Snopes Beclowns Itself

[Doghouse Reilly]

"Unproven" is what Snopes calls any claim that can't be verified. There's nothing wrong with this claim being ruled "unproven".

And no, nobody would see "unproven" and think "there must be some truth to this".

I disagree, "unproven" isn't a valid category for this claim because of the fact that it is literally impossible to "steal" a recipe, since recipes cannot be copyrighted. This fact also makes it extremely unlikely that he ever would have paid her $1200 for the recipe.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

In the articles I've read it seems that their standard is to list a claim as unproven if there isn't evidence proving or disproving it, reserving false for claims with clear evidence against them or clear evidence of fabrication.

Seems like a reasonable standard. Why should you expect them to call this particular claim false?

Because it's legally impossible to steal a recipe, so it is simply not possible for the claim to be anything other than "false."

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

In other words, "Unproven"*

Evidence doesn't work the way you think it does. A claim of "False" requires exculpatory evidence, i.e. a smoking gun that show the claim to be definitely untrue.


* That said, I would like to see them reach a conclusion of "Unlikely" in this sort of situation.

The exculpatory evidence is that a recipe cannot be stolen.

 

[arthwollipot]

The exculpatory evidence is that a recipe cannot be stolen.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

Recipe Plagiarism in the Food World Is Still Rampant

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

It's a bit more complicated than that.

Recipe Plagiarism in the Food World Is Still Rampant

That article discusses literary plagiarism, which is an entirely different subject. It is never illegal to make any recipe that exists, whether or not it is in a cookbook. Therefore it would not have been even remotely illegal or thieving for Colonel Sanders to use someone else's recipe in his restaurant.

So the claim should absolutely, unequivocally be declared "False" rather than "Unproven" as its entire premise is wrong.

 

[arthwollipot]

That article discusses literary plagiarism, which is an entirely different subject. It is never illegal to make any recipe that exists, whether or not it is in a cookbook. Therefore it would not have been even remotely illegal or thieving for Colonel Sanders to use someone else's recipe in his restaurant.

So the claim should absolutely, unequivocally be declared "False" rather than "Unproven" as its entire premise is wrong.

Except, as that article that you clearly only skimmed pointed out, it's a bit more complicated than that. Technically you are correct (and as we all know that's the best kind of correct) in that there is no law that makes recreating someone else's recipe illegal. If the recipe is written down there are copyright issues if you republish it directly. However, in the professional chef community, recipe plagiarism is considered at best deeply unethical - similar to a comedian stealing another comedian's jokes. It's certainly done, but people who do it are regarded very poorly by their peers.

The Snopes article isn't considering whether Sanders broke the law, it is considering whether Sanders stole the recipe. And it has not been conclusively demonstrated that he did, therefore the claim is unproven.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Except, as that article that you clearly only skimmed pointed out, it's a bit more complicated than that. Technically you are correct (and as we all know that's the best kind of correct) in that there is no law that makes recreating someone else's recipe illegal. If the recipe is written down there are copyright issues if you republish it directly. However, in the professional chef community, recipe plagiarism is considered at best deeply unethical - similar to a comedian stealing another comedian's jokes. It's certainly done, but people who do it are regarded very poorly by their peers.

The Snopes article isn't considering whether Sanders broke the law, it is considering whether Sanders stole the recipe. And it has not been conclusively demonstrated that he did, therefore the claim is unproven.

I actually read the whole thing, and I wasn't trying to be pedantic. I view the term "stealing" as a legal concept, not a moral one. I've linked to an interesting article that discusses the issues in the context of France and the United States. The first quote supports my contention that there was clearly no "stealing" possible. I think it would have been better if Snopes had clarified that there was no legal issue here.

As for the ethical issues, the second quote addresses the fact that we're dealing with extra-judicial concepts that require mutual adherence to some kind of professional code, which I think is far too murky to wade into in the context of the Snopes claim considering the lack of any indication that either of these two personalities personally followed such a code. If that counts as "unproven" to you rather than "false" I can understand your point while disagreeing. I think it's clear that neither of the two individuals (one of whom was probably fictional) were part of any "chef community" that would have been concerned with such standards. It was just a guy opening a fried chicken stand and some imaginary woman.

Would it be any different if he had "stolen" the recipe from his mother? What made a recipe "stolen" or not in that era? By what means could one make a claim to have the right to prepare chicken at a restaurant using a particular proportion of specific ingredients?

Don’t Steal My Recipe! A Comparative Study of
French and U.S. Law on the Protection of Culinary
Recipes and Dishes Against Copying

There have only been a few U.S. court cases, but courts have generally ruled that
recipes are functional and therefore cannot be copyrighted. An often cited case on the
interpretation by the courts on this issue is the Meredith case, a case involving a book of Dannon
yogurt recipes.46 Meredith had in 1988 published a book called “Discover Dannon – 50
Fabulous Recipes With Yogurt.” In the case, Meredith alleged that Publications International,
Ltd. copied many of the recipes from their Dannon book and printed in them in various
publications (some of them copying up to 22 recipes). The court stated that the recipes did not
“contain even a bare modicum of the creative expression” that receives copyright protection.
“The identification of ingredients necessary for the preparation of each dish is a statement of
facts.” and also: “[The] recipes’ directions for preparing the assorted dishes fall squarely within
the class of subject matter specifically excluded from copyright protection by 17 U.S.C. §
102(b).” 47 In other words, the court ruled that both the ingredients and the directions were not
protected by copyright, because they are a “procedure, process, [or] system,” and copyright does
not extend to those things. Other cases, such as Lambing v Godiva Chocolatier, involving the
recipe for a chocolate truffle, have ruled in the same way.

Empirical research, conducted in 2006 by Fauchart and von Hippel, concludes that chefs find
ways to protect their creations through norms-based intellectual property (IP) systems, and get
protection analogous to what they could to with legal means. 97 These norms operate entirely
upon the basis of implicit social norms that are held in common by members of a given
community. The authors identify three strong implicit social norms related to the protection of
recipe IP and find that accomplished chefs enforce these norms, and apply them in ways that
enhance their private economic returns from their recipe-related IP. (1) A chef must not copy
another chef’s recipe innovation exactly. (2) If a chef reveals recipe-related secret information to
a colleague, that chef must not pass the information on to others without permission. (3)
Colleagues must credit developers of significant recipes as the authors of that information.98
This leads the authors to conclude that information not afforded the protection of intellectual
property law may nonetheless be controlled and enforced by an effective intellectual property
regime based entirely on implicit norms. Their conclusion is that norms based IP is an important
complement to or substitute for law-based intellectual property systems.

https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=working

 

[arthwollipot]

Some people have considered patenting recipes, I believe, but even that seems like it would be problematic.

Regardless, there is no proof that Sanders plagiarised the recipe. I don't understand how that should not be categorised as "unproven". It is literally that. There is a claim for which there is no proof - it is unproven.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I actually read the whole thing, and I wasn't trying to be pedantic. I view the term "stealing" as a legal concept, not a moral one. I've linked to an interesting article that discusses the issues in the context of France and the United States. The first quote supports my contention that there was clearly no "stealing" possible. I think it would have been better if Snopes had clarified that there was no legal issue here.

Which is of course why stealing jokes is a BS concept comedians try to push on the public.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Some people have considered patenting recipes, I believe, but even that seems like it would be problematic.

Regardless, there is no proof that Sanders plagiarised the recipe. I don't understand how that should not be categorised as "unproven". It is literally that. There is a claim for which there is no proof - it is unproven.

And this is also something that is impossible to prove didn't happen as well. There is literally no evidence at all on either side.

 

[applecorped]

It can never be proven that's why it's false

 

[Steve]

It can never be proven that's why it's false

 

[johnny karate]

It can never be proven that's why it's false

Cool. Now we know for sure that god doesn't exist.

 

[Butter!]

Cool. Now we know for sure that god doesn't exist.

Oh snap!

Walked right into that one, app.

 

[Upchurch]

It can never be proven that's why it's false

Cool. Now we know for sure that god doesn't exist.

Oh snap!

Walked right into that one, app.

I mean, I guess. I'm just struggling to parse the sentence.

There is a reason why something is false, but that reason can not be proven?

Also, which thing cannot be proven false?

 

[applecorped]

 

[Upchurch]

That's kinda how I feel about word salad.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I disagree, "unproven" isn't a valid category for this claim because of the fact that it is literally impossible to "steal" a recipe, since recipes cannot be copyrighted. This fact also makes it extremely unlikely that he ever would have paid her $1200 for the recipe.

Because it's legally impossible to steal a recipe, so it is simply not possible for the claim to be anything other than "false."

The exculpatory evidence is that a recipe cannot be stolen.

Recipes are often protected trade secrets. As such they can be stolen, bought, sold, and much litigation money can be made from them. See: Coca-Cola.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Some people have considered patenting recipes, I believe, but even that seems like it would be problematic.

You can get a patent on a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, for a bit anyway.

 

[Minoosh]

With the caveat that I've never heard of the following website and can't really vouch for it, here's some more information about the evolution of fact checking:
The 5 best unbiased fact checking sites for finding the truth

Oddly IMO it lists Google search results as a "site" that can be mined for truth, which is sort of true but seems to ignore the fact (if it's a fact) that search results can vary based on someone's surfing habits. People are given credit for being able to learn how to use search results critically and tell which sites are unbiased, if there is such a thing.

It seems to me that some people think dismiss fact-checking sites as unnecessary, irrelevant or biased, but do people really think facts don't matter? Facts, alternative facts, who cares as long as it makes me feel good? My own confirmation bias probably makes me apply this more to conservatives than liberals, but I'd really like to see the same rigor applied to the claims of all people running for office.