The Masters pimento cheese sandwich scandal

I also love that while CBS has broadcast the Masters every year since the mid 50s, it's always on a one year agreement that they re-up each and every year.

I don't love that Augusta has such a history of racism and sexism, but they are at least trying to address it (though they will likely never acknowledge the many, many mistakes of the past). Honouring Lee Elder and making sure new generations of golf fans know about him was a nice guesture this year. It was special to see a Japanese champion don the green jacket 10 years after coming to prominence in world golf due to winning the Asia-Pacific Am, getting a spot in the Masters and being low Am, all Augusta sponsored events to grow the game's inclusivity (though a little rich from one of the most exclusive clubs in the world). The Am event for women is another step in the right direction, but I really want to see the top women in the world tee it up for 4 days with the same kind of coverage the man receive. Augusta has made a lot of positive changes, but they shouldn't get a free pass to ignore some very despicable behaviour, some of it far too recent.

That said, long-lived events can stay volunteer efforts.

Augusta National probably still has a policy [0] that if a spectator misbehaves in some fashion, they will trace the ticket back to the person who first acquired it, and ban them from future ticket sales. This is why you don't hear people yelling "git it!" at the tee or wearing brightly colored wigs [1] during the event - they get dis-invited and escorted off the property.

[0] Mom & Dad used to go back in the 1970's, using borrowed tickets. After he retired he lost his connection for getting them. They always ate the pimento-cheese sandwiches, and loved them.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollen_Stewart -- who is still serving three life sentences in prison.

In the case of the second sandwich maker, Godfrey, who replaced Rangos and developed his pimento cheese recipe for the Masters, probably not.

First of all, work for hire concerns who owns the copyright to something and recipes are not subject to copyright.

It is possible, though, that there is some expression in the way that he wrote the recipe that could be copyrighted, so let's say the Masters wants to make a work for hire argument that they own the copyright of that.

To be a work for hire, something must either be (1) made by an employee within the scope of their employment, or (2) fall into one of several categories and be declared a work for hire by the parties in a written instrument signed by them.

It doesn't sound like the pimento cheese provider is an employee of the Masters. He sounds more like a contractor. That would take out #1 of the two ways something could be a work for hire.

As far as #2 goes, first they have to explicitly have said in their signed written contract that the expression of the recipe will be a work for hire. That seems unlikely.

But let us say they did, and let us assume that the particular expression of the recipe counts as an instructional text. Let's say that means that the Masters owns the copyright on that particular expression of the underlying, uncopyrighted, recipe.

So what?

That just means they get to stop people from making and distributing copies of that text. It doesn't give them any power to compel someone who has a copy to turn it (or a copy of it) over to them.