[Lord Jim]

But it IS a issue Jim. What if I was a rival chef, took a photo of the dish and deliberately showed it in its worst possible light? What if I photoshopped a cockroach into it and got a friend to post it on Facebook?

Nowadays they could do that without even visiting the restaurant, if they were so inclined...

Sean, the impression I get from your posts in this discussion, (of course I may be wrong; it wouldn't be the first time) is that you got badly screwed by someone who violated your copyright or artistic rights in some situation, (you haven't explained exactly what happened, nor do I expect you to, but you've clearly alluded to this)

And that your anger over this, (no doubt justified) has led you to draw an analogy to the topic under discussion, and that your position about it is colored and informed by this personal experience...

My point would be (unless your personal case is one involving your being a chef who gets upset because people have the temerity to take a picture of their meal; which I suspect it is not...)is that the analogy between your personal case and the topic at hand is not a valid one...

I also suspect that now we're just going to go round and round on this, (actually that may be a late observation; we're probably on the second or third pass on the merry-go-round at this point... ) and just have to agree to disagree...

[Sean]

You are correct Jim, I have been screwed in the past. I have also dealt with copyright law (intellectual, mechanical and performing rights) from both sides of the fence for more than twenty years so I speak with pretty good authority on the subject.

As someone who is well versed in copyright law, I'm not so much offering my opinion on this subject as stating the bare arsed facts. You may not like the laws but there is nothing to disagree on. My last few posts on the subject have not come from a personal or emotional place, they are simply stating facts which anybody can easily research if they so desire.

So there!

[Jarlaxle]

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!

How is that any different than reading a review online & deciding the same thing?

[Sean]

Because rational people will believe the evidence of their own eyes over the opinion of a food writer.

[Jarlaxle]

Have you NEVER read online reviews of a restaurant before deciding to go there, then? I certainly have, especially when traveling.

[Lord Jim]

Well Sean, I think we're agreed on one point; that's the legal angle of this.

It may not be sensible or just, but it's certainly legal...

I readily concede that the chef, (again, assuming he owns the restaurant) has a perfect legal right to behave like an arrogant, pompous, horse's ass and require that his patrons not take photos of the meals that they spent top dollar to purchase.

So we at least found some common ground...

On the other hand as far as the "moral" aspect of this policy goes, we're never going to agree, and of course whatever laws exist to protect copyrights (or whatever might apply in this case) don't address that, because that's not what laws do. Laws exist to confer legal rights, not to answer metaphysical questions of "morality".

The question of the "morality" of the policy will always be nothing but a matter of opinion, not legal fact, and my opinion that there is absolutely nothing moral or just about the photo ban is as valid or invalid as anyone else's opinion to the contrary.

[Sean]

Have you NEVER read online reviews of a restaurant before deciding to go there, then? I certainly have, especially when traveling.

I don't believe in inferred anything of the sort Jarl...

But tell me, how would you feel if you read a good review of a dish and then saw a photo of the same dish in which it looked a bit shite? Honestly, would you go with a writer's opinion or the evidence of your own eyes?

[Sean]

Sorry Jim old mate, but you should look up 'moral copyrights'...

[Lord Jim]

That's actually a misuse of the word "moral".

They're using the word as a term of art defined in a way that has nothing to do with the common understanding of the concept of "moral" as an ethical, philosophical construct.

Using that term in that way is misleading; they ought to call it something else.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Sean - you mean "implied" not "inferred"

yrs
Maggie Arglethorpe

[rubato]

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.

You are confusing copyright with patent law.

You really have no clue about how either of these works. Please stop posting.

yrs,
rubato

[Sean]

Sean - you mean "implied" not "inferred"

yrs
Maggie Arglethorpe

You are quite right of course you pedentic little sod!

[Lord Jim]

You really have no clue about how either of these works. Please stop posting.

You really have one helluva nerve daring to tell anyone else to stop posting, given the howlingly ignorant swill you vomit up around here, on topic after topic, day in and day out...

If you were to confine yourself to posting only on those topics which you had even the slightest bit of knowledge about, we'd rarely hear a peep out of you...

[oldr_n_wsr]

You are confusing copyright with patent law.

Whichever.

You really have no clue about how either of these works.
yrs,
rubato

I do have my name on a few patents (owned by Chyron Corp). How the law works I admit I am no patent nor copyright lawyer. Whichever it is, taking a picture, and not posting it in any kind of negative kind of way, nor copying the presentation, nor doing anything other than taking a picture does not diminish the item one bit. The law (copyright or patent) may disagree.

Please stop posting.

I pray for you.

Imagine if you designed a circuit for an integral part of a Mars Rover. Some wag gets a photo and posts it online with the caption, "This circuit was designed by oldr_n_wsr as the speech circuit for a new Furby doll".

I probably would have made more money with the Furby doll speech circuit.
It might not bother me, don't know. But that could run into legal issues as it is not a furby speech circuit so that is a blatent lie and may harm my reputation. (although I might be able to get a more lucritive job at Mattel).

I'm more along the lines of someone taking a picture of the meal and posting: "This is what I had for dinner here at xxxx resturant." no praise nor negativity.

Or: "Here's oldr_n_wsr's circuit"

As LJ pointed out, the chef and/or owner can set whatever rules they want. I think no pictures is "snobbish", but then I'm a meat and potatoes kind of guy.
But then again

For example, he could remove all the chairs and require that the diners at his restaurant all eat while standing on one foot...

I think the association for the disabled might have something to say about this "requirement".

[Big RR]

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.

Granted you may need different licenses if you want to perform multiple works, but I was talking about a single song, not an entire play or movie. If you want to present something not in the original play as part of it, you may well have to jump through legal hoops, but if you wanted to perform any single song, you could pay the statutory license fee and perform it, inclusing making some changes in it for your interpretation (which is why, e.g., Janis Joplin's "Me and Bobby Magee" differs from the original of Kris Kristofferson. There is a limit to how much you can change it without being termed a "Derivative Work", which is why many major performers will deal directly with the composers, but that's a different issue.

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.

While I generally agree with you, I still don't think that the area of photography the dish is settled. Again, the dish is being served in a place of public accommodation, and just as I can take a picture of a copyrighted building, I would argue I can photograph the dish. Now the owner of the restaurant is well within his or her rights to bar the taking of photos in the establishment, but that does not make the taking of the photo a copyright infringement. Indeed, I have never seen a case on this point and I would be interested in how the courts would decide this; it's clearly not a given that they would rule the photo violated the copyright.

As for your pointing out "moral rights", remember, this is a very sticky point for the US. Even after joining with the rest of the world in the Berne Convention, the US offers very limited protection of moral rights (only integrity and paternity (or attribution)), and then only for fine arts. I would not think any such rights would apply to the presentation of a dish--remember, integrity is limited to presenting the work in its visual entirety, not to anything broader.

And as for

But it IS a issue Jim. What if I was a rival chef, took a photo of the dish and deliberately showed it in its worst possible light? What if I photoshopped a cockroach into it and got a friend to post it on Facebook?

,

this would not be an issue for federal copyright protection, but state laws, most likely unfair competition.

[Lord Jim]

I pray for you.

Hey oldr, I get the impression that's the expression you use in situations where I might say, "go fuck yourself"....

(Your terminology is much nicer... )

[oldr_n_wsr]

I pray for you.

Hey oldr, I get the impression that's expression you use in situations where I might say, "go fuck yourself"....

(Your terminology is much nicer... )

To each his own. I have (nor hold) no ill will towards anyone. I truly feel (and pray) for him. Don't know why he feels the need to put me (and my intelligence) down rather than explain or show me where I might be wrong in my thinking. I am not perfect and take every opportunity to learn.
I too put people down in order to make myself seem better/more knowlegeable. It was/is a character flaw of mine which I am in the process of correcting.
I do not take rubato's personal inventory so I donot know why he posts the way he does towards me. Nor do I lose sleep over it. Honestly I do pray for him as I do anyone who "rubs me the wrong way". I also pray that I may correct anything that I have done to cause such a response.

You really have no clue about how either of these works. Please stop posting.

yrs,
rubato

After further review, I will grant your wish.