They are not 'open in the public domain' nor can they be treated as 'public property'. Somebody wrote those menus from scratch and as such they own the copyright. If you wanted to take an excerpt from the menu and comment on it, then that is fair use. When reproducing it in full, they technically can request you remove it, or any of the other avenues for restitution copyright law affords. Most won't because it benefits them to have their menu available and widely disseminated - which is why they give them away in the first place. But don't confuse them giving the content away as it then being your property you can then do what you please with.
I actually think it may be more of a gray area than you think, read the description of Public domain here: http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/ - then think about how restaurants use their content when distributing to-go menus, advertising, etc, etc.
So, I called my friend who does have a menu service. His lawyer told him that case law may support the content of menus being public domain, but NOT the trademarks (like logos).
More important, he says, is the business issue. That is, the restaurant (or as it applies to this thread, the content owner) must PROVE that damages were caused by you, in order to take legal action.
Where are you getting your information from? Since when do you have to prove damages to uphold copyright law? Have you been paying any attention at all to the RIAA?
Public domain is what it sounds like. Things in the public domain are available for use by anyone for any (legal) purpose. Only once copyright expires (or voluntarily relinquished) does a work enter the public domain. Menus are copyrightable, and automatically granted copyright. Regardless of the "business use", the business owns them and their use.
Who are these lawyers and why are they making such a hash of copyright law? Why are you guys trusting them?
The RIAA is claiming harm for uncompensated use and distribution of a content they sell.. its completely different.
Did you read the definition of public domain on the link I just sent you? Apparently not. Here you go:
* their copyrights have expired; or
* the copyright owner didn’t follow certain required formalities (so they didn’t get a valid copyright); or
* the works weren’t eligible for copyright in the first place; or
* their creators dedicated them to the public domain.
You still think that the content of restaurant menus is copyrighted without question? Go down the street and let me know where I can find the formal copyright for 'Ben's Kabob's' - or whatever local diner is in your neighborhood. Even something like Chili's could be argued to be public domain because of the way they are already allowing use of their content for marketing purposes.
Who are these lawyers? And, who are the lawyers for the dozens of menus guides I can find on google? Why do all these entrepreneurs 'believe' them that it is a safe venture endeavor? Well, it seems like they are telling a consistent story, there have been zero problems after several years, and overall, its just a question of risk like any other decision you make in your business. Its not a perfect world, and sometimes you just have to take the advice of the best domain experts you can find and move forward to focus on building a profitable enterprise.
Besides that is irrelevant. What you meant was you need proof if you are suing for damages. You don't need proof of damages if you want someone to stop using your property.
Yes, restaurant menus are still copyrighted without question. Arguing with you about this is getting very tiresome, I suggest you go read the Wikipedia article on copyright as a starting point, or the other article I posted. Trust me, try reproducing the entire Chili's menu and see what happens. It'll be an interested experiment. Their menu is not in the public domain.
I very much doubt most entrepreneurs believe that it is a safe venture. Most people won't fight you on reproducing things if it benefits them, which is why people do it. But in reality the copyright owners are perfectly within their rights to demand a licensing fee or the removal of the property.
