# The Elephant in the room



## Polar

Don't know if this has been discussed before, if so feel free to point me there.

How many of our local mixologist simply use big name recipes and rebrand them as their own creations. Recently tasted two big local brands thats either adaptations or direct clones using Diyordie's and Notcharlesmanson's recipes.

Let's not name names, but does this happen a lot?

Reactions: Agree 1 | Optimistic 1


----------



## andro

I dont think you will ever get a real answer

Reactions: Like 3 | Agree 4 | Funny 1


----------



## Soutie

If you are referring to Mr Hardwicks stuff that is by design. Some of the juices are made in collaboration with DiyorDie and im pretty sure there are royalties etc paid due to this.

Reactions: Like 2 | Thanks 1


----------



## Rude Rudi

It is rife and a shame...but if it sells, why not? The average vaper (not in the DIY field) has no idea of the plethora of clone recipes available and will happily pay for the latest and greatest flavour/name. 

This is unfortunately about the numbers and is sadly a reality in today's online culture. 

I must add that their 'luck' will eventually run out as the 'rebranders' have to compete against the other 'rebranders' while the real mixologists will continue to innovate and launch unique and innovate juice (only to be cloned and flogged cheaply at a flea market). 

It's a vicious circle but a stark reality...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Effjh

I think the matter has been settled via PM. He was just unaware of a certain partnership. Easy mistake. @method1

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## craigb

On a similar note, what's the feelings on mixologists mixing by request?

So they don't advertise recipe X, but a client sends them famous recipe X and says can you mix me 500ml of this?

I would see it as making money off the service and not the recipe.

Just something I've been pondering.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## KB_314

craigb said:


> On a similar note, what's the feelings on mixologists mixing by request?
> 
> So they don't advertise recipe X, but a client sends them famous recipe X and says can you mix me 500ml of this?
> 
> I would see it as making money off the service and not the recipe.
> 
> Just something I've been pondering.


It's an interesting question and one that I encountered myself quite recently. imo, it's not crossing any lines in that, it's an "out-in-the-open" clone, even if the recipe is freely available online. For example, I'd love to start DIYing but I have a manic job and barely time to vape let alone mix. Plus, I'm sure a skilled mixer would do a lot better than I would with the same given recipe. So long as the price was substantially lower than the original and certainly much lower than the price of local commercial eliquid, I might consider trying it and giving said mixer something practically un-cloneable as a test  Just my 2c - it's more palatable than a vendor selling ejuice commercially that's nothing but a clone recipe off google.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## rogue zombie

craigb said:


> On a similar note, what's the feelings on mixologists mixing by request?
> 
> So they don't advertise recipe X, but a client sends them famous recipe X and says can you mix me 500ml of this?
> 
> I would see it as making money off the service and not the recipe.
> 
> Just something I've been pondering.



I'd say; mix it yourself you lazy bastard

Reactions: Funny 7


----------



## Feliks Karp

I've had the pleasure of getting to try a few of @method1 's experiments, dude has no reason to clone anything, absolutely knows what he is doing. 

There was a certain idiot in cpt (maybe he is still active) that was directly cloning everything and selling it, so it does happen but mainly from fly-by-nighters.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Gersh

This reminds me of the movie Founder, where a salesman saw an opportunity to create something big out of something small. 

So who's the fool, you for releasing an amazing recipe for free or that other person for "believing" he can make it his own. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BumbleBee

This crap is happening all over! I had a guy come in to my little small town shop to introduce me to his juice line which he has mixed by a professional mixer in Joburg, this guy bottles and brands it with his own label. He tells me that the friend that mixes the juice also does a really nice one called "Bronuts" if I'm interested. He's also selling this stuff to retailers and tobacconists as "Premium Imports"!

So yeah, this is big. We have unscrupulous bandwagon highjackers doing this on a relatively large scale, and they're not shy about it either.

Reactions: Like 3 | Agree 2 | Informative 2 | Dislike 1


----------



## rogue zombie

BumbleBee said:


> This crap is happening all over! I had a guy come in to my little small town shop to introduce me to his juice line which he has mixed by a professional mixer in Joburg, this guy bottles and brands it with his own label. He tells me that the friend that mixes the juice also does a really nice one called "Bronuts" if I'm interested. He's also selling this stuff to retailers and tobacconists as "Premium Imports"!
> 
> So yeah, this is big. We have unscrupulous bandwagon highjackers doing this on a relatively large scale, and they're not shy about it either.



Lol.. I read NotCharlesManson went to a B&M and they tried to sell him his own Strawberry Shortcake Bar, as their juice

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 4


----------



## method1

rogue zombie said:


> Lol.. I read NotCharlesManson went to a B&M and they tried to sell him his own Strawberry Shortcake Bar



Manson actually met a guy who claimed that HE was NCM. Talk about getting bust!

Reactions: Funny 5


----------



## rogue zombie

method1 said:


> Manson actually met a guy who claimed that HE was NCM. Talk about getting bust!



Lmao... Oh no


----------



## method1

Yeah!

I recently have had an incident with a guy going around (someone I've never met or spoken to) to stores claiming he mixes for us and trying to pawn off some of his own mixes.
I suppose the con is that because he is our "head mixer" his stuff must be good & shops should buy it.
These kind of things seem to be happening more often now.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## BumbleBee

method1 said:


> Yeah!
> 
> I recently have had an incident with a guy going around (someone I've never met or spoken to) to stores claiming he mixes for us and trying to pawn off some of his own mixes.
> I suppose the con is that because he is our "head mixer" his stuff must be good & shops should buy it.
> These kind of things seem to be happening more often now.


unfknblvble

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## case82

This is really a pain in the backside. I have been mixing for the last 3 years and finally mustered up the courage to launch my own line. All my recipes are 100% original, i dont even look at the ocean of recipes online as they are all clones of clones and lack serious imagination. Now with all this going on, you try and get samples out to vendors and they just dump it in a box of samples filled with a bunch of crappy clones. What is one to do?!

Reactions: Can relate 2


----------



## BumbleBee

case82 said:


> This is really a pain in the backside. I have been mixing for the last 3 years and finally mustered up the courage to launch my own line. All my recipes are 100% original, i dont even look at the ocean of recipes online as they are all clones of clones and lack serious imagination. Now with all this going on, you try and get samples out to vendors and they just dump it in a box of samples filled with a bunch of crappy clones. What is one to do?!


Exactly this!


----------



## Caveman

case82 said:


> This is really a pain in the backside. I have been mixing for the last 3 years and finally mustered up the courage to launch my own line. All my recipes are 100% original, i dont even look at the ocean of recipes online as they are all clones of clones and lack serious imagination. Now with all this going on, you try and get samples out to vendors and they just dump it in a box of samples filled with a bunch of crappy clones. What is one to do?!



Yeah that does suck. Not sure how your work life looks, but maybe online only is an option for you?


----------



## K-rusha

Hi 

Just a quick question, I've been mixing flavours and selling them to a few people around my area (And by few I mean like 2 to 3 people) as I've just started off, and I wanted to print a label for the bottles with just my own vape brand name on it but I was told that I have to register the name first before doing So, is there any truth to this? Because I'm not doing this on a large scale, I'm not sure if I'm even on the scale lol but yeah some advice to this will be much appreciated.

Thanks


----------



## Andre

K-rusha said:


> Hi
> 
> Just a quick question, I've been mixing flavours and selling them to a few people around my area (And by few I mean like 2 to 3 people) as I've just started off, and I wanted to print a label for the bottles with just my own vape brand name on it but I was told that I have to register the name first before doing So, is there any truth to this? Because I'm not doing this on a large scale, I'm not sure if I'm even on the scale lol but yeah some advice to this will be much appreciated.
> 
> Thanks


Most welcome to the forum, @K-rusha. There is not need to register your brand name, but then of course you will have very little legal protection of that name. Also try and make sure it is not a name someone else is using. Happy vaping.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## K-rusha

Andre said:


> Most welcome to the forum, @K-rusha. There is not need to register your brand name, but then of course you will have very little legal protection of that name. Also try and make sure it is not a name someone else is using. Happy vaping.



Thank you so much Andre for your feedback. I appreciate it

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## zandernwn

I'd like to weigh in if I may. I saw a new brand launch very recently with a lot of pomp and ceremony and I am convinced that ALL of the recipes are stolen. I do not wish to call that person out until I have samples of the juice and I get a few other opinions but I happened to have mixed some of those recipes up and I know them intimately and by the flavor descriptions alone I can tell you those are stolen.

Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1 | Can relate 2


----------



## Caveman

zandernwn said:


> I'd like to weigh in if I may. I saw a new brand launch very recently with a lot of pomp and ceremony and I am convinced that ALL of the recipes are stolen. I do not wish to call that person out until I have samples of the juice and I get a few other opinions but I happened to have mixed some of those recipes up and I know them intimately and by the flavor descriptions alone I can tell you those are stolen.
> 
> Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk


You are making very serious accusations there, also if you find a free recipe online and mix it and sell it it's not really stealing, you haven't caused any loss to the creator. If it comes from like a trademarked brand then it's a different case. Simply saying they stole the recipe holds no value and is crazy difficult to prove. Unfortunately it is one of those things, if you give something away for free, you pretty much allow anyone to profit from it.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Agree 1 | Winner 1


----------



## SmokeyJoe

With this threads' heading I thought someone met my ex

Reactions: Funny 8


----------



## kev mac

KB_314 said:


> It's an interesting question and one that I encountered myself quite recently. imo, it's not crossing any lines in that, it's an "out-in-the-open" clone, even if the recipe is freely available online. For example, I'd love to start DIYing but I have a manic job and barely time to vape let alone mix. Plus, I'm sure a skilled mixer would do a lot better than I would with the same given recipe. So long as the price was substantially lower than the original and certainly much lower than the price of local commercial eliquid, I might consider trying it and giving said mixer something practically un-cloneable as a test  Just my 2c - it's more palatable than a vendor selling ejuice commercially that's nothing but a clone recipe off google.


I get your point,even though I DIY my skills are basic and two flavor recipes are possible for me but when I start to mix six or so different flavors of clones my results are uneven.So if a mixer with some expertise could successfully clone a favorite juice for a nominal charge I'd be interested to try it.However some recipes probably can not reproduce the magic that goes into some of our favorites and we a result I will continue to give my cash to the original mixing"artist".

Reactions: Like 5 | Winner 1


----------



## zandernwn

Caveman said:


> You are making very serious accusations there, also if you find a free recipe online and mix it and sell it it's not really stealing, you haven't caused any loss to the creator. If it comes from like a trademarked brand then it's a different case. Simply saying they stole the recipe holds no value and is crazy difficult to prove. Unfortunately it is one of those things, if you give something away for free, you pretty much allow anyone to profit from it.
> 
> Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk



Maybe so and hence why I have not mentioned any names. These recipes are protected under non commercial, no derrivates creative commons licenses. It is not only illegal to make a profit from those recipes without explicit permission from the creator, but it is also in bad taste.

Reactions: Agree 4 | Disagree 1


----------



## Caveman

zandernwn said:


> Maybe so and hence why I have not mentioned any names. These recipes are protected under non commercial, no derrivates creative commons licenses. It is not only illegal to make a profit from those recipes without explicit permission from the creator, but it is also in bad taste.


You should have stated the licence in your original post. I agree fully if that is the case. Very bad taste and although I am all for naming and shaming, it might be out of context on this thread. It really is a pity that it is so difficult to prove it though and is probably why we will not see a lot of legal action being taken. It really peeves me that that we share recipes for all to enjoy and someone goes and makes profit from it.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## zandernwn

Not that difficult to prove. One of the recipe's ingredients will have been subbed as I know it is not availible in South africa. I am in the process of checking the a available alternatives when I do ill be able to replicate it. I am still deciding if I am going to name and shame or just contact the vendor in SA that has a legit commercial agreement in place to distribute on behalf of the creator and I have already been in contact with the creator to tell of my suspicions.

The part I dont get is why would you base you business model around a recipe that can be taken from you in a heartbeat when discovered? It is not as if he was discreet, these are world famous recipes and are highly rated on all the online recipe resources. They just dont get mixed up in sa that often die to the fact the the concentrates are harder to find or people do no tend to keep these at hand



Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Caveman

zandernwn said:


> Not that difficult to prove. One of the recipe's ingredients will have been subbed as I know it is not availible in South africa. I am in the process of checking the a available alternatives when I do ill be able to replicate it. I am still deciding if I am going to name and shame or just contact the vendor in SA that has a legit commercial agreement in place to distribute on behalf of the creator and I have already been in contact with the creator to tell of my suspicions.
> 
> The part I dont get is why would you base you business model around a recipe that can be taken from you in a heartbeat when discovered?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk


It is very difficult to prove. Just to play devils advocate here, you would have to prove that it is impossible that the vendor could not have come across the same flavor profile or ingredients without having access to the recipe, if the vendor could produce notes and test documentation stating that they did in fact come across it in the same manner that would be a major issue. There are just so many variables that legal action is very difficult.

Sounds simpler than it is, although if you are talking about something as iconic as I think you are, it becomes much easier yes. Legally its very difficult especially since its such a new market and there is so much process involved to get the recipe he used and the recipe creator would need to file legal action against the vendor etc etc its probably just not worth it. I agree with your suggestion of contacting the vendor with a legit agreement.

If it is being sold under a brand with a name that is protected, it becomes a lot easier. If it is a recipe found online somewhere, where the original creator does not have brand protections in place, it becomes extremely difficult.

And the part that you don't get is simple really, there are just a lot of shady folks around that don't care and even if it lasts just a while they will still take the chance.

And as a side note, don't think just because it's not available here, you can't get it. I have quite a few ingredients that hasn't been available for a long time here.


----------



## zandernwn

Agreed, on obtaining the concentrates. I have on good authority where he puchased fro hence why I am able to deduct.

You are right, but this is a very prolific profile and I am not sure you are just going to come up with that by youself. I have also been speaking to two very renoun mixers on the sa scene that shares my sentiments.

They key is also that this recipe is commercially availible in SA and is distrubuted under a valid lisence.

I think at the end of the day I will have two very similar recipes to compare side by side. I have narrowed down two alternatiVes for this unique flavoring and I think ill have enough to confront the seller once I prove its the exact same recipe with just that concentrate subbed.

I am not on a witch hunt, but this has to stop somewhere. There are people working very hard to churn out quality recipes and they are being stolen from us.

I have a very recent example where an insanly good juice is about to enter the market with such a unique profile (I have not seen this done anywhere) and yet the juice was bootlegged after it was shared to peers in confidence for feedback.

It has to stop somewhere and I am dead set on calling those out where I see theat happening.

I will first do so discreetly and if there is no joy, I will be banging symbals and let everyone know.

Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## stevie g

If all this is true then why has no one tried to patent a recipe for milk tart you buy at Spar or Pick n Pay.

They didn't create the recipe and it's publicly available but they sell it.

I'm struggling to see the reasoning here.

Wayne's base for strawberry cheesecake was derived from a skiddlzninja recipe, is Wayne now guilty of recipe theft?.

Naming the company will only bring them more publicity. 99.9% of people buying eliquids from the stores don't care about any of this.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## zandernwn

Because the spar milktart did not attach creative commons license when it was issued. 

If you fail to see why a recipe carries copyright protection the. You fail to see why I can take coca colas secret recipe and seel it as cola coke

Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## zandernwn

Its not about reason or opinion. its the law

Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## stevie g

zandernwn said:


> Because the spar milktart did not attach creative commons license when it was issued.
> 
> If you fail to see why a recipe carries copyright protection the. You fail to see why I can take coca colas secret recipe and seel it as cola coke
> 
> Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk


I see,

Quoted from Wikipedia

"There are several types of CC licenses. The licenses differ by several combinations that condition the terms of distribution. They were initially released on December 16, 2002 by Creative Commons, a U.S.non-profit corporation founded in 2001. There have also been five versions of the suite of licenses, numbered 1.0 through 4.0.[1] As of 2016, the 4.0 license suite is the most current."


----------



## Lukeness

If someone publishes their recipes publicly or they are already freely available it would be very hard to prove wrongdoing. Especially when the slightest modification could render it "original". 
As for using available free recipes commercially, as long as they don't claim to have invented it then selling it should be fair game, if people like it enough.


----------



## Caveman

Sprint said:


> If all this is true then why has no one tried to patent a recipe for milk tart you buy at Spar or Pick n Pay.
> 
> They didn't create the recipe and it's publicly available but they sell it.
> 
> I'm struggling to see the reasoning here.
> 
> Wayne's base for strawberry cheesecake was derived from a skiddlzninja recipe, is Wayne now guilty of recipe theft?.
> 
> Naming the company will only bring them more publicity. 99.9% of people buying eliquids from the stores don't care about any of this.


Pretty much my reasoning as well. I would love to see something like this go to court though, would be a very interesting case. In the DIY or DIE case it's different, as someone is selling branded goods without a license thereby illegally using a protected brand name for generating profit. If its simply copying a recipe found online, I would say good luck going down any legal route.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## rogue zombie

Caveman said:


> Pretty much my reasoning as well. I would love to see something like this go to court though, would be a very interesting case. In the DIY or DIE case it's different, as someone is selling branded goods without a license thereby illegally using a protected brand name for generating profit. If its simply copying a recipe found online, I would say good luck going down any legal route.



Afaik you have nothing without trademarks, patents etc.

Look at the nonsense that's happened with 'Rooibos' - no ZA tea brand bothered to patent it and thus it was free-for-all to use.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RooibosFrom Wiki

In 1994, Burke International registered the name "Rooibos" with the US Patent and Trademark Office, thus establishing a monopoly on the name in the United States at a time when it was virtually unknown there. When the plant later entered more widespread use, Burke demanded that companies either pay fees for use of the name, or cease its use. In 2005, the American Herbal Products Association and a number of import companies succeeded in defeating the trademark through petitions and lawsuits; after losing one of the cases, Burke surrendered the name to the public domain.[11]

*Legal protection of the name rooibosEdit*
The South African Department of Trade and Industry issued final rules on 6 September 2013 that protects and restricts the use of the names "rooibos", "red bush", "rooibostee", "rooibos tea", "rooitee" and "rooibosch" in that country, so that the name cannot be used for things not derived from the _Aspalathus linearis_ plant. It also provides guidance and restrictions for how products which include Rooibos, and in what measures, should use the name "rooibos" in their branding.[12]


----------



## Caveman

rogue zombie said:


> Afaik you have nothing without trademarks, patents etc.
> 
> Look at the nonsense that's happened with 'Rooibos' - no ZA tea brand bothered to patent it and thus it was free-for-all to use.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RooibosFrom Wiki
> 
> In 1994, Burke International registered the name "Rooibos" with the US Patent and Trademark Office, thus establishing a monopoly on the name in the United States at a time when it was virtually unknown there. When the plant later entered more widespread use, Burke demanded that companies either pay fees for use of the name, or cease its use. In 2005, the American Herbal Products Association and a number of import companies succeeded in defeating the trademark through petitions and lawsuits; after losing one of the cases, Burke surrendered the name to the public domain.[11]
> 
> *Legal protection of the name rooibosEdit*
> The South African Department of Trade and Industry issued final rules on 6 September 2013 that protects and restricts the use of the names "rooibos", "red bush", "rooibostee", "rooibos tea", "rooitee" and "rooibosch" in that country, so that the name cannot be used for things not derived from the _Aspalathus linearis_ plant. It also provides guidance and restrictions for how products which include Rooibos, and in what measures, should use the name "rooibos" in their branding.[12]


Very right, copyright and patent infringements can very easily become a deep rabbit hole of legal expenses. As far as the creative commons license goes, the non-commercial license is hardly airtight. There have been so many disputes about what it actually entails and if you can really enforce a NC on an online free for all license. 


> The full text no longer uses the term “commercial purposes”, but only the concepts of “intent or direction” and “commercial advantages”. To our knowledge, the concept of “commercial advantages” is at present neither defined by CC nor in the law of most countries (Keller and Mossink 2008; Wilson-Strydom 2009 p. 15).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## cam

case82 said:


> This is really a pain in the backside. I have been mixing for the last 3 years and finally mustered up the courage to launch my own line. All my recipes are 100% original, i dont even look at the ocean of recipes online as they are all clones of clones and lack serious imagination. Now with all this going on, you try and get samples out to vendors and they just dump it in a box of samples filled with a bunch of crappy clones. What is one to do?!


Keep knocking on the door, if your juice is good and niche enough you will get it in eventually, if not maybe look at your profiles, even if they are not clones are the shelves already fill with the same type of juice? not saying they are i dont know you or your juice, but if i use strawberry cream/ yogurt/ cheesecake ice cream etc as an example how many similar juices does a shop need to stock, and why take a risk on a new vendor with a profile that is already in stock from a maker with whom the shop already has a relationship?

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## RichJB

zandernwn said:


> Its not about reason or opinion. its the law



Is it, though?

Reactions: Like 1 | Winner 5


----------



## zandernwn

I am not trying to be synical here, but you guys dont seem to be phased about this happening. I. Fact, it seems from you comments that you are very much for this happening judging bt your comments.

Let me ask you this, if you knew a vendor had stolen a recipe would you still buy it? 

Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## zandernwn

So what we are saying here is there is no recourse and that we shpuld all stop sharing good recipes in the community because there are a bunch of shadies lurching and stealing our shit to sell.

It is beyond me that it is ok, maybe the problem is that in south africa we have become so desensitized to dodgy dealings that we dont even lift an eyebrow where something is ethically worng.

Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## zandernwn

RichJB said:


> Is it, though?


Thank you for this, I never knew this

BUT 1.) Is is US law, is this applicable to SA. I assume it is because copyright is a universally accepted difinition based on the limited reading I have done on it.

2.) It seems the only way to protect your recipes is to stop sharing it... that is an absolutly sad day for diy, I would have preferred an educated and vigilant community that would stand together and stop this from happening instead of allowing these "manufacturers" to get away with it.

Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Lukeness

That's why Coke and KFC still won't release their recipes publicly. It's too easy to make a tiny change and call your own. Hell, I won't even share my beard oil formula!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RichJB

zandernwn said:


> Thank you for this, I never knew this



Me neither. The law sure does work in weird ways sometimes.



zandernwn said:


> BUT 1.) Is is US law, is this applicable to SA. I assume it is because copyright is a universally accepted difinition based on the limited reading I have done on it.



SA law may be different. But I lack the insight or expertise to offer any opinion on that. Maybe we have a lawyer in the house who can offer something.



zandernwn said:


> It seems the only way to protect your recipes is to stop sharing it...



Yep. I'm a writer and that's pretty much how it works in creative writing. You will never ever find any examples of my creative writing on the net. I know in advance it's going to be stolen so I absent myself professionally from the public domain.



zandernwn said:


> I would have preferred an educated and vigilant community that would stand together and stop this from happening instead of allowing these "manufacturers" to get away with it.



Wayne (juice) and Dino Ferrari (clone atties) have both addressed this. And they correctly imo are not looking to consumers for solutions. They know that consumers don't care about IP and never will. A consumer will be guided by what suits his pocket, not what suits the manufacturer's income or sales. If there are cheap Nike ripoffs on the market, consumers will buy them. Not all consumers, obviously. But certainly enough that the pirates can make a living and harm the sales of legit products.

The same applies to mech mod safety. The vaping community wants it to be driven by all vapers learning Ohm's Law and knowing battery safety. I can predict with 100% certainty that will never happen. Safety has to be driven at manufacturer level, and IP issues have to be resolved at manufacturer level. That is the only way to resolve these things. And even then, the solutions will likely be less than ideal. But then, very little in today's world is ideal.

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 2 | Winner 1


----------



## Oupa

I really don't think it is a South African issue only... shady people exist all over the world. If a popular, helpful or valuable recipe or plan or blueprint for anything in life becomes available and known to the general public, it will be recreated/manufactured/sold for profit by various entities if we like it or not, it is a certainty that it will happen. As in all other aspects of life shady people do exist in the vaping community as well. The only way to protect a recipe as your own would unfortunately be not to share or publish it anywhere at all.

Please note that I am not condoning the theft of recipes from public spaces or otherwise, but merely stating that it is a certainty that it will happen. From a legal point of view or outcome, I just don't know...

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 3


----------



## Caveman

zandernwn said:


> Thank you for this, I never knew this
> 
> BUT 1.) Is is US law, is this applicable to SA. I assume it is because copyright is a universally accepted difinition based on the limited reading I have done on it.
> 
> 2.) It seems the only way to protect your recipes is to stop sharing it... that is an absolutly sad day for diy, I would have preferred an educated and vigilant community that would stand together and stop this from happening instead of allowing these "manufacturers" to get away with it.
> 
> Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk


SA law makes no mention of recipes being legible for copyrighting. 

Copyright Act, 1978 (Act No. 98 of 1978, as amended up to Copyright Amendment Act 2002) Chapter 1 (1)


> (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the following works, if they are original, shall be eligible for copyright- (a) literary works; (b) musical works; (c) artistic works; (d) cinematograph films; [Para. (d) substituted by s. 2 (a) of Act 125 of 1992.] (e) sound recordings; (f) broadcasts; (g) programme -carrying signals; (h) published editions; [Para. (h) added by s. 2 of Act 52 of 1984.] (i) computer programs. [Para. (i) added by s. 2 (b) of Act 125 of 1992.] [Sub-s. (1) amended by s. 2 (a) of Act 56 of 1980.



also interesting


> In its simplest form, a recipe is a set of instructions for achieving a particular result. In this regard, it has been argued that the possibility of obtaining copyright protection for a compilation of facts, if any, will depend on the order of the specific facts, not the individual facts themselves.
> 
> Copyright legislation in many jurisdictions prevents materials constituting a set of instructions from qualifying as copyrightable works. The South African Copyright Act contains no specific exclusion in this regard, nor have the South African courts had to rule on this issue.
> 
> Applying the originality principles set out in the Copyright Act and South African case law, it is unlikely that copyright protection could be obtained for a single recipe, unless it is expressed in a specific, creative or original manner. It is far more likely that copyright protection could be obtained for collections of recipes, such as cookbooks. Further, copyright protection could probably be obtained for photographs of the dishes featured in the book.



So yes, the only way to stop people getting it, is to not share it at all.

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 2 | Funny 1


----------



## zandernwn

My findings are pretty much in line with this. I have spent the greater of the last 6 hours reading up on it.

It seems recipe copyright is explicitly excluded from sa copright law as well and the only availible form of protection is patenting which requires demonstrable proof of invention in order to qualify.

I would be very interested to hear an expert opinion in this

Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## WELIHF

Most original e-juice recipes are a derivative of a current food product, so theoretically it's also a stolen recipe...

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RichJB

Mmm, not really. Nobody owns the rights to generic foods and beverages like strawberry milkshake or blueberry muffins. At worst, vape recipes might commit trademark infringement. Recipes like Pebbles might be deemed to be using another company's trademark without permission, unless Manson got approval from Post for clearly alluding to their Fruity Pebbles trademarked cereal. But then, it's questionable whether Post would even mind. Vape juice and breakfast cereal aren't competitor products. I recently bought a pack of Froot Loops cereal *purely* as research for making a juice. I would never eat the stuff otherwise. So would Kellogg's have a problem with juices that clearly play off the Froot Loops trademark? I'm guessing not. It helps their brand awareness rather than hurting it, and can even increase sales rather than hurting them.

It would be interesting to see what happened if vaping ever got to the point where other companies were infringing vaping trademarks. If a coffee shop offered a "Smooth Morning Kick and Bronuts" special, would Lars or Wayne have a reason to try and stop them? It's not like consumers have to choose between the coffee shop's products and the vaping products. It would be helping the recipe creators to build public awareness of their brand.

We have already seen this to a very minor extent. One of Wayne's followers has a wife who makes soap. She made a Rhodonite scented soap using the same concentrates and formulation as Wayne's recipe. Wayne obviously won't litigate because the guy is a mate and he is chuffed that his Rhodonite juice has been made into a soap too. But even if he wasn't mates with the guy, soap and juice aren't competitor products. If Rhodonite soap raises awareness of his juice recipe, why would he care? The only time it might become harmful is if the public become confused about the timeline and think that Wayne's Rhodonite juice is ripping off the Rhodonite soap. But neither brand is big enough for that to happen yet.

Reactions: Like 2 | Winner 1


----------



## zandernwn

I still have a fundamental issue with the ethics of those brands I believe are profiting from other people's work.

And I will continue to raise awareness in private conversations to make people aware of that.

But it also speaks to us as the consumers. Why are we supporting that, is it a simple matter of ignorance or have we just become so lacks that we no longer care about what is right or wrong

Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## zandernwn

Anyone can make a ceral recipe, I have no qualms with that. But when someone spends a considerable amount of time and resources developing a inovative and unique way of portraying that profile and someone just goes and takes that, then this is a real issue for me.

Then to have the nerve of not even trying to hide that fact... wreaks of arrogance and I will not stand for that.



Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Rude Rudi

Zander, your concerns are valid and real but that is unfortunately not how the world works...sadly .

As covered already, *everyone* likes a deal and happy to pay a bit less for something - that's just the way it is. Look at the trade at China Malls and flea markets - if someone (in this economic climate) can get a Nike shirt for R80 vs R480 they will take it. Morals out the window. This will never stop/decline no matter what legislation says or what their/your moral standing is. This phenomenon is rife all over the world and a major economic driver for millions of people. The chain is massive - form the manufacturer to the seller and the consumer including logistics, retail, etc, etc - not to mention all the dependents in this value chain...

Your views are honorable but I'm afraid that's the way it is...no law, moral view or legal challenge will EVER stop this...It's simply human nature. If they cant get counterfeit goods abolished in North Korea then good luck to any other democratic society...

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Darryn Du Plessis

Do you read the bible? Because nothing is new under the sun, everything is either stolen, adapted, or recreated with different hands.

Even if the recipe of contents are the same, who says the hands that made it form the same process that originally created it? 

Do you know where those respective people got their recipes from? 

This is free South Africa, and with recipes online, OBVIOUSLY we will use other people's recipes //logic



Polar said:


> Don't know if this has been discussed before, if so feel free to point me there.
> 
> How many of our local mixologist simply use big name recipes and rebrand them as their own creations. Recently tasted two big local brands thats either adaptations or direct clones using Diyordie's and Notcharlesmanson's recipes.
> 
> Let's not name names, but does this happen a lot?


----------



## Hardtail1969

RichJB said:


> Mmm, not really. Nobody owns the rights to generic foods and beverages like strawberry milkshake or blueberry muffins.



well, actually, the ownership and rights issue related to foods, has already been established under US law, just go look at all the issues surrounding GM (Genetically Modified) foods.

This is where, to all intents and purposes a supposed generic food, has some lab change a few small molecules, and then a patent is issued. can you tell the difference between a natural mother nature strawberry, and one that has the genes of a barbel spliced in somewhere?

This very problem has led to huge lawsuits with companies like monsanto on one side, and a farmer on the other...

So yes, foods are patentable, and ownership of them has been established legally.


----------



## Darryn Du Plessis

zandernwn said:


> by the flavor descriptions alone I can tell you those are stolen.



stolen from God or who? 

Do the flavour descriptions teach your taste buds the contents of the bottle or something>?

Do you know that DIY means Do it yourself- IF you can do a business by yourself, why should anyone stop you if recipes are available online, and everywhere, where you want to look. 

Free world, Learn to live in it, not against it. You'll get nowhere.


----------



## Darryn Du Plessis

Rude Rudi said:


> Zander, your concerns are valid and real but that is unfortunately not how the world works...sadly .
> 
> As covered already, *everyone* likes a deal and happy to pay a bit less for something - that's just the way it is. Look at the trade at China Malls and flea markets - if someone (in this economic climate) can get a Nike shirt for R80 vs R480 they will take it. Morals out the window. This will never stop/decline no matter what legislation says or what their/your moral standing is. This phenomenon is rife all over the world and a major economic driver for millions of people. The chain is massive - form the manufacturer to the seller and the consumer including logistics, retail, etc, etc - not to mention all the dependents in this value chain...
> 
> Your views are honorable but I'm afraid that's the way it is...no law, moral view or legal challenge will EVER stop this...It's simply human nature. If they cant get counterfeit goods abolished in North Korea then good luck to any other democratic society...



Re-branding, For the win, may the best sex appeal win, so that you can choose the most sexy looking vape juice container in all the land. Is it really counterfeit when A Nike t-shirt is made in a different shop? No, it's just against the law, of the Monopoly Creators; who don't want anyone to use their proclaimed symbolism, because it's already such a good brand, if they damage the appearance of it, then blah blah blah -

But to call something that is produced in the exact same way as a stupid Nike factory, and tell people it's not worth your money, because it's not from the official nike shop is what this guy is going on about -- 'Stolen' Precious! MY PRECIOUS; Recipe rings!!! It's still the same thing, made by different hands, coming to you at a reduced price compared to if it was produced in the Brand Name shop. 

Brand names are meant to be destroyed. Competition is everywhere, macro or micro environements; Learn to deal, or get out of the kitchen if you can't mix with others. @zandernwn


----------



## Hardtail1969

As a seperate or aside to this whole discussion about clones and theft of ip and the related...

Here is something to ponder...

Where would this world be, if there was only ford cars....
Only Westinghouse fridges
Only Nokia cellphones
Only Apple desktop computers
Only IBM Laptops
Only IBM Mainframe computers
Only RCA televisions
Only Steam Trains
Only Sailing ships - (For one...we would be spared that godawful titanic movie)...

This world is full of clones, full of copies, full of incremental changes and improvements to existing technologies, that then in turn are improved on, and in turn... 

If this world worked the way that whoever invented something first, is the only one allowed to make changes or modify or improve in perpetuity, hell, we would still be paying UGG the neanderthal for inventing fire....

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Darryn Du Plessis

Hardtail1969 said:


> well, actually, the ownership and rights issue related to foods, has already been established under US law, just go look at all the issues surrounding GM (Genetically Modified) foods.
> 
> This is where, to all intents and purposes a supposed generic food, has some lab change a few small molecules, and then a patent is issued. can you tell the difference between a natural mother nature strawberry, and one that has the genes of a barbel spliced in somewhere?
> 
> This very problem has led to huge lawsuits with companies like monsanto on one side, and a farmer on the other...
> 
> So yes, foods are patentable, and ownership of them has been established legally.


Do you even know what genetic modification is; because plants being placed in a different environment to grow, compared to where they were found is a practice of genetic modification. 

In most cases, the aim is to introduce a new trait to the plant which does not occur naturally in the species. 

The genes changes just like yours do daily, based on what you stimulate them with, and with plants you are either adding or subtracting factors which will make them grow differently/ in a different climate. 

Nothing wrong with it, do you expect the same apple trees to grow in a land after 30 years of drought and famine? :? no, they grow them somewhere else, to supply the same quantity, if not more.


----------



## Feliks Karp

A GMO by it's very nature is not a generic food, it is a manufactured product. So no you cannot copyright a strawberry, but a strawberry with a specific man-induced genetic makeup, yes you can. The monsanto law suits while shady were not over ownership over a generic food item, they were over the fact that the farmers were reusing seeds derived from crops grown with GMO seeds (ie not paying a second time for a seed stock) and for cross-polinating the seeds with other crops (altering a product, just like how you actually sign an agreement not to alter your cellphone when you buy it).

When it comes back to the receipe thing, if you are freely sharing your receipes it hardly becomes industrial espionage when some one takes it and sells it, morally yes it's wrong they should at the very least give you credit, but if your intent was to gain financially I'd have to wonder why you didn't sell the receipe or approach someone with manufacturing capabilities. We all had that kid at school who lied about what he did on the weekend, or who he knew or that his parents didn't help him with his professional level school assignment, they do grow up.

I also feel like the knock-off product examples are more relevant to the clones receipes handed out freely rather than some one "stealing" a free receipe, so it's ok to try and replicate an established brands product, allowing people to home brew approximates and make them suffer a financial loss? That seems to taste a little like hypocrisy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Darryn Du Plessis

Hardtail1969 said:


> As a seperate or aside to this whole discussion about clones and theft of ip and the related...
> 
> Here is something to ponder...
> 
> Where would this world be, if there was only ford cars....
> Only Westinghouse fridges
> Only Nokia cellphones
> Only Apple desktop computers
> Only IBM Laptops
> Only IBM Mainframe computers
> Only RCA televisions
> Only Steam Trains
> Only Sailing ships - (For one...we would be spared that godawful titanic movie)...
> 
> This world is full of clones, full of copies, full of incremental changes and improvements to existing technologies, that then in turn are improved on, and in turn...
> 
> If this world worked the way that whoever invented something first, is the only one allowed to make changes or modify or improve in perpetuity, hell, we would still be paying UGG the neanderthal for inventing fire....


I would love Hemp cars. From all of the above, all we need is Hemp fields. It was 50x stronger than steel! SUCK ON THAT 
Competition is the spice of life, and keeps our world spinning


----------



## Darryn Du Plessis

Further on what you said: 


Feliks Karp said:


> A GMO by it's very nature is not a generic food, it is a manufactured product. So no you cannot copyright a strawberry, but a strawberry with a specific man-induced genetic makeup, yes you can. The monsanto law suits while shady were not over ownership over a generic food item, they were over the fact that the farmers were reusing seeds derived from crops grown with GMO seeds (ie not paying a second time for a seed stock) and for cross-polinating the seeds with other crops (altering a product, just like how you actually sign an agreement not to alter your cellphone when you buy it).
> 
> When it comes back to the receipe thing, if you are freely sharing your receipes it hardly becomes industrial espionage when some one takes it and sells it, morally yes it's wrong they should at the very least give you credit, but if your intent was to gain financially I'd have to wonder why you didn't sell the receipe or approach someone with manufacturing capabilities. We all had that kid at school who lied about what he did on the weekend, or who he knew or that his parents didn't help him with his professional level school assignment, they do grow up.
> 
> I also feel like the knock-off product examples are more relevant to the clones receipes handed out freely rather than some one "stealing" a free receipe, so it's ok to try and replicate an established brands product, allowing people to home brew approximates and make them suffer a financial loss? That seems to taste a little like hypocrisy.



The genetic material of an organism encodes the instructions that guide its development. These codes are not written in stone; they can change or mutate any time during the life of the organism. Single changes in the code can occur spontaneously, as a mutation, causing developmental problems. Others, as an international team of researchers has discovered, are too numerous to be explained by random mutation processes present in the general population. When such multiple genetic changes occur before or early after conception, they may inform scientists about fundamental knowledge underlying many diseases. The study appears in _Cell_.


----------



## RichJB

zandernwn said:


> Why are we supporting that, is it a simple matter of ignorance or have we just become so lacks that we no longer care about what is right or wrong



Not everybody is supporting it. Some consumers won't support cloned/pirated/counterfeit products, others will. For those who will, there are several reasons why they would. Ignorance is one. Allied to that is apathy. Just because you are passionate about vaping doesn't mean that everybody is. The less passionate people are, the less they will care about IP. I'm sure there are people who are passionate about making jam at home. For them, it might be a huge issue if, say, Koo had ripped off All Gold's jam recipe. If I go to my PnP and some activist is standing with a picket board outside urging me to not support recipe piracy by buying Koo's jam, I'm going to ignore him. It might be a huge issue in his life. It isn't in mine.

Then there is the issue of money. Some people can scarcely afford to vape, they are going to take the cheapest option. This applies to hardware cloning too. I have several clones and have no issue with it. The way I see it, Dino Ferrari and Grimm/OhmBoy have not lost a sale from me owning Velocity and Recoil clones because I don't pay R1000-R1500 for an atty. If there were no clones of their drippers available, I would certainly not have bought originals. Instead of the clones, I would have bought a Tsunami or Limitless or some other cheap original. I could afford better gear but I choose not to. For me, vaping is a temporary means until I can quit everything and it's still not healthy for me, even if it's far less harmful than cigs. So blowing a huge stack of cash on it never made sense to me. I have other things to invest my money in.

FWIW I wouldn't buy any commercial juice which I knew or even suspected of being stolen from another recipe developer. But seeing as I don't buy any juice anyway and DIY everything I vape, that is a fairly meaningless gesture of support. I feel for Wayne and the problems he's having. But they are ultimately his problems. He's not going to help me solve my problems in life, I fail to see why I should feel obliged to help him solve his. Of course, he knows that, which is why he is not relying on consumer action to resolve this issue. He knows that consumers are concerned about their own problems, not his problems. Which is why I said originally that the solutions must be driven at manufacturer level. It's Wayne's business, he needs to sort it out. If you are willing to help him, that is generous and unselfish of you. But you will be the exception rather than the rule.



Hardtail1969 said:


> So yes, foods are patentable, and ownership of them has been established legally.



Yes but that is patents which are different from copyright which, in turn, is different from trademarks.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Winner 1


----------



## Hardtail1969

I do love splitting hairs... or hares... whichever is your pick...

As to my point about GM... you all were quick to pounce on explaining what GMO is, but missed my point...

Would you recognise a GM strawberry from a normal god or natural one?

Same goes for anything out there today... Nike's new Burkha or those chinese cloned vape gear...


----------



## Darryn Du Plessis

Pay it forward
Nobody can patent a Flavouring which has already been mass produced in foods ANYWAY>!



RichJB said:


> Not everybody is supporting it. Some consumers won't support cloned/pirated/counterfeit products, others will. For those who will, there are several reasons why they would. Ignorance is one. Allied to that is apathy. Just because you are passionate about vaping doesn't mean that everybody is. The less passionate people are, the less they will care about IP. I'm sure there are people who are passionate about making jam at home. For them, it might be a huge issue if, say, Koo had ripped off All Gold's jam recipe. If I go to my PnP and some activist is standing with a picket board outside urging me to not support recipe piracy by buying Koo's jam, I'm going to ignore him. It might be a huge issue in his life. It isn't in mine.
> 
> Then there is the issue of money. Some people can scarcely afford to vape, they are going to take the cheapest option. This applies to hardware cloning too. I have several clones and have no issue with it. The way I see it, Dino Ferrari and Grimm/OhmBoy have not lost a sale from me owning Velocity and Recoil clones because I don't pay R1000-R1500 for an atty. If there were no clones of their drippers available, I would certainly not have bought originals. Instead of the clones, I would have bought a Tsunami or Limitless or some other cheap original. I could afford better gear but I choose not to. For me, vaping is a temporary means until I can quit everything and it's still not healthy for me, even if it's far less harmful than cigs. So blowing a huge stack of cash on it never made sense to me. I have other things to invest my money in.
> 
> FWIW I wouldn't buy any commercial juice which I knew or even suspected of being stolen from another recipe developer. But seeing as I don't buy any juice anyway and DIY everything I vape, that is a fairly meaningless gesture of support. I feel for Wayne and the problems he's having. But they are ultimately his problems. He's not going to help me solve my problems in life, I fail to see why I should feel obliged to help him solve his. Of course, he knows that, which is why he is not relying on consumer action to resolve this issue. He knows that consumers are concerned about their own problems, not his problems. Which is why I said originally that the solutions must be driven at manufacturer level. It's Wayne's business, he needs to sort it out. If you are willing to help him, that is generous and unselfish of you. But you will be the exception rather than the rule.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but that is patents which are different from copyright which, in turn, is different from trademarks.


----------



## Darryn Du Plessis

Hardtail1969 said:


> I do love splitting hairs... or hares... whichever is your pick...
> 
> As to my point about GM... you all were quick to pounce on explaining what GMO is, but missed my point...
> 
> Would you recognise a GM strawberry from a normal god or natural one?
> 
> Same goes for anything out there today... Nike's new Burkha or those chinese cloned vape gear...



Then you are also not understanding the point of Genetically modified organisms, they grow everywhere they are able to, what if the GM organisms are healthier than the 'original' strawberry, I would pick the 'GM' one because it's bigger and healthier and growing even better in it's new environment. 

Does God label a plant that got blown by the wind and say, YEAH That ***** is my Wind GM - That whole field is my seed-wind-squirt-field - Seeds can grow where they want instead of a straight line, and watch them flourish. 

It's still a strawberry at the end of the day, a strawberry which will either sit in a container or be turned into a concentrate of some sort. Our consumerism is all that matters, and you're seeing the way a plant grows, in a different environment as the problem here...


----------



## Darryn Du Plessis

zandernwn said:


> Maybe so and hence why I have not mentioned any names. These recipes are protected under non commercial, no derrivates creative commons licenses. It is not only illegal to make a profit from those recipes without explicit permission from the creator, but it is also in bad taste.


If you can't name and shame then you should not have added to this, What is the point of keeping your own contacts that act disgracefully all to yourself< This is a community, and awareness is all you can do with these 26 alphabet letters.


----------



## Darryn Du Plessis

zandernwn said:


> My findings are pretty much in line with this. I have spent the greater of the last 6 hours reading up on it.
> 
> It seems recipe copyright is explicitly excluded from sa copright law as well and the only availible form of protection is patenting which requires demonstrable proof of invention in order to qualify.
> 
> I would be very interested to hear an expert opinion in this
> 
> Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk


You need to have a process, which is like no other, and also ingredients that nobody else can easily get, to patent something 'original' -----> then you need to brand it in such a way that it's unique to be it's own -> Recipe copyright should pertain to the patent of the product. You need to include it all to get the patent? Copy right is the distribution/manufacturing of a product, through a channel for a specified time.


----------



## Darryn Du Plessis

zandernwn said:


> Thank you for this, I never knew this
> 
> BUT 1.) Is is US law, is this applicable to SA. I assume it is because copyright is a universally accepted difinition based on the limited reading I have done on it.
> 
> 2.) It seems the only way to protect your recipes is to stop sharing it... that is an absolutly sad day for diy, I would have preferred an educated and vigilant community that would stand together and stop this from happening instead of allowing these "manufacturers" to get away with it.
> 
> Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk


Unfortunately, billionaires have more right of way as opposed to non-millionaires. Manufacturers were established from the get-go =- Here we are - as hobbyists producing what we love to smoke, and guess what, Word of mouth travels, people hear of recipes being fantastic and so they dig their claws into the new information ASAP. 

Would you pass up opportunities for new recipes/ways to get richer - Emphasis on UhRRR!! When you get new information found / on the free-internet? :? Doubt you would. They don't. Everything is for profit in this capitalist world. 

When people can put others ahead of themselves, this world can change. But selfish stuck up people with money continuously stealing from us is preferably punished. But in return we also feel that we should steal from them, they started it right? :? 

Circle of use -- Tis why there is nothing new under the sun. This world is for all of us, and recipes are RECIPES /
a set of instructions for preparing a particular dish, including a list of the ingredients required.

as you said, don't share the recipe IF you don't want other people coining your ideas. Keep it to yourself. 

Have you heard of family recipes for pancakes, flapjacks, naan bread, Peshwari naan bread etc. 
It stays within a specific, enclosed group to protect it, till death. ∞♥ Then the next generation can further or continue some work


----------



## zandernwn

Darryn Du Plessis said:


> stolen from God or who?
> 
> Do the flavour descriptions teach your taste buds the contents of the bottle or something>?
> 
> Do you know that DIY means Do it yourself- IF you can do a business by yourself, why should anyone stop you if recipes are available online, and everywhere, where you want to look.
> 
> Free world, Learn to live in it, not against it. You'll get nowhere.


Judging by your over the top reaction I assume you are one of them
As a matter of interest, what juice line is yours?

I have had the priviledge of comparing the juices and I know the originals very well. 

It seems you have used so many words, yet contributed to little to the conversation

Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## RichJB

It should also be noted that copyright law is an ever-evolving instrument. Some US legal scholars have expressed concern that copyright law with regard to recipes needs to be updated and improved. For one thing, US copyright law makes no distinction between the recipe and the dish. Whether there should be a distinction is a matter for the learned minds in the legal sector to determine. Still, it is receiving attention on an ongoing basis. 

Another factor is whether vaping recipes differ sufficiently from food recipes to merit special clauses or treatment by the law. The business models are quite different. With food recipes, the bulk of income is derived from sales of the recipes (cookbooks). With juice, the bulk of income is derived from sales of the product. There isn't a burgeoning juice recipe cookbook industry. HIC makes money by selling recipes but he is the exception, not the norm. However, my sense is that lawmakers will continue to lump all recipes together.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Darryn Du Plessis

There are countless sides to any argument, 

I am a consumer, not a producer, but I have every intention of doing whatever I try make to the best of an ability,

DIY-For the future. Tis why this is such an interesting read. 

There are so many movements like this happening in the world at the same time, so it's really informative to read everything you're all posting. It creates an over-the-top reaction inside me to share my own viewpoints of a consumer, and what we try to know too.

♥↨Yes∞

The Originals, start a vape series on it for knowing them so well please, 

Local is lekker, I am a fixated supporter of all local juice makers of South Africa, all the coloured-people unite. 



zandernwn said:


> Judging by your over the top reaction I assume you are one of them
> As a matter of interest, what juice line is yours?
> 
> I have had the priviledge of comparing the juices and I know the originals very well.
> 
> It seems you have used so many words, yet contributed to little to the conversation
> 
> Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## zandernwn

RichJB said:


> Not everybody is supporting it. Some consumers won't support cloned/pirated/counterfeit products, others will. For those who will, there are several reasons why they would. Ignorance is one. Allied to that is apathy. Just because you are passionate about vaping doesn't mean that everybody is. The less passionate people are, the less they will care about IP. I'm sure there are people who are passionate about making jam at home. For them, it might be a huge issue if, say, Koo had ripped off All Gold's jam recipe. If I go to my PnP and some activist is standing with a picket board outside urging me to not support recipe piracy by buying Koo's jam, I'm going to ignore him. It might be a huge issue in his life. It isn't in mine.
> 
> Then there is the issue of money. Some people can scarcely afford to vape, they are going to take the cheapest option. This applies to hardware cloning too. I have several clones and have no issue with it. The way I see it, Dino Ferrari and Grimm/OhmBoy have not lost a sale from me owning Velocity and Recoil clones because I don't pay R1000-R1500 for an atty. If there were no clones of their drippers available, I would certainly not have bought originals. Instead of the clones, I would have bought a Tsunami or Limitless or some other cheap original. I could afford better gear but I choose not to. For me, vaping is a temporary means until I can quit everything and it's still not healthy for me, even if it's far less harmful than cigs. So blowing a huge stack of cash on it never made sense to me. I have other things to invest my money in.
> 
> FWIW I wouldn't buy any commercial juice which I knew or even suspected of being stolen from another recipe developer. But seeing as I don't buy any juice anyway and DIY everything I vape, that is a fairly meaningless gesture of support. I feel for Wayne and the problems he's having. But they are ultimately his problems. He's not going to help me solve my problems in life, I fail to see why I should feel obliged to help him solve his. Of course, he knows that, which is why he is not relying on consumer action to resolve this issue. He knows that consumers are concerned about their own problems, not his problems. Which is why I said originally that the solutions must be driven at manufacturer level. It's Wayne's business, he needs to sort it out. If you are willing to help him, that is generous and unselfish of you. But you will be the exception rather than the rule.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but that is patents which are different from copyright which, in turn, is different from trademarks.


Look I get whqt you are saying here. But personally I struggle to see how you can steal a recipe and sell it off as your own.

I get why it happens but that doesnt mean that I have to stand for it. I buy commercial juice for the sole purpose of benchmarking my own skills and the majority of what I vape is my own.

In as far a s Wayne goes, I dont really care for his issues in this regards. But I do care for the culture we are creating and this will affect us all. Once we become a nuisance, we will draw even more negative publicity and ultimately targeted legaslature. 

It requires a level of maturity to realise this, which judging by some of these comments, we as consumers, manufacturers and vendors dont seem to posses as a collective.

Something doesnt have to be illegal for it to be wrong, it just has to be wrong. As for my stand point I will continue to speak out against these vendors and discourge people from buying their products. Thid is my prerogative



Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Feliks Karp

But will you speak out against the people who put up clone receipes of commercial juices on DIY sub-forums and sites?

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## zandernwn

Look it is clear to me that
1.) Share you recipe and it will be cloned and stolen and sold at a premium by backyard mechanics and premium vendors alike.

2.) It is a sad day that sharing something I feel so passionate about is limited due to unethical conduct. I could have helped - and this is the key to the conversation- many diyers with tasty recipes, instead I have to guard them to prevent these idiots from profiting from it. That is the essense.

3.) I resolve that I will share my recipes only within clised groups where there is a level of trust and I have resonable cinfidence that it will not be used inappropriatly.

This help comes at a great cost to me both in time and money. Anybody who knows me will attest that I have never held back any stricks, tips, secrets or recipes and that I share it freely to help them make beter recipes.

I will no longer do this. I will gladly help answer specific questions and answer that question to the best of my ability but I will not share recipe again.

I am not expecting you to care about that, it fact I am not vein enough to even think that it would. But that is my where is stand.



Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## RichJB

zandernwn said:


> But I do care for the culture we are creating and this will affect us all. Once we become a nuisance, we will draw even more negative publicity and ultimately targeted legaslature.



Well, the stolen recipe thing isn't creating a nuisance for non-vapers. If I regale non-vapers at a party with stories of how Wayne's recipes are stolen, their eyes will glaze over. They don't care and why should they? It has absolutely no impact on their lives.

It's also not like vaping is the only industry where piracy or IP theft occur. Almost every industry is rife with it. So I don't see how it marks vaping as being different or less principled than any other industry.

On the issue of legislation, I think more of it would be a good thing. For example, I don't agree with vapers being sold batteries whose amperage rating is vastly over-stated by the manufacturer. So I think we do need more controls. The trick is ensure that legislation/regulation serve to protect the consumer, not to obliterate the industry. I don't see recipe piracy affecting the regulatory sphere. The FDA hasn't mentioned a word about recipe piracy, nor have I seen any mainstream media articles on it. Battery safety is a far bigger issue than recipe theft. So while recipe theft is an in-house issue which the industry needs to confront, we also have far bigger publicly visible issues to resolve.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## zandernwn

Darryn Du Plessis said:


> If you can't name and shame then you should not have added to this, What is the point of keeping your own contacts that act disgracefully all to yourself< This is a community, and awareness is all you can do with these 26 alphabet letters.


I will not give them anymore publisity than they deserve by announcing publicly. Any publicity is good publicity right. I will keep doing this face to face where I have control over how effective my message is recieved and I will go as far as selling them the original recipe at the cost of materials to anyone as alternative and shate he original recipe so they can do it themselves. That way they do not have to buy it. 

Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## zandernwn

Feliks Karp said:


> But will you speak out against the people who put up clone receipes of commercial juices on DIY sub-forums and sites?


Those who know me from the many whatsapp groups I am involved in will tell you the same

Do I use them, of course I do. Do I clone them myself, yes I do. Do I believe that I am impacting vendors by doing so... no!!! You have diyers and juice buyers.... juice buyers do not mix and mixers do not buy.

So the amswer in short is I will share t in a closed group where I have a reasonable expectation that it will be used for personal use alone . Will I share it here or on any facebook page. No.

Will I share it if my gut feels tell me not to share it because thay person may use it wrongly... no.

You see, wether you believe me or not on the above is irrelevant. I live by the same ethics I preach. Many of the folks I interact with in a daily basis are on this forum too, I welcome anyone of them to call me out if I what I am saying here is false



Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Feliks Karp

zandernwn said:


> Do I use them, of course I do. Do I clone them myself, yes I do. Do I believe that I am impacting vendors by doing so... no!!!



And that is exactly the line of thinking some one takes when taking a "free" receipe and turning it in to business, "I'm not depriving the DIY person of income because he put it up for free, he never intended to make money off of it." Except in this case you are saying "I will mix up some analogue of that commercial juice, enjoy it and the juice maker won't lose any income because I never intended to buy it anyways". Really in all honesty after calling us out on being complacent your line of thinking is in direct contradiction to this quest of yours you claim to be on.

Reactions: Agree 3


----------



## Darryn Du Plessis

Check recipe piracy of Cocktail drinks/ and see that recipes are forever recycled- People WILL always use the same recipe, because it's KNOWN to be great and they will name it their own variation to slip by less noticeably as a copy of //x,y, or z



RichJB said:


> Well, the stolen recipe thing isn't creating a nuisance for non-vapers. If I regale non-vapers at a party with stories of how Wayne's recipes are stolen, their eyes will glaze over. They don't care and why should they? It has absolutely no impact on their lives.
> 
> It's also not like vaping is the only industry where piracy or IP theft occur. Almost every industry is rife with it. So I don't see how it marks vaping as being different or less principled than any other industry.
> 
> On the issue of legislation, I think more of it would be a good thing. For example, I don't agree with vapers being sold batteries whose amperage rating is vastly over-stated by the manufacturer. So I think we do need more controls. The trick is ensure that legislation/regulation serve to protect the consumer, not to obliterate the industry. I don't see recipe piracy affecting the regulatory sphere. The FDA hasn't mentioned a word about recipe piracy, nor have I seen any mainstream media articles on it. Battery safety is a far bigger issue than recipe theft. So while recipe theft is an in-house issue which the industry needs to confront, we also have far bigger publicly visible issues to resolve.


----------



## Andre

Feliks Karp said:


> And that is exactly the line of thinking some one takes when taking a "free" receipe and turning it in to business, "I'm not depriving the DIY person of income because he put it up for free, he never intended to make money off of it." Except in this case you are saying "I will mix up some analogue of that commercial juice, enjoy it and the juice maker won't lose any income because I never intended to buy it anyways". Really in all honesty after calling us out on being complacent your line of thinking is in direct contradiction to this quest of yours you claim to be on.


At last some sanity prevails. 

I have done a few original recipes and a few interpretations/remixes/clones of commercial juices. As part of the DIY community I feel obliged to share them. If someone feels the need to use them for commercial purposes I do not mind at all - good luck with the venture for I chose not to do it. Why be part of a DIY community, but not share your recipes? Then you only take and not give or only give halfway?

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 5 | Thanks 1


----------



## Darryn Du Plessis

Just read an article for recipes":

*CAN AND SHOULD YOU PROTECT YOUR RECIPES?*

In a world of the internet, social networks and the culture of sharing can you really protect your recipes from being copied and, more importantly, should you

BY RYAN KING ON SEPTEMBER 07, 2012

In April 2012 FDL reported on the case of a Chicago bakery owner who threatened to sue her chef after she decided to leave the job, taking the company's secret recipe for _Cinnamon Bombs_ with her.

The case brought up a number of questions about recipe ownership, culinary copyright and protecting ideas in the kitchen. Fortunately for the owner and chef, the case was settled out of court and the recipes returned. However, the question of how to protect recipes and whether a culinary form of copyright exists still remains.

Can a recipe be protected under current UK or European copyright laws? Could the creator of a dish protect their innovation using patent protection? Or should the tried and tested route of a heavily guarded trade secret style approach be adopted to protect culinary creations? With these questions in mind FDL spoke with a number of legal professionals to try and see what options, if any, are available for culinary copyright.

*Copyright*

Copyright works to protect the way a recipe is recorded in writing and not the way it is actually made. If you record and publish a recipe and someone then looks to re-copy that recipe without any new literary expression being added, this could be deemed as a copyright infringement. However, this does not stop someone taking the recipe, cooking it in their restaurant, changing the name and claiming it as their own.

Copyright protects certain categories of works including literary,dramatic and musical works. Assuming that a person creating a recipe has done so with a minimal level of skill and effort in making it original then in principle copyright can exist in a recipe as a literary piece of work. However, a chef in most cases is not looking to protect the written form but the end product. *Andrew Charlesworth*, a legal expert from _Bristol University, _explains one of the other major difficulties in culinary copyright, "The key problem for granting copyright protection to recipes is the issue of originality versus the ethos of cookery experimentation and development. While some recipes may be original in the sense of deriving wholly from the imagination of the chef/creator/author, the vast majority surely are not. Cookery as an art depends upon borrowing and tweaking and fusing the work of others in a way that is inimical to the application of Intellectual Property Rights meant for books music or dramatic works."

*Patents*

A Patent protects the process involved in production, a new method or technology that is harnessed during recipe creation. The London based law firm _Briffa_ say, "It may be possible to protect a recipe by filing a patent if you have come up with a new method of doing something, but it must not be obvious. So, *Heston Blumenthal's* way of freezing things may possibly be patentable. Combining X, Y and Z to produce something new may be patentable too, however, putting known ingredients together with no new and inventive technical effect would not be patentable."

For example, *Sarah Bazaraa*, an IP Solicitor for the legal firm Pannone, presented FDL an interesting description of a well known dessert, "A composite confection product, which comprises a multiplicity (for example, at least four) of thin superimposed layers of extrudable aerated confection material...."

This is some of the patent that was filed and granted for _Viennetta _ice cream. Using patent laws the company was able to protect their recipe by patenting the process involved in the production of the dessert. A much stronger way of protecting a recipe than copyright, but one that Sarah explains does have certain drawbacks, "Patents only last 20-years and they are given in return for disclosing the process involved. After 20-years it's fair game and anyone can use your information provided in the patent application, this is why some companies like KFC and Coca Cola choose to take a different route in protecting their recipes."

*Trade Secrets*

Very few people know the Colonel's secret chicken recipe, even fewer know the hidden secrets of Coca-Cola's trademark flavor, however, none of these recipes are protected by patent or copyright law. In these cases KFC and Coca-Cola both make all employees who come into contact with the recipe sign non-disclosure agreements, in turn these people can then be taken to court and sued for damages or an account of profit if they decide to reveal the recipe. This is a difficult task to manage but may be the best option to take for people and companies who want try and protect recipes for longer than the 20-year protection a patent provides.

At least within the current US and European laws it seems there is no specific route for culinary intellectual property protection. There are a number of options but are they really the way to help the industry develop? If Heston Blumenthal had patented the process of producing Bacon and Egg ice cream, or *Ferran Adria* locked down the techniques of his wonderful parmesan foam, imagine how the food landscape would look. It might seem like a nice idea to protect a kitchen creation but this could be very detrimental to the industry.


*The Future*

It's unclear how much development there will be in the world of culinary copyright and as Sarah Bazaraa states, "There's not much debate at the minute surrounding this topic" but it is a field that could well change with technology. Sarah went on to tell FDL that it may be feasible in the 'not-too distant' future to protect scents and tastes using trademark laws subject to companies and the law finding an acceptable way for these to be "graphically represented." That's something FDL will discuss with Sarah in the next installment of _Culinary Copyright_ as we also look to the chefs for their opinion and take a look at how the US system differs from those in place in the UK and Europe.



_Big thanks to Sarah Bazaraa from Pannone, Andrew Charlesworth from Bristol University*,* Richard Homer of New Media Law in London and the Law Firm Briffa..._

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Darryn Du Plessis

Andre said:


> At last some sanity prevails.
> 
> I have done a few original recipes and a few interpretations/remixes/clones of commercial juices. As part of the DIY community I feel obliged to share them. If someone feels the need to use them for commercial purposes I do not mind at all - good luck with the venture for I chose not to do it. Why be part of a DIY community, but not share your recipes? Then you only take and not give or only give halfway?


Thank You @Andre


----------



## zandernwn

Andre said:


> At last some sanity prevails.
> 
> I have done a few original recipes and a few interpretations/remixes/clones of commercial juices. As part of the DIY community I feel obliged to share them. If someone feels the need to use them for commercial purposes I do not mind at all - good luck with the venture for I chose not to do it. Why be part of a DIY community, but not share your recipes? Then you only take and not give or only give halfway?


Now now! you are putting words in my mouth. You claim that I take and dont give back is completely unfounded and wrong. 

Lets not go there.


Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Darryn Du Plessis

zandernwn said:


> Now now! you are putting words in my mouth. You claim that I take and dont give back is completely unfounded and wrong.
> 
> Lets not go there.
> 
> 
> Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk


Yay  okay, well just don't give out your secrets anymore, to the internet /communities that could potentially make riches from your ideas;

The internet doesn't have that many places you can do that - > so something hands on like this to make an extra few buckaroos on the side is pretty legitimate business  

Oil makers.


----------



## zandernwn

Darryn Du Plessis said:


> Thank You @Andre


Before we start seeking bias affrirmation from each other, let first establish the facts shall we?

Please read my post again and then we can start this a fresh and work on what was acctually said.

Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## zandernwn

mmm, I find myself disappointed at the notion that integrity has become so cheap. let me just be clear, I am not referring to the comments made by anyone on this thread, I would like my opinion to be respected and therefor I shall respect yours. Instead I speak to the zeitgeist of our times (if you will allow me to be philosophical for a moment here). What you guys are saying is true. whether your standpoints stem from being such a person who have no qualms with this practice or whether you are simply being realistic or whether you just discussing this without a dog in the fight.

Maybe I am old fashioned but I firmly believe that it is wrong. Above all I value my integrity and I for one will not be able to walk into a vape shop and sell a product that I know is not mine. There is no pride in that especially not in the interaction between the manufacturer and the vendor both turning a blind eye to this fact just to make a few extra bucks - I can't see myself steeping that low.

I concede that other that my ethical beliefs I can find no legal grounds that would prevent anyone from doing this unless they can demonstrate innovation as contemplated in the patent regulations . Recipes be it food, pharma or chemical are explicitly excluded from the copyright scope in most countries. I have read here on this thread that it seems a legal president has not yet been set in our courts in this regards but I doubt that any court would really rule in favor of my view should it ever happen.

But I will tell you what I can do, I can highlight the fact that those are stolen and provide information on where to find the original recipes to anyone who buys that juice. Will this have a dramatic impact on the sales of these products? No. Will evolve into a movement followed by all DIYers and start having an impact? No. Will these guys suddenly suffer damage; if any at all? probably not.

but what is the use of beliefs if we do not exercise our right to uphold it, right? so thats what I will do

Reactions: Thanks 1


----------



## Andre

zandernwn said:


> Now now! you are putting words in my mouth. You claim that I take and dont give back is completely unfounded and wrong.
> Lets not go there.


I was not even referring to you kind Sir, but if the shoe fits...And these words from your post do tend to fit unless I am interpreting it incorrectly: "_I will no longer do this. I will gladly help answer specific questions and answer that question to the best of my ability but I will not share recipe again._".


----------



## zandernwn

The context of that reply seemed hostile and aimed at me. I must have misunderstood. all good.

Also helping the community is not confined to sharing recipes. I invest a considerable amount of my time and money in helping the DIY community...

Reactions: Thanks 1


----------



## Silver

Very interesting thread gents

Am following with interest

Reactions: Agree 1 | Optimistic 1


----------



## Caveman

So basically we have 2 things in question here. Morality and law. The law is unclear about this and therefore it is clear that public recipes are not protected. The morality issue is one of individualism. If you don't want to support a vendor when you can somehow prove they have stolen a free online recipe, then that onus rests on you and no one will think worse of you if you choose not to support them. Note I am not talking about using a well established brand name and riding on their coat tails. That's a different argument. Your best bet if you want to keep your recipes safe is to not share them at all, but then what's the point of being part of a DIY community? We are all about sharing here, if you develop a great recipe with input and help from other members, I am of the view that it should be shared. That begs the argument that @Andre made that if you have no intention of ever selling it, why not share it, if someone goes and makes money from it, who cares, you never had the intention. If you are making recipes to sell them, then don't share them. 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Feliks Karp

zandernwn said:


> The context of that reply seemed hostile and aimed at me. I must have misunderstood. all good.
> 
> Also helping the community is not confined to sharing recipes. I invest a considerable amount of my time and money in helping the DIY community...



_gott in hemmel_

So you are saying that you will never use anyone elses receipes so long as you no longer share your own? If not then absolutely no one has made any incorrect assumptions. 
You came in here with what I would admit is decent intent, but then ramp up in complete over-drive because people didn't get whipped up in to a rabid frenzy to join you on your crusade. You further go on to compare us to being complacent in "criminal" activities even trying to loosely associate our beliefs and input with an almost reverse broken-window theory. You then go on to accuse some members as being part of this underbelly of juice makers simply because they disagree with you. You then make several contradictory statements and end off with a self-righteous speech insinuating that we're all perhaps amoral and you will just continue the good fight on your own. Maybe you should get off of the soapboxes you've balanced on your high horse, come down to the ground and meet the rest of us, perhaps you will then understand subscribing to logic and reality leaves you with some (perhaps unfortunate) truths.

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 3 | Winner 3 | Optimistic 1


----------



## Caveman

Feliks Karp said:


> _gott in hemmel_
> 
> So you are saying that you will never use anyone elses receipes so long as you no longer share your own? If not then absolutely no one has made any incorrect assumptions.
> You came in here with what I would admit is decent intent, but then ramp up in complete over-drive because people didn't get whipped up in to a rabid frenzy to join you on your crusade. You further go on to compare us to being complacent in "criminal" activities even trying to loosely associate our beliefs and input with an almost reverse broken-window theory. You then go on to accuse some members as being part of this underbelly of juice makers simply because they disagree with you. You then make several contradictory statements and end off with a self-righteous speech insinuating that we're all perhaps amoral and you will just continue the good fight on your own. Maybe you should get off of the soapboxes you've balanced on your high horse, come down to the ground and meet the rest of us, perhaps you will then understand subscribing to logic and reality leaves you with some (perhaps unfortunate) truths.


I'll throw in a brilliant soap recipe I've got, free of charge.   

Disclaimer: it contains LOCO Blueberry
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1 | Winner 1 | Funny 5


----------



## rogue zombie

Feliks Karp said:


> But will you speak out against the people who put up clone receipes of commercial juices on DIY sub-forums and sites?



No. Leave those people alone

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## RichJB

Caveman said:


> So basically we have 2 things in question here. Morality and law.



I would add a third, pursuant to the sub-discussion between @zandernwn and @Andre: personal priorities. If I'm concluding correctly, @zandernwn's highest priority is that nobody should profit unethically from his work, that trumps the pleasure/reward of sharing his recipes. @Andre's highest priority is the pleasure/reward of sharing his recipes, people profiting unethically from his work is a lower priority for him.

I don't think it's a case of right or wrong, both sets of priorities are equally valid. It's a case of each individual making the choice that works for them.

Reactions: Like 4 | Agree 4


----------



## zandernwn

Feliks Karp said:


> And that is exactly the line of thinking some one takes when taking a "free" recipe and turning it in to business, "I'm not depriving the DIY person of income because he put it up for free, he never intended to make money off of it." Except in this case you are saying "I will mix up some analogue of that commercial juice, enjoy it and the juice maker won't lose any income because I never intended to buy it anyways". Really in all honesty after calling us out on being complacent your line of thinking is in direct contradiction to this quest of yours you claim to be on.



I am not even sure how you equate those two to be the same but let me tell you a story of a very exciting juice line that is about to launch. It started as a shared recipe, everyone loved it so much that we encouraged the creator to commercialise it. nobody shared this recipe beyond that group out of respect and we afforded the creator chance to pursue taking it to market. 

The creator never intended this to be a commercial line, he created an awesome recipe to help the community - this turned into an opportunity to make something great out of that. 

The creator received a fair chance at getting rewarded for his efforts. Now you want to tell me somehow we have double standards and that we are guilty of acting unethically? Close to 20 DIYers have access to the exact recipe of this juice. not a single person have shared this, not a single person have tried to steal it. chances are very good that none of the 20 odd folks that have access to it will ever physically go and buy that juice in the shops because we can just mix it up ourselves. bt we will also not cause the recipe creator harm by sharing beyond that group. That my friend is integrity, that is ethical. 

Now you want to come and tell me that somehow I have no more integrity that the person stealing the recipes... try the other one. 

there are plenty of recipe on line that are shared as on a free to use for whatever purpose, why are the not choosing those?

you can read more about the types of licensing that can be applied by the creator
https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-types-examples/

and here: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#do...o-copyright-such-as-fair-dealing-and-fair-use

last comment, the person who stole that recipe will soon have to compete with the creator of these recipes directly as he and other of the top mixers are bringing their juice lines to south africa.


----------



## zandernwn

RichJB said:


> I would add a third, pursuant to the sub-discussion between @zandernwn and @Andre: personal priorities. If I'm concluding correctly, @zandernwn's highest priority is that nobody should profit unethically from his work, that trumps the pleasure/reward of sharing his recipes. @Andre's highest priority is the pleasure/reward of sharing his recipes, people profiting unethically from his work is a lower priority for him.
> 
> I don't think it's a case of right or wrong, both sets of priorities are equally valid. It's a case of each individual making the choice that works for them.



thats a fair point


----------



## E.T.



Reactions: Winner 1 | Funny 7


----------



## zandernwn

Popcorn aside, the one thing lacking from this debate is the admission from a guitly prominent juice maker that they have used recipes they took online and defending their case. why is that?

Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## zandernwn

Feliks Karp said:


> _gott in hemmel_
> 
> So you are saying that you will never use anyone elses receipes so long as you no longer share your own? If not then absolutely no one has made any incorrect assumptions.
> You came in here with what I would admit is decent intent, but then ramp up in complete over-drive because people didn't get whipped up in to a rabid frenzy to join you on your crusade. You further go on to compare us to being complacent in "criminal" activities even trying to loosely associate our beliefs and input with an almost reverse broken-window theory. You then go on to accuse some members as being part of this underbelly of juice makers simply because they disagree with you. You then make several contradictory statements and end off with a self-righteous speech insinuating that we're all perhaps amoral and you will just continue the good fight on your own. Maybe you should get off of the soapboxes you've balanced on your high horse, come down to the ground and meet the rest of us, perhaps you will then understand subscribing to logic and reality leaves you with some (perhaps unfortunate) truths.


For the love of all things holy, how on gods green earth did you deduct all that from what I said. did I just offend you in some way maybe?... or is it just that maybe you feel like you have to somehow try and assert yourself over people as a show of machinssimo. Because godonlyknows that to have taken the time to write all that must mean you really have an issue with me and not so much the topic.
now I m no genius, its just my dad used to be like that, thats how I know. Yes I know daddy issues. Maybe thats makes you right, who knows these things, right?

I often find debate is degragded to slander where the slanderer no longer have something constructive to bring to the discussion..

Oh dear.I have resorted to slandering perhaps I have nothing constructive to add anymore either


----------



## Milc e-Juice

method1 said:


> Yeah!
> 
> I recently have had an incident with a guy going around (someone I've never met or spoken to) to stores claiming he mixes for us and trying to pawn off some of his own mixes.
> I suppose the con is that because he is our "head mixer" his stuff must be good & shops should buy it.
> These kind of things seem to be happening more often now.


I have actually been told about this guy at my local Vape king


----------



## Milc e-Juice

zandernwn said:


> Popcorn aside, the one thing lacking from this debate is the admission from a guitly prominent juice maker that they have used recipes they took online and defending their case. why is that?
> 
> Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk


that will never happen zander you and i both know that.


----------



## RichJB

zandernwn said:


> why is that?



They're not allowed to comment on their products in this forum. But you can just ask them. I tuned a commercial oke last week "This juice is Pebbles, bru, you stole this from Manson." He said "I AM Manson, LMAO." I said "You can't be because I'm Manson." Next thing, we both have our cell phones out and we're logging in to ATF to prove we're Manson. I mean, one of us must be lying, amirite? Things get hectic when you're a pirate, jong.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## zandernwn

Milc e-Juice said:


> I have actually been told about this guy at my local Vape king


Please dont say anything, apparently thats perfectly acceptable.

Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Milc e-Juice

So if we say that this is "ok" why do people who are stealing or "remaking" these recipes for profit not say to the original maker, hey im making your stuff up to buy a ferrari.

If there is nothing wrong with it or people should not be ashamed of using a publicly shared recipe. then why not admit to it? i mean the majority of people in this thread have said its cool... the brand that stole the recipe would then suffer no backlash? or am i wrong?


----------



## Rude Rudi

I'm sure most of you have made/aware of Kreed's Kustard - regarded by many/most as the best custard eliquid around... 

See his little quagmire here. It relates directly to this argument, albeit with a different twist. See how he handles the situation, as a world class mixer: 








The post is from a closed group so I can't share the link.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Blu_Marlin

@zandernwn it`s clear you feel passionate about this. And with passion comes emotion. That aside, profiting from a recipe found on the internet, shared by DIY`ers does not seem to be illegal. Unethical but not illegal. I am no way condoning recipe theft but unfortunately the interwebs is a big place and there’s all sorts of people that frequent it, even unscrupulous ones. That is a reality of life. By your own admission you say that one of the ingredients will have been subbed because it’s not available in SA. That imo would technically not make it theft as it’s not true to the original. 

On to the next point. Is there any way that you can guarantee that no two people could come up with the exact same flavour profile, never mind the exact same recipe, independently of each other? I think that would also be a stretch to prove. I’m sure there are DIY`ers/mixologists out there who have come up with similar/exact flavour profiles using different ingredients. I personally do not have a clue as to who or what the juice you are referring to could be but being the resourceful person that I am I will probably find out eventually. What I’m getting at here is that calling someone out publicly could lead down legal avenues.What you could do is post a link to the orignal recipe/s or the orignal names/flavour profiles here so that we, that are not in the know, know what to look out for. (You see that`s me being resourceful)

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Glytch



Reactions: Winner 3 | Funny 4


----------



## RichJB

Milc e-Juice said:


> If there is nothing wrong with it or people should not be ashamed of using a publicly shared recipe. then why not admit to it? i mean the majority of people in this thread have said its cool... the brand that stole the recipe would then suffer no backlash? or am i wrong?



You are conflating "recipes are not copyrightable" and "recipe theft is inevitable if you post recipes on a public forum" with "recipe theft is perfectly acceptable". They are not the same thing. If you leave you car idling while you pop into a shop to buy something, then people will ask "What did you _think_ was going to happen?" when your car is stolen. And so will your insurance company. That doesn't mean they condone car theft and think it's cool. It means they hold you responsible for looking after that which is valuable to you. 

Coca-Cola and KFC know that they can't publish their recipes in the public domain. They look after that which is valuable to them. Is there a reason why DIY shouldn't abide by the same principle?

Reactions: Like 3 | Agree 3 | Can relate 1


----------



## playa4life

As for my - personal - research has pointed out to me: Certain things cant be copyrighted/patented. One of those things are scents. That is why you could walk into a Red Square and pay R1800 for 50ml of Coolwaters by Davidoff in a flashy bottle or, you could come to me and I will sell you 50ml for R140 of my perfume which is simply branded as "Inspired by Coolwaters" and which I make up in my garage over weekends and smells exactly like the original. As long as I'm not bottling my perfume in the same manner as the original perfume maker and marketing it as the original, then I'm still safe/legal. 
While scents can be patented, it generally isnt since the makers thereof, would have to fully disclose all ingredients used in it's make up. This just opens them up to so many more individual perfume makers infringing on their recipe and selling exact copies of their scent that they rather dont bother with patents. 

I'd imagine the same, or roughly the same, logic can/is applied to (e-liquid) tastes. The juice just isnt really worth the squeeze at the end of the day.
pun intended 

People are going to want to make a buck regardless - and given half the chance, they will find a way to.
Such is life.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Sheryl

I am a mad supported of a local manufacturer, not just because of taste, but because the guy went the extra mile for me. Doesn't know me at all, but gave me the time of day. Therefore, if that line of recipes were all stolen from someone else, I'd STILL buy it and wouldn't care.

However, and now I'm contradicting myself, if I came across someone cloning this guy's stuff, I'd be p'ed off, and wouldn't touch it, because I'd be supporting his opposition.

That first impression, not from the distributors like Vape King (though I love you people) but from the mixer himself, is what makes me buy that brand, and only that, unless my husband does the shopping. Then I end up with nice stuff, but it never hits the spot like 

I want to mix my own, not to sell, I'd never have the damn time to even consider that, but for myself, and even then I'd still buy that brand.


----------



## SmokeyJoe

Sheryl said:


> I am a mad supported of a local manufacturer, not just because of taste, but because the guy went the extra mile for me. Doesn't know me at all, but gave me the time of day. Therefore, if that line of recipes were all stolen from someone else, I'd STILL buy it and wouldn't care.
> 
> However, and now I'm contradicting myself, if I came across someone cloning this guy's stuff, I'd be p'ed off, and wouldn't touch it, because I'd be supporting his opposition.
> 
> That first impression, not from the distributors like Vape King (though I love you people) but from the mixer himself, is what makes me buy that brand, and only that, unless my husband does the shopping. Then I end up with nice stuff, but it never hits the spot like
> 
> I want to mix my own, not to sell, I'd never have the damn time to even consider that, but for myself, and even then I'd still buy that brand.


If you want to start DIY, have a look at All Day Vapes' DIY selection. Flavour is already combined, just mix with vg pg and nic and bobs your uncle. No struggeling with testing recipes and what not. His prices are excellent and you cant go wrong with the price. If been diying for 3 years, but since ive used his stuff i wont even look back

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Sheryl

SmokeyJoe said:


> If you want to start DIY, have a look at All Day Vapes' DIY selection. Flavour is already combined, just mix with vg pg and nic and bobs your uncle. No struggeling with testing recipes and what not. His prices are excellent and you cant go wrong with the price. If been diying for 3 years, but since ive used his stuff i wont even look back


THANKS  !

Reactions: Like 2


----------

