WEBVTT - Recipe Wars Down Under

0:00:02.880 --> 0:00:11.160
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:15.240 --> 0:00:17.919
<v Speaker 2>Today, I'm going to be sharing with you the best

0:00:18.079 --> 0:00:22.120
<v Speaker 2>ever vanilla cake recipe. It's nice and light and fluffy,

0:00:22.200 --> 0:00:25.880
<v Speaker 2>It's golden on the outside. It may be the best

0:00:25.960 --> 0:00:30.560
<v Speaker 2>vanilla cake recipe, but another baker says it's her recipe.

0:00:30.880 --> 0:00:36.040
<v Speaker 2>Australian influencer and baking guru Brooke Bellamy has millions of

0:00:36.080 --> 0:00:39.880
<v Speaker 2>followers on TikTok and her first cookbook was a best seller,

0:00:40.240 --> 0:00:44.680
<v Speaker 2>but her recipes for caramel slice and baklava went from

0:00:44.760 --> 0:00:50.360
<v Speaker 2>sweet to sour after another celebrity chef, Naji Mahashi, accused

0:00:50.360 --> 0:00:54.120
<v Speaker 2>Bellamy of copying those recipes from her, and then yet

0:00:54.120 --> 0:00:59.080
<v Speaker 2>another celebrity chef accused her of copying the vanilla cake recipe.

0:00:59.240 --> 0:01:03.880
<v Speaker 2>Bellamy deny the accusations, saying she created the recipes over

0:01:03.960 --> 0:01:07.640
<v Speaker 2>many years, but the fallout, the media coverage and the

0:01:07.840 --> 0:01:11.959
<v Speaker 2>online trolling have been so intense that Bellamy went into

0:01:12.000 --> 0:01:15.800
<v Speaker 2>hiding and Mahasha even tried to turn down the vitriol

0:01:15.959 --> 0:01:17.319
<v Speaker 2>in an Instagram post.

0:01:18.080 --> 0:01:24.880
<v Speaker 3>Please stop the trolling now. I know I've made serious allegations,

0:01:25.640 --> 0:01:29.920
<v Speaker 3>but this does not justify the personal attacks that I've

0:01:29.959 --> 0:01:32.760
<v Speaker 3>seen online against brook Bellamy.

0:01:33.480 --> 0:01:37.199
<v Speaker 2>My guest is intellectual property litigator Terrence Ross, a partner

0:01:37.360 --> 0:01:41.760
<v Speaker 2>Katin Yuchen Rosenman. Terry, let's start with the legal basics.

0:01:42.280 --> 0:01:44.360
<v Speaker 2>Can you copyright a recipe?

0:01:44.760 --> 0:01:48.440
<v Speaker 1>So June? In theory, it is possible to copyright cookbook

0:01:48.680 --> 0:01:52.480
<v Speaker 1>or even a few individual recipes. It's very hard to do.

0:01:52.840 --> 0:01:55.600
<v Speaker 1>It's considered one of the trickiest theories of the law.

0:01:55.920 --> 0:01:58.320
<v Speaker 1>And a little bit of protection you do get if

0:01:58.320 --> 0:02:01.880
<v Speaker 1>you're capable of giving a copyright is called thin protection

0:02:01.960 --> 0:02:04.520
<v Speaker 1>by copyright lawyers, which essentially means that you've got to

0:02:04.560 --> 0:02:06.920
<v Speaker 1>put the book on a xerox machine and copy it

0:02:06.960 --> 0:02:09.920
<v Speaker 1>word for word for there to be infringement. The problem

0:02:10.000 --> 0:02:13.160
<v Speaker 1>here is that copyright doesn't allow protection of ideas, and

0:02:13.720 --> 0:02:16.720
<v Speaker 1>a recipe how to bake a cake is simply an idea,

0:02:16.880 --> 0:02:20.160
<v Speaker 1>and embedded in that idea are some scientific principles that

0:02:20.200 --> 0:02:23.320
<v Speaker 1>are just required, and you're not allowed to copyright scientific

0:02:23.320 --> 0:02:25.880
<v Speaker 1>principles either. And it's got to be these certain amount

0:02:25.880 --> 0:02:27.720
<v Speaker 1>of the ingredients to get the right flavor, it's got

0:02:27.760 --> 0:02:29.640
<v Speaker 1>to be a certain temperature being baked in the oven,

0:02:29.720 --> 0:02:32.760
<v Speaker 1>and those aren't copyrightable, and so it is a very

0:02:32.880 --> 0:02:36.720
<v Speaker 1>challenging thing to assert copyright in a recipe or cookbook,

0:02:36.720 --> 0:02:39.920
<v Speaker 1>and about the only parts that can be copyrighted or

0:02:40.000 --> 0:02:42.720
<v Speaker 1>sort of the expression of the recipe, so style the

0:02:42.800 --> 0:02:45.639
<v Speaker 1>wording describing what this cake is going to turn out

0:02:45.680 --> 0:02:48.200
<v Speaker 1>to be, what this cookie tastes like, as opposed to

0:02:48.240 --> 0:02:49.440
<v Speaker 1>the actual recipe.

0:02:50.040 --> 0:02:52.799
<v Speaker 2>I think, buttermilk was used in one of these recipes

0:02:52.880 --> 0:02:55.440
<v Speaker 2>in sort of a different way. So if you have

0:02:55.520 --> 0:02:59.520
<v Speaker 2>a really unique ingredient used in one of the recipes

0:03:00.080 --> 0:03:03.040
<v Speaker 2>that no one's seen used in this way before, what

0:03:03.160 --> 0:03:03.639
<v Speaker 2>about that?

0:03:04.000 --> 0:03:08.400
<v Speaker 1>So copyright is different from patents in that what copyright

0:03:08.520 --> 0:03:13.120
<v Speaker 1>protects is the expression fixed in a tangible medium, words

0:03:13.160 --> 0:03:17.840
<v Speaker 1>written down. It doesn't protect how you do something, and

0:03:18.000 --> 0:03:21.440
<v Speaker 1>frankly here that wouldn't be protectable under patent either the

0:03:21.639 --> 0:03:25.760
<v Speaker 1>addition of a different ingredient in this case buttermilk. Again,

0:03:25.960 --> 0:03:30.760
<v Speaker 1>that really does not help. Although it pretty strongly suggests

0:03:30.800 --> 0:03:34.640
<v Speaker 1>that there was plagiarism, and I say plagiarism as opposed

0:03:34.639 --> 0:03:36.600
<v Speaker 1>to copyright infront of it, that there may have been

0:03:36.640 --> 0:03:40.560
<v Speaker 1>some plagiarism of the recipe that Miss Bellamy was accused

0:03:40.600 --> 0:03:41.440
<v Speaker 1>of of copy.

0:03:41.680 --> 0:03:44.600
<v Speaker 2>So tell us about this recipe dispute which has really

0:03:44.640 --> 0:03:49.080
<v Speaker 2>gotten a lot of play, not only in Australia but internationally, so.

0:03:48.760 --> 0:03:52.560
<v Speaker 1>It's an interesting copyright dispute that came up in Australia.

0:03:52.600 --> 0:03:57.680
<v Speaker 1>There's a very famous TikTok baking influencer in Australia name

0:03:57.720 --> 0:04:02.440
<v Speaker 1>of brook Bellamy and she has over three million followers

0:04:02.480 --> 0:04:06.040
<v Speaker 1>and is famous for posting TikTok videos of how you

0:04:06.280 --> 0:04:10.520
<v Speaker 1>bake you know, tasty treats. She actually runs a chain

0:04:10.720 --> 0:04:14.880
<v Speaker 1>of bakeries in Australia and has achieved quite a bit

0:04:14.920 --> 0:04:19.720
<v Speaker 1>of notoriety down Under, but also expanding outside of Australia.

0:04:19.760 --> 0:04:22.120
<v Speaker 1>And so last October she came out with her first

0:04:22.200 --> 0:04:26.040
<v Speaker 1>cookbook and it was called Bake with Brookie, and that's

0:04:26.080 --> 0:04:29.599
<v Speaker 1>important names after her big goods stores which are called

0:04:29.640 --> 0:04:33.120
<v Speaker 1>Brookies bake Houses. But this book, because of her fame

0:04:33.360 --> 0:04:37.120
<v Speaker 1>as an influencer in the baking circles, was an instant success.

0:04:37.240 --> 0:04:40.320
<v Speaker 1>It sold over one hundred thousand copies in less than

0:04:40.360 --> 0:04:44.160
<v Speaker 1>six months, gross sales around four million dollars and was

0:04:44.320 --> 0:04:47.479
<v Speaker 1>the second best selling book for the Australian Christmas season

0:04:47.600 --> 0:04:51.480
<v Speaker 1>last year. So very very successful and just a couple

0:04:51.480 --> 0:04:55.760
<v Speaker 1>of days before the Australian Book Industry Awards, which is

0:04:55.839 --> 0:04:58.839
<v Speaker 1>a big deal in publishing circles in Australia, and her

0:04:58.960 --> 0:05:01.720
<v Speaker 1>book Baked with Brooks He was in competition for Best

0:05:01.760 --> 0:05:05.600
<v Speaker 1>Cookbook with a couple other famous long time baking experts,

0:05:05.640 --> 0:05:09.400
<v Speaker 1>and one of them, Naji Mahashi, posted online that she

0:05:09.520 --> 0:05:12.599
<v Speaker 1>thought two of the recipes in Bake with Brookie were

0:05:13.000 --> 0:05:16.679
<v Speaker 1>plagiarized from her own cookbook and laid out the arguments

0:05:16.680 --> 0:05:20.400
<v Speaker 1>as to why, and this caused quite a stir. And

0:05:20.960 --> 0:05:26.160
<v Speaker 1>then to make things worse, Sally McKenny, famous American baking

0:05:26.279 --> 0:05:28.440
<v Speaker 1>cook with a number of cookbooks of her own, out

0:05:28.640 --> 0:05:30.760
<v Speaker 1>sort of piled on and said that she thought that

0:05:30.800 --> 0:05:34.040
<v Speaker 1>the vanilla cake recipe in Bake with Brookie had been

0:05:34.040 --> 0:05:36.320
<v Speaker 1>taken from one of her books. And when you compare

0:05:36.360 --> 0:05:39.880
<v Speaker 1>the recipes side by side, there is almost an identity

0:05:40.080 --> 0:05:44.039
<v Speaker 1>of ingredients and amounts and cooking temperatures. But in the

0:05:44.040 --> 0:05:47.560
<v Speaker 1>case of Sally mckenny's vanilla cake, she does something sort

0:05:47.560 --> 0:05:51.400
<v Speaker 1>of unusual. She uses buttermilk and Brooke Bellamy in Bake

0:05:51.480 --> 0:05:55.440
<v Speaker 1>with Brookie. Her recipe for vanilla cake also used buttermilk,

0:05:55.480 --> 0:05:58.240
<v Speaker 1>which struck Sally m Kenny's odd so she brought this

0:05:58.360 --> 0:06:00.440
<v Speaker 1>out and it was sort of that point the oven

0:06:00.520 --> 0:06:04.360
<v Speaker 1>mits were off. Folks were chiming in and trolling Brooke

0:06:04.400 --> 0:06:06.960
<v Speaker 1>Bellamy onlines to the point where she had to shut

0:06:06.960 --> 0:06:10.800
<v Speaker 1>down her ig account. The press was camped outside her

0:06:11.040 --> 0:06:13.279
<v Speaker 1>house so she couldn't leave the house. She did not

0:06:13.400 --> 0:06:16.520
<v Speaker 1>attend the awards ceremony for the book Industry. Now. The

0:06:16.520 --> 0:06:18.840
<v Speaker 1>only time she's left her house since this happened last

0:06:18.839 --> 0:06:21.320
<v Speaker 1>week of April was to go visit her lawyers, and

0:06:21.360 --> 0:06:22.919
<v Speaker 1>she was followed the entire way.

0:06:23.360 --> 0:06:27.840
<v Speaker 2>Did Nagi Mahashi file a lawsuit against her, so there is.

0:06:27.760 --> 0:06:32.960
<v Speaker 1>Not actually a copyright infringement lawsuit filed yet. Naji Mahashi

0:06:33.000 --> 0:06:36.400
<v Speaker 1>has taken it to her lawyers, who have reached out

0:06:36.480 --> 0:06:39.040
<v Speaker 1>to the lawyers for the publishing house to publish Bake

0:06:39.120 --> 0:06:41.760
<v Speaker 1>with Brookie the Penguin Random House Group, and the two

0:06:41.800 --> 0:06:46.719
<v Speaker 1>sides have exchanged letters, apparently making accusations and denying accusations

0:06:46.760 --> 0:06:49.039
<v Speaker 1>and Brooke Bellamy. One of the few postings she's done

0:06:49.240 --> 0:06:52.360
<v Speaker 1>is a complete denial and an explanation that much of

0:06:52.720 --> 0:06:56.600
<v Speaker 1>the recipe business, both in baked goods and dinners lunches

0:06:56.640 --> 0:06:59.320
<v Speaker 1>and things. All that is derivative to start with, and

0:06:59.400 --> 0:07:03.120
<v Speaker 1>you build on the same foundation, and therefore she does

0:07:03.160 --> 0:07:07.640
<v Speaker 1>not believe that she did anything this reputable, dishonest alone unlawful.

0:07:07.960 --> 0:07:11.360
<v Speaker 2>But if the recipe can't be copyrighted, what are the

0:07:11.400 --> 0:07:14.800
<v Speaker 2>allegations or causes of action you could even bring.

0:07:15.240 --> 0:07:18.160
<v Speaker 1>So it's not that recipes can't be copyrighted. In theory,

0:07:18.200 --> 0:07:21.000
<v Speaker 1>they can be copyrighted. It's just very hard to do that.

0:07:21.080 --> 0:07:23.680
<v Speaker 1>And to the extent that you have copyright protection, it

0:07:23.720 --> 0:07:26.880
<v Speaker 1>almost has to be an exact duplicate of the recipe

0:07:26.920 --> 0:07:31.080
<v Speaker 1>to constitute copyright infringement. A lot of what's going on

0:07:31.280 --> 0:07:35.840
<v Speaker 1>here is moral posturing. There is this background noise that

0:07:36.000 --> 0:07:40.120
<v Speaker 1>is being created that somehow Brook Bellamy is not being honest,

0:07:40.480 --> 0:07:43.320
<v Speaker 1>is stealing other people's works. Won't say being a fraud,

0:07:43.400 --> 0:07:46.320
<v Speaker 1>but you know that's the implication that people want to draw.

0:07:46.560 --> 0:07:48.880
<v Speaker 1>In a very competitive industry in which people are fighting

0:07:48.880 --> 0:07:51.600
<v Speaker 1>for book sales and attention, June, this is not something

0:07:51.640 --> 0:07:53.960
<v Speaker 1>that's new. The problem is that the law is so

0:07:54.160 --> 0:07:57.280
<v Speaker 1>weak in the area it almost invites plagiarism, if not

0:07:57.360 --> 0:08:01.120
<v Speaker 1>copyright infringement. I mean, you take the very first US

0:08:01.240 --> 0:08:06.560
<v Speaker 1>American cookbook, very famous book called American Cookery by Amelia Simmons,

0:08:06.560 --> 0:08:10.120
<v Speaker 1>who was apparently a domestic servant in a household in

0:08:10.160 --> 0:08:14.360
<v Speaker 1>Connecticut in the Early Republic, and she published this herself.

0:08:14.400 --> 0:08:17.000
<v Speaker 1>She paid for it in seventeen ninety six. And it

0:08:17.080 --> 0:08:20.920
<v Speaker 1>was unique because it used exclusively American ingredients, it used

0:08:20.960 --> 0:08:24.480
<v Speaker 1>American cooking language, and put forward a lot of very

0:08:24.480 --> 0:08:28.040
<v Speaker 1>famous but duil that time, sub rosa American recipes. So

0:08:28.120 --> 0:08:31.080
<v Speaker 1>this was the first cookbook to have pumpkin pie in it.

0:08:31.320 --> 0:08:35.000
<v Speaker 1>It was the first cookbook to suggest cranberried sauce with turkey.

0:08:35.280 --> 0:08:37.640
<v Speaker 1>It was the first cookbook to use the word cookie.

0:08:37.920 --> 0:08:41.080
<v Speaker 1>And it sold more copies than any other book in

0:08:41.280 --> 0:08:44.560
<v Speaker 1>the Early Republic other than the Bible. The problem was,

0:08:44.840 --> 0:08:47.480
<v Speaker 1>as miss Simmons said in her second edition, so she

0:08:47.559 --> 0:08:49.880
<v Speaker 1>wasn't making any money off of it. People were freely

0:08:49.960 --> 0:08:52.839
<v Speaker 1>copying it and distributing it very widely. The main reason

0:08:52.840 --> 0:08:55.160
<v Speaker 1>she came out with secondition was to correct errors that

0:08:55.200 --> 0:08:58.080
<v Speaker 1>the publisher had made that were pretty big errors regarding

0:08:58.200 --> 0:09:00.160
<v Speaker 1>types of ingredients to be used, in the amount, some

0:09:00.200 --> 0:09:02.240
<v Speaker 1>temperatures to be cooked. Pad But I mean historians have

0:09:02.280 --> 0:09:04.920
<v Speaker 1>called this book the second tech question of independence, because

0:09:04.920 --> 0:09:06.920
<v Speaker 1>he said to Americans, we no longer have to follow

0:09:06.960 --> 0:09:10.160
<v Speaker 1>British cooking traditions, baking traditions. We have everything we need

0:09:10.200 --> 0:09:13.000
<v Speaker 1>here to be Americans. Even in our domestic household, was

0:09:13.120 --> 0:09:16.520
<v Speaker 1>very influential with women. And yet there was massive plagiarism

0:09:16.600 --> 0:09:18.920
<v Speaker 1>for fifty years, to the extent where people were starting

0:09:18.920 --> 0:09:21.240
<v Speaker 1>to substitute out her name, so she wasn't even getting credit.

0:09:21.360 --> 0:09:23.400
<v Speaker 1>He flashed forward in time and he come to nineteen

0:09:23.440 --> 0:09:25.640
<v Speaker 1>eighty four, and you have this famous case between Richard

0:09:25.679 --> 0:09:28.600
<v Speaker 1>Only and Richard Nelson. Richard Only had written a number

0:09:28.679 --> 0:09:32.000
<v Speaker 1>of French recipe books in English, very influential in bringing

0:09:32.000 --> 0:09:34.800
<v Speaker 1>French cooking to America, and Richard Nelson came out with

0:09:34.840 --> 0:09:37.320
<v Speaker 1>a new book on American French recipes, I think it

0:09:37.360 --> 0:09:40.079
<v Speaker 1>was called and Richard Only said, wait, Assican, I count

0:09:40.160 --> 0:09:42.480
<v Speaker 1>thirty nine recipes that you took out of my book.

0:09:42.559 --> 0:09:46.240
<v Speaker 1>And he actually filed a lawsuit, and the defendant agreed

0:09:46.400 --> 0:09:49.200
<v Speaker 1>to the entry of an order stipulating that there had

0:09:49.240 --> 0:09:52.160
<v Speaker 1>been infringement, so it wasn't aggressively litigate. He just wanted

0:09:52.160 --> 0:09:54.960
<v Speaker 1>to get rid of the lawsuit and entered into a

0:09:55.000 --> 0:09:59.120
<v Speaker 1>stipulated order, but there's a case where copyright lawsuit was

0:09:59.160 --> 0:10:01.839
<v Speaker 1>actually foiled. It Flash forward in time to twenty twenty

0:10:01.880 --> 0:10:04.800
<v Speaker 1>one in the UK and the publishing house Bloomsbury withdrew

0:10:04.920 --> 0:10:09.120
<v Speaker 1>what was a really enthusiastically expect that new book on

0:10:09.200 --> 0:10:15.040
<v Speaker 1>Singaporean recipes by Elizabeth Hey and another Singaporean chef, Sharon.

0:10:15.080 --> 0:10:17.280
<v Speaker 1>We had a last year that most of the recipes

0:10:17.320 --> 0:10:19.800
<v Speaker 1>were taken from an older book by her, and the

0:10:19.840 --> 0:10:23.199
<v Speaker 1>publishing house withdrew the work. They'd already printed some seventeen

0:10:23.240 --> 0:10:25.800
<v Speaker 1>thousand copies and we're ready to go to market, and

0:10:25.960 --> 0:10:29.480
<v Speaker 1>just the mere suggestion that there had been copyright infringement

0:10:29.840 --> 0:10:32.160
<v Speaker 1>caused them to withdraw the work and not publish it.

0:10:32.240 --> 0:10:35.800
<v Speaker 1>In effect, so we have this long history of disputes

0:10:35.800 --> 0:10:40.959
<v Speaker 1>of recipes and cookbooks, despite this whole legalarity being sort

0:10:41.000 --> 0:10:43.520
<v Speaker 1>of a gray area as to whether or not there

0:10:43.600 --> 0:10:47.040
<v Speaker 1>is protection, there's not protection. What's protected? How much do

0:10:47.080 --> 0:10:49.199
<v Speaker 1>you have to take to get protection? How much do

0:10:49.240 --> 0:10:50.760
<v Speaker 1>you need to take in order to be able to

0:10:50.840 --> 0:10:53.440
<v Speaker 1>bring on infringement lawsuits? But they keep coming up, you know,

0:10:53.520 --> 0:10:56.520
<v Speaker 1>every decade or so, and now this dispute would refell me.

0:10:56.600 --> 0:10:59.120
<v Speaker 1>It's just another example of that down under this time.

0:10:59.320 --> 0:11:02.200
<v Speaker 1>But the sub and the law of copyright is the

0:11:02.320 --> 0:11:05.920
<v Speaker 1>same under Australian US UK law when it comes to

0:11:06.080 --> 0:11:08.680
<v Speaker 1>cookbooks and recipes, and so it's just interesting to see

0:11:08.720 --> 0:11:11.559
<v Speaker 1>this flare up from time to time across the different continents.

0:11:11.760 --> 0:11:15.640
<v Speaker 2>The one I remember as the one involving Jessica Seinfeld

0:11:16.120 --> 0:11:18.439
<v Speaker 2>was sued over a children's cookbook.

0:11:18.559 --> 0:11:22.920
<v Speaker 1>Absolutely another great example there. The lawsuit was actually filed

0:11:23.160 --> 0:11:27.240
<v Speaker 1>the way the expression was written up in the cookbook.

0:11:27.280 --> 0:11:30.400
<v Speaker 1>There was a little bit more meat for the copyright

0:11:30.480 --> 0:11:33.640
<v Speaker 1>and infringement lawsuit. But remember who won that case. The

0:11:33.640 --> 0:11:37.480
<v Speaker 1>defendant actually got a judgment in her favor saying that

0:11:37.559 --> 0:11:40.680
<v Speaker 1>this was not protect at work. But again another example

0:11:40.679 --> 0:11:44.120
<v Speaker 1>of an attempt to use copyright law to achieve some

0:11:44.160 --> 0:11:48.040
<v Speaker 1>sort of intellectual protection for recipes and cookbooks. But I

0:11:48.080 --> 0:11:50.400
<v Speaker 1>think this will just continue on and on because there

0:11:50.480 --> 0:11:52.079
<v Speaker 1>is no certainty in this area.

0:11:52.559 --> 0:11:56.200
<v Speaker 2>So if Naji Mahashi came to you and said, take

0:11:56.240 --> 0:11:58.680
<v Speaker 2>my case I want to sue, would you take the case?

0:11:58.760 --> 0:11:59.840
<v Speaker 2>What would her chances be?

0:12:00.320 --> 0:12:03.400
<v Speaker 1>You know, I think I would say that your chances

0:12:03.440 --> 0:12:08.520
<v Speaker 1>of getting ultimately a verdict for damages in a copyright

0:12:08.559 --> 0:12:12.880
<v Speaker 1>infringement lawsuit would not be good. However, Australia does have

0:12:12.960 --> 0:12:15.800
<v Speaker 1>one feature in it's copyright law that the United States

0:12:15.920 --> 0:12:18.160
<v Speaker 1>law does not have, is this notion of moral rights.

0:12:18.240 --> 0:12:20.880
<v Speaker 1>When you use somebody else's work in this way, you

0:12:21.240 --> 0:12:24.080
<v Speaker 1>have to give them credit or you've committed a separate,

0:12:24.200 --> 0:12:28.679
<v Speaker 1>unlawful action, which is at least remediable by an injunction

0:12:29.080 --> 0:12:32.360
<v Speaker 1>requiring that credit be given where credit is due. And

0:12:32.440 --> 0:12:34.319
<v Speaker 1>so there is that options, But my advice would be

0:12:34.400 --> 0:12:37.480
<v Speaker 1>to go about it exactly the way Naja Mahashi's listeners

0:12:37.480 --> 0:12:39.640
<v Speaker 1>are feeling about it. You bring up the issue with

0:12:39.760 --> 0:12:41.760
<v Speaker 1>the publishing house and you say, look, we think there's

0:12:41.760 --> 0:12:44.840
<v Speaker 1>a problem here, and see what they say, and then

0:12:45.040 --> 0:12:47.320
<v Speaker 1>if they deny it, you have a base to take

0:12:47.360 --> 0:12:49.560
<v Speaker 1>that to the court of public opinion. Is being done

0:12:49.640 --> 0:12:52.120
<v Speaker 1>here and see what happened, because after all, a lot

0:12:52.160 --> 0:12:54.800
<v Speaker 1>of what's going on here has to do with competition

0:12:55.000 --> 0:12:58.480
<v Speaker 1>within the cookbook field, and there's this general perception that

0:12:58.640 --> 0:13:02.560
<v Speaker 1>you should not be adriizing other people's recipes. But if

0:13:02.600 --> 0:13:05.280
<v Speaker 1>you choose to do so, you ask permission and give credit.

0:13:05.559 --> 0:13:09.520
<v Speaker 1>And I cannot tell you, June how many potential copyright cases.

0:13:09.640 --> 0:13:12.679
<v Speaker 1>I've been able to avoid on behalf of my clients

0:13:12.840 --> 0:13:16.280
<v Speaker 1>simply by telling them, look, say you're sorry, and give

0:13:16.360 --> 0:13:19.440
<v Speaker 1>full credit, because at the end of the day, that's

0:13:19.600 --> 0:13:22.360
<v Speaker 1>often what it's all about. They just want to be

0:13:22.520 --> 0:13:26.400
<v Speaker 1>recognized as this was their creation, this was their work,

0:13:26.559 --> 0:13:30.280
<v Speaker 1>and especially in this field of cookbooks recipes, permissions are

0:13:30.360 --> 0:13:34.240
<v Speaker 1>often granted to allow someone to use another person's recipe.

0:13:34.360 --> 0:13:36.120
<v Speaker 1>You just have to ask and then give credit. And

0:13:36.160 --> 0:13:38.360
<v Speaker 1>I think that's the big lesson to be learned here

0:13:38.440 --> 0:13:41.760
<v Speaker 1>with respect to copyright law in the context of cookbooks

0:13:41.800 --> 0:13:43.199
<v Speaker 1>and recipes, because.

0:13:42.920 --> 0:13:45.400
<v Speaker 2>It seems like the damage has already been done here.

0:13:45.520 --> 0:13:46.920
<v Speaker 2>I mean, she's hiding in her house.

0:13:47.440 --> 0:13:52.040
<v Speaker 1>I think this is probably an enormous financial hit. Certainly

0:13:52.080 --> 0:13:56.600
<v Speaker 1>it's bound to affect sales of her book, Bake with Brookie.

0:13:56.880 --> 0:14:00.240
<v Speaker 1>She's taken down her social media and when you have

0:14:00.840 --> 0:14:05.560
<v Speaker 1>a large portion of your persona wrapped up as an

0:14:05.600 --> 0:14:08.760
<v Speaker 1>online influencer in the social media forms, to have that

0:14:08.840 --> 0:14:12.280
<v Speaker 1>simply disappear, it's not just personally hurtful to you, it's

0:14:12.400 --> 0:14:16.080
<v Speaker 1>financially damaging. Because they are with that many followers, they

0:14:16.120 --> 0:14:19.480
<v Speaker 1>are able to monetize that amount of followers, and all

0:14:19.520 --> 0:14:22.560
<v Speaker 1>that money is being lost as well, So the damage

0:14:22.560 --> 0:14:24.840
<v Speaker 1>has probably been done regardless of whether you need a

0:14:24.960 --> 0:14:28.040
<v Speaker 1>lawsuit to be filed, and we'll just have to wait

0:14:28.080 --> 0:14:32.640
<v Speaker 1>and see whether mis Mahashi does follow through with a lawsuit, and.

0:14:32.560 --> 0:14:37.120
<v Speaker 2>The repercussions for Bellamy seem to be continuing. Thanks so much, Terry.

0:14:37.520 --> 0:14:41.040
<v Speaker 2>That's Terrence Ross of Catain Mutchen Rosenman, and that's it

0:14:41.080 --> 0:14:43.680
<v Speaker 2>for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you

0:14:43.720 --> 0:14:46.200
<v Speaker 2>can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg

0:14:46.240 --> 0:14:49.880
<v Speaker 2>Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

0:14:50.080 --> 0:14:55.120
<v Speaker 2>and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law,

0:14:55.520 --> 0:14:58.080
<v Speaker 2>and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

0:14:58.160 --> 0:15:02.280
<v Speaker 2>weeknight at ten pm Walston Time. I'm June Grosso and

0:15:02.320 --> 0:15:03.760
<v Speaker 2>you're listening to Bloomberg.

0:15:04.800 --> 0:15:10.880
<v Speaker 1>M mhm