[fvold]

This is done for copyright reasons.

You can't copyright the raw list of ingredients, as it is a factual statement with too little creative input (in the list, not the recipe itself!) to get copyright protection.

To stop the recipe blog just being scraped by some recipe site and get zero visitors/impressions for themselves, they have these (at least) "minimally creative" intros that qualify for copyright.

...then the recipe sites just changed to extract the factual non-protected recipe from that, and the arms race escalates. "Whisk the eggs in with a feeling of freedom, and duty to the ancestors" - COPYRIGHT, BABY!

[kleiba]

I doubt the connection between copyright and number of visitors/impressions. But of course it's clear that the intention is to provide some kind of "added value" by encapsulating the pure recipe in some narrative. It's just not what most people actually want.

[AnonCoward42]

IANAL, but aren't recipes copyrightable in general? Let's say I use the exact recipe for Coca Cola, isn't that punishable as well, if I didn't change it at least slightly?

[PeterisP]

No, as a rule, recipes aren't copyrightable.

The specific wording and 'flourish' of recipes is copyrightable, but the actual factual, meaningful content - the one which impacts the 'success' of the recipe - fundamentally can't be restricted by copyright, you can't get an exclusive monopoly to make a particular concoction through copyright law (you can with patent law, but it has other restrictions).

It's similar to copyright on design for e.g. clothing - the arbitrary artistic parts can be protected with copyright, but the functional parts can not be restricted that way.

So if you know how to make Coca Cola and want to do that, copyright law won't protect that. Perhaps patent law might (I'm not certain) but there is no patent on the Coca Cola recipe - and if there was, the recipe would have to be published in the patent application, and it would expire in 20 years, unlike copyright. However, you could not freely say that it's exactly like Coca Cola (trademark laws would restrict that), and it does matter how you got that recipe - trade secrets are protected, and if you got the recipe through illegal means (e.g. breaking&entering, or bribing an employee) then you could have repercussions for that.

[jsjohnst]

> Let's say I use the exact recipe for Coca Cola

Coca Cola recipe isn’t copyrighted or trademarked. They went the third route “trade secret” and interestingly enough, the exact recipe they use is still secret, despite all the years it’s existed.

(Yes, some have approximated it though if memory serves)

[jrootabega]

I'm guessing that several have recreated the exact taste of Coke, but due to brand conditioning, the image of the can prevents your brain from experiencing it the same way. At this point, Coke probably doesn't care if someone recreates their taste or exact recipe. Their unique branding, and common belief that the recipe is a mystery, makes people experience the drinking of a Coke as unique.

Funny enough, it's just like tickling. You have to know that it's Coke to taste Coke. Drinking another brand that tastes identical to Coke in blind tests is like tickling yourself.

[jsjohnst]

> Drinking another brand that tastes identical to Coke in blind tests is like tickling yourself.

What other brand tastes like Coke? I guarantee I can blind taste identify most (all?) the common US brands of cola.

[jrootabega]

I dunno, whichever ones do, or none of them even. I would be surprised if no one's been able to nail it even once. I just think that if you found one that tasted identical to Coke, it wouldn't matter.

[sidewndr46]

No, recipes aren't copyrightable. Otherwise you could prevent someone from disseminating information about how to make a glass of icewater.