In April 2025, a copyright controversy unexpectedly bubbled to the surface of Australia’s culinary and publishing world.

Nagi Maehashi, the creator of the much-loved food blog RecipeTin Eats, publicly alleged that portions of her work had been reproduced without permission in ‘Bake with Brooki,’ a cookbook authored by Brooke Bellamy and published by Penguin Random House. At the centre of the dispute are two popular recipes – caramel slice and baklava – which Maehashi claims bear a substantial similarity to her own.

This case has stirred broader debate about the boundaries of copyright protection in creative industries – particularly in relation to recipes, which sit at the crossroads of functionality and artistic expression.

What’s in the Mix? The Basis of the Claim

Maehashi has alleged that the structure and wording of her recipes – originally published online in 2020 – were copied in Bellamy’s 2024 publication with only minor changes. In her view, the overlap extends beyond common ingredients and into the stylistic expression, sequencing, and presentation of the recipes.

Bellamy denied any copying, stating that the recipes in her book were developed independently over a number of years. While acknowledging that similar ingredients are often used in traditional desserts, she rejected any allegation of infringement. In an effort to resolve the dispute without conceding liability, Bellamy has reportedly offered to remove the two contested recipes from future editions.

Can You Copyright a Recipe?

In Australia, copyright protection is governed by the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (‘Act’). The Act protects original “literary works,” which can include written recipes – but only to the extent that they constitute original expression.

  • Critically, copyright does not protect:
  • ideas, concepts, systems or techniques; or
  • functional information such as lists of ingredients.

However, copyright may protect:

  • The way a recipe is expressed – its phrasing, descriptive flair, narrative elements, or even instructional structure – provided the expression is sufficiently original and not commonplace.

To establish copyright infringement, Maehashi would need to demonstrate that Bellamy reproduced a substantial part of the original literary work, focusing on the protectable elements (i.e., the expression, not the idea of a caramel slice). The test is qualitative rather than quantitative and considers whether a reasonable observer would view the expression in Bellamy’s work as materially similar to Maehashi’s.

 Independent Creation: A Complete Defence

Even if two works are objectively similar, copyright infringement will not be established if the respondent independently created their work without copying.

Bellamy has publicly stated that she developed the 100 recipes in her book without reference to Maehashi’s publications. If this is substantiated, it would provide a complete defence under Australian copyright law, as copyright only prohibits copying, not coincidental similarity.

While this dispute may not proceed to litigation, the involvement of Penguin Random House and the use of formal legal correspondence reflect the serious reputational and commercial risks that can arise in such cases.

Why This Dispute Matters

While this may be a dispute over baked goods, the legal implications extend far beyond the kitchen. For publishers, content creators, and businesses in food, media, and design, this case underscore how difficult it can be to draw a clear line between inspiration and infringement, particularly in industries where traditional forms are constantly reimagined.

It also highlights the importance of proactive intellectual property management. Whether your business produces recipes, editorial content, digital resources or branded materials, the need to clarify ownership are vital for long-term protection and credibility.

Key Lessons for Businesses and Creators

This case offers practical guidance for anyone in publishing, marketing, hospitality or digital content:

  • Document the process – Keep notes and drafts documenting your creation, especially when developing work that could be challenged.
  • Vet for originality – Don’t rely on intuition; conduct a proper review to assess whether your work borrows from existing publications.
  • Secure IP rights – Use written agreements to clarify ownership, especially when working with collaborators, ghostwriters or contractors.
  • Manage risks proactively – A strong IP position won’t just avoid legal disputes; it also protects your reputation and commercial relationships.

A Final Thought

This may not be the last word in the RecipeTin Eats versus Brooki controversy, but it’s already a valuable example of how copyright law is evolving to meet the challenges of a digital-first creative economy.

At Snedden Hall & Gallop, we advise clients across publishing, food, design, content creation, and beyond on how to protect their work, safeguard their commercial interests, and avoid the pitfalls of inadvertent infringement.

Because in law – just like in baking – it’s not just about having the right ingredients. It’s how you put them together that matters.

Need help protecting your IP or reviewing creative content? Contact our Intellectual Property team today.