procedures, illustrations, etc., are.
It's tricky, like you explained, because procedures/processes by themselves are also not copyrightable. It has to be a substantial literary work... like a collection of recipes organized in a certain way, or a special illustrated expressions, or some other similar distinction. Restated recipes are perfectly fine. It's common courtesy to write "adapted from..." to credit the original work.
I'm going to have to probably disagree, Pav, and it falls to what the Fed deems as "substantial literary work". It doesn't really have to be "substantial" in its commonly understood meaning, but rather, anything substantive which could be considered "original" in its content. From the fed copyright office:
Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients. Nor does it protect other mere listings of ingredients such as those found in formulas, compounds, or prescriptions.
Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook.
or
A mere listing of ingredients is not protected under copyright law. However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a collection of recipes as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection
(Emphasis mine).
So that by my understanding,
"1 tsp sugar, 2 tsp salt, 1/4 cup water" isn't copyrightable;
"1 1 tsp sugar, 2 tsp salt, 1/4 cup water. Combine all ingredients in a copper-clad pot and bring to a boil over a heat diffuser, being careful not to caramelize the sugar" is, as lame as that is, copyrightable. The directions accompanying the ingredient listing are what constitute "substantial literary expression."
As would be, technically, "1 1 tsp sugar, 2 tsp salt, 1/4 cup water. Bring all ingredients to a simmer, slowly. Do not allow sugar to darken."
Each is a "substantial literary expression." Hence, my saying that if one were to take a "recipe," and put the processes involved in one's own words, I would consider the original "substantial literary expression" has been preserved, and no infringement will have taken place. Lame, but so is the law.