[replicatorblog]

Correct, that is a copyright violation. Based on the links above Tasty's videos are neither plagiarism, which is an offense in academia, but not commerce, nor Copyright, the commercial equivalent, which does not protect recipes.

[maxerickson]

Plagiarism has formal consequences in academia.

Taking credit for the work of others in any context is still plagiarism.

[burkaman]

But do you understand that it's ethically wrong, regardless of whether or not it's illegal or formally defined? At a minimum, it's rude to copy someone's work without thanking them. You shouldn't need a higher authority to tell you this is wrong.

[zaroth]

I'm not sure it's ethically wrong to take something in the public domain which holds no license or copyright whatsoever, and use it without attribution.

If snippets of the video were direct cuts from another show, that's a different story. But making a dish yourself and filming it is your own creation, I don't see why you have to thank anyone for it.

[burkaman]

It is. It's benefiting from someone else's work without thanking them. This is basic elementary school ethics.

It's equivalent to performing a symphony, but not mentioning the music was written by Beethoven. Not illegal, but wrong, even if you don't explicitly claim it's your own work.

[zaroth]

No, it's not. A symphony can be copyrighted.

It's the same as calculating force equals mass times acceleration, without thanking Newton every time. That's an example (natural law) which is always and immediately public domain, the same as recipes.

[burkaman]

But Beethoven symphonies are not copyrighted, they've been in the public domain for centuries. Is it ok if you use Beethoven?

f=ma is an interesting example. I still think you should mention that it's Newton's Second Law if you're teaching it, and I doubt there's a textbook out there that doesn't. If Newton had discovered this law last year and you wrote a book about it without mentioning him, that would be deeply unethical.