thatguy314 wrote:My house IPA uses Munich, Honey Malt, and 2-row. I used these, because I liekd the malt bill on flower power and I used those malts til I hit the right SRM (they've since removed the Munich but that's besides the poitn). Just because I was targetting a similar malt bill doesn't mean it's someone else's recipe.
Similarly, I made an Imperial Stout just off the top of my head. I then went into BCS and saw that it was virtually identical to Jamil's (but C80 instead of Caramunich, a few differnces in yeast and mash temp). But the point remains, I still came up with it. I don't doubt that my way of thinking about recipes has been heavily affected by listening to the Jamil show, but he didn't think the recipe up for me.
But to answer the original question? I think it's when you make thoughtful choices about ingredients that go beyond tweaking an existing recipe. Or you publish them in a copyrighted book. Both definitions work.
The answer to the question is "Who cares?" Brewing beer is about controlling variables. The recipe is but one variable. You brew it, it's yours. As someone pointed out, recipes aren't beer and recipes are rarely complete - they usually don't contain important specifics such as water chemistry profiles, specific brands/types of malt, all of which can make huge differences in the finished beer.
BTW, you CANNOT copyright a recipe. Books of recipes are copyrighted as a whole, but you can freely distribute individual recipes legally.
Michael
I think I would have reserves on naming something that I buy as a kit (for example, my first brew was the Diamond knot IPA clone kit, made by Diamond knot). Luckily, I messed that one up and it tasted nothing like it - and everyone I had taste test it chose mine as the better (!!! 
). I didn't name that though because I only ended up with ~3 gal and it was gone before I could!
