Creative license...

So....this topic seams to be popping up everywhere I look, and I want some foodie "perspective" (to quote Anton Ego) on it, What makes a dish on your menu "Your" dish?? (this is mainly directed at industry folks). There are a lot of "signature" dishes out there and, rest assured, I have created quite a few over the years. The caviat here is that, even though I have put my personal stamp on many of them, they are all variations on a theme that have been done before by some other pro (Escoffier comes to mind here)......I guess my point is, is there really any dishes that are not borrowed, stolen, enhanced, augmented, or otherwise created that are unique? When the rubber meets the road, there is really no "new" vegetables,meats,grains etc. being invented or discovered for the most part, so how you use them is what really matters. If I see, and eat my EXACT variation of a particular dish at another venue, should I be upset?? I think I should!! What defines you as a Chef is how you think outside the box and create the unique dish. Then and only then can you call it your own. Just my .02 and feel free to chime in with your take on taking??

I saw this thread started on FB, then it disappeared. I think you've got it! You take a dish you've eaten, seen, heard described and put your own spin on it. That makes that variation yours. The next chef puts a new spin on it and that variation becomes theirs. Will there be some close duplicates if taken in a world view? Oh sure, but two chefs, even if following the same recipe will produce two slightly different variations. (I always consider a recipe just a suggestion anyway.)

It's an interesting concept when extended to my part of the culinary world. Cake designers have "robust" discussions on whether it's flattering to have someone copy your cake or it's just a rip off. While there may not be many truly, absolutely unique cake designs, flat out copying another's design is food plagiarism in my world. If I'm not talented enough to create something with at least a little different spin, then I shouldn't call myself a cake designer.

There's nothing wrong with being a baker. There's nothing wrong with being a cook. But, I believe that if you're gonna answer when someone calls out "chef" then you need to be adding something to the collective betterment of the profession - new variations on classic dishes, new cake designs, new methods to prepare foods, whatever. Just keep advancing our field.

As Carla said on Top Chef, "There's Man Law and there's Chef Law . . ."

I think it's a temporal issue. If one pretty much exactly copies a dish that another chef is currently serving (especially if the sauce and plating are very similar), bad chef.

If you do it at some decent remove after the first guy has stopped serving it, well, then - you can call it a "tribute", but if questioned please own up to your inspiration.

I saw this thread started on FB, then it disappeared. I think you've got it! You take a dish you've eaten, seen, heard described and put your own spin on it. That makes that variation yours. The next chef puts a new spin on it and that variation becomes theirs. Will there be some close duplicates if taken in a world view? Oh sure, but two chefs, even if following the same recipe will produce two slightly different variations. (I always consider a recipe just a suggestion anyway.)

It's an interesting concept when extended to my part of the culinary world. Cake designers have "robust" discussions on whether it's flattering to have someone copy your cake or it's just a rip off. While there may not be many truly, absolutely unique cake designs, flat out copying another's design is food plagiarism in my world. If I'm not talented enough to create something with at least a little different spin, then I shouldn't call myself a cake designer.

There's nothing wrong with being a baker. There's nothing wrong with being a cook. But, I believe that if you're gonna answer when someone calls out "chef" then you need to be adding something to the collective betterment of the profession - new variations on classic dishes, new cake designs, new methods to prepare foods, whatever. Just keep advancing our field.

As Carla said on Top Chef, "There's Man Law and there's Chef Law . . ."

Well stated Leah!! (I saw him steal that pea puree too...bastard!). Here is a real world example for ya. If I take some chicken breast, saute it thin, throw some Finchville Farms ham and white cheddar on it with some lemon, sage, white wine and butter and serve it with Weisenburger grits, it is basically a "Saltimboca" , a classic Northern Italian dish, with a new Southern twist.........and it's mine!! (and if I ever see that anywhere else...there will be blood) However, if I take some eggplant, fry it up in Panko, and call it an "Eggplant Napolean"...is it mine?? Well, No!! To be clear, I "borrowed" the basic recipe from a man I very much respect in California and added a "twist" to it.Soooo.....do I call people out on this? I do if it is my EXACT variant and, as far as I know, it is not, nor have I seen it locally. If it is somewhat different and unique...it is fair game. I guess that is the "grey area" that I'm trying to lay down. I know that there are many up and coming chefs that "share" techniques etc. but I think the bottom line here is, if you are going to put something on your menu, make sure you are aware of the provenance..? And make it your own!

From a consumers perspective (and said with a polite and respective nod to creative Chefs everywhere).

Funny I was just pondering something along these lines the other day. I'm a "Classic" kinda guy (and I'm quite comfortable with that)...Classic rock, classic cars, classic food. While I certainly respect a Chefs desire to be creative (and I understand how this creativity translates into respect within the business). There are, in my mind, certain classic dishes that should NOT be dicked with...and if they are it should be made very VERY clear on the menu that this is your interpretation of a classic dish...That or you come clean and come up with a completely new name for it and eliminate all confusion. If I (say) go to a restaurant and have a Jones for a Hot Brown, I most likely want a classic Hot Brown, not someone's advant garde interpretation of a Hot Brown. Perfect example of what I'm saying...There is a popular east side restaurant that serves up a "Rueben"sandwich...club sandwich style (3 layers) on sourdough bread. Frankly, the sandwich would suck no matter what they named it but suckage aside, the restaurant has has no business calling this sandwich a Rueben, when in fact it ain't one.

Just my two cents.

From a consumers perspective (and said with a polite and respective nod to creative Chefs everywhere).

Funny I was just pondering something along these lines the other day. I'm a "Classic" kinda guy (and I'm quite comfortable with that)...Classic rock, classic cars, classic food. While I certainly respect a Chefs desire to be creative (and I understand how this creativity translates into respect within the business). There are, in my mind, certain classic dishes that should NOT be dicked with...and if they are it should be made very VERY clear on the menu that this is your interpretation of a classic dish...That or you come clean and come up with a completely new name for it and eliminate all confusion. If I (say) go to a restaurant and have a Jones for a Hot Brown, I most likely want a classic Hot Brown, not someone's advant garde interpretation of a Hot Brown. Perfect example of what I'm saying...There is a popular east side restaurant that serves up a "Rueben"sandwich...club sandwich style (3 layers) on sourdough bread. Frankly, the sandwich would suck no matter what they named it but suckage aside, the restaurant has has no business calling this sandwich a Rueben, when in fact it ain't one.

Just my two cents.

Indeed. There are many classic dishes that I don't personally "dick" with. Bearnaise is Bearnaise, and Hot Brown is Hot Brown....some things should not be deconstructed, foamed, or thrown into a pressure cooker.....we'll leave that for the "amateur experts"....

Not ITB, but my understanding, perhaps incorrect, is that a truly unique recipe using new techniques/preparations can be copyrighted for a modest $$. Conversely, a mere listing of ingredients amounts is not eligible for copyright purposes. So, I guess my question is; Why not go git a copyright if the dish is truly unique and "yours". I'd surely want to protect my intellectual property if I had any.
Bill

Indeed. There are many classic dishes that I don't personally "dick" with. Bearnaise is Bearnaise, and Hot Brown is Hot Brown....some things should not be deconstructed, foamed, or thrown into a pressure cooker.....we'll leave that for the "amateur experts"....

...heh...heh-heh...He said "amateur expert".

Funny thing though, to basically contradict my previous statement...I am at this moment smoking 3 racks of ribs. One is my "classic" recipe and the other two are variations (interpretations if you will) of Vietnamese and Korean style BBQ. So much for All American "Classics"

BTW, I'm also smoking a rack of "peeps" today...They look pretty good but the papers keep getting soggy.

Not ITB, but my understanding, perhaps incorrect, is that a truly unique recipe using new techniques/preparations can be copyrighted for a modest $$. Conversely, a mere listing of ingredients amounts is not eligible for copyright purposes. So, I guess my question is; Why not go git a copyright if the dish is truly unique and "yours". I'd surely want to protect my intellectual property if I had any.
Bill

Would the classic "Derby Pie" be an example of this ? I have heard that the folks who make this pie are freaking rabid when it comes to protecting the name and/or recipe ("intellectual property" if you will). True ?

Not ITB, but my understanding, perhaps incorrect, is that a truly unique recipe using new techniques/preparations can be copyrighted for a modest $$. Conversely, a mere listing of ingredients amounts is not eligible for copyright purposes. So, I guess my question is; Why not go git a copyright if the dish is truly unique and "yours". I'd surely want to protect my intellectual property if I had any.
Bill

Would the classic "Derby Pie" be an example of this ? I have heard that the folks who make this pie are freaking rabid when it comes to protecting the name and/or recipe ("intellectual property" if you will). True ?

Steve-
I'm not familiar Derby Pie dispute, but my suspicion is that it probably involves Trademark as opposed to Copyright, but it is could possibly involve both. I shoulda been and IP Attorney.

[Robin Garr]

Not ITB, but my understanding, perhaps incorrect, is that a truly unique recipe using new techniques/preparations can be copyrighted for a modest $$. Conversely, a mere listing of ingredients amounts is not eligible for copyright purposes. So, I guess my question is; Why not go git a copyright if the dish is truly unique and "yours". I'd surely want to protect my intellectual property if I had any.
Bill

Very interesting sub-thread here.

Curiously, a recipe may not be copyright. Extensive precedent has concluded that a recipe is a "mere" compilation of ingredients and instructions, a list, and thus does not qualify as intellectual property.
http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/2006/01/c ... ghted.html

A cookbook can be copyright, particularly in terms of the introductions and written material around the recipes, but the recipes themselves cannot.

The name Derby-Pie™ is protected, but the recipe is not. You can make your own chocolate-chip-pecan pie and the nice folks at Kern's Kitchen can't send their lawyers out to get you, which is a good thing, since their basic pie was in no way an innovation when they sold the first one. But use the name and they will come after you; it's a long-standing and legally necessary move to prevent the mark from becoming so general in its use that it can no longer be protected.

Whether it's legal or not, though, it certainly ain't right. To answer the OP from the standpoint of a food writer who sometimes publishes articles about cooking, if I create a recipe on my own, I'll brag about it, but if I draw inspiration from a cookbook recipe or restaurant dish, I'll take care to disclose that, even if I change it a lot. It's not a matter of what's legal. It's the right thing to do.

Not ITB, but my understanding, perhaps incorrect, is that a truly unique recipe using new techniques/preparations can be copyrighted for a modest $$. Conversely, a mere listing of ingredients amounts is not eligible for copyright purposes. So, I guess my question is; Why not go git a copyright if the dish is truly unique and "yours". I'd surely want to protect my intellectual property if I had any.
Bill

Would the classic "Derby Pie" be an example of this ? I have heard that the folks who make this pie are freaking rabid when it comes to protecting the name and/or recipe ("intellectual property" if you will). True ?

Steve-
I'm not familiar Derby Pie dispute, but my suspicion is that it probably involves Trademark as opposed to Copyright, but it is could possibly involve both. I shoulda been and IP Attorney.

Steve, I hope those Peeps are "falling off the bone" good. As for the "Derby Pie" issue, I believe it is "illegal" to use that term unless it is an actual Derby Pie manufactured by Kerns. I have put my own twist on it with various recipes and called it "Race Pie", "Walnut Pie, "Furlong Pie", Etc....(everything but cow pie.. )

And just for the sake of clarity Derby Pie has walnuts, not pecans. And no bourbon, sadly. MY version has walnuts AND bourbon.

[Robin Garr]

And just for the sake of clarity Derby Pie has walnuts, not pecans. And no bourbon, sadly. MY version has walnuts AND bourbon.

Anything made with walnuts is always improved by the substitution of pecans.

And just for the sake of clarity Derby Pie has walnuts, not pecans. And no bourbon, sadly. MY version has walnuts AND bourbon.

Anything made with walnuts is always improved by the substitution of pecans.

And bourbon...