I m open it and don't see any enough information there so please guide me about it 

Some thoughts

That’s not an example. It’s the “circumstances” that are important, which is why I asked for an example. Then we can see how it ralates relates to the case under discussion.

Also, it would have been good form to provide a citation for the quote you gave.

In my opinion ReneDescartes’s speculation about Russian permissions was highly unlikely, Justinhorton’s objection missed the point, and your bringing up whole works was obscuring the issue. So I tried to bring the discussion back to earth by asking for an example.

Please give an example of a whole work being quoted that was deemed to be fair use.

ReneDescartes wrote on 05/08/18 at 23:19:39:


This is some nonsense here. You can't lift huge chunks of somebody else's work without permission, that's what copyright's all about. And you don't get round copyright by retranslating a work so that the words are changed round a bit.

This discussion reminded me of a conversation I had with a group of Russian GMs 30 years ago concerning Shereshevsky's book 'Endgame Strategy': I was saying how good it was and how much I liked it, to which I was informed that it was mostly copied from other (Soviet) authors! I have no idea if this is true or not, maybe it was just sour grapes, but it stuck in my memory.

Jacob Aagaard's comments

I refrained from cutting and pasting them

Wow. I've had some uncharitable readings of the piece, but this one takes the cake.

The point of the review is simple: there are legal, technical, and ethical problems with this book. (a) Shereshevsky and his English-language editors ignored the rights of other copyright holders when they published this book. (b) They do not give page numbers or titles / editions for quotes, and they re-translate English-language material back into English. That's inadequate. (c) There is a severe ethical problem with 'conducting,' as you put it, or taking thousands of words from the work of others, writing around it, and then putting your name on the final product.

That you think Shereshevsky had interesting ideas is irrelevant. This is a product corrupted by its flaws.

[Update: I think this is the key difference between me and those who would let Shereshevsky / NIC off the hook for the three issues above. That the ideas are interesting is, really, irrelevant. I actually agree with some of what Rene is saying here. It's interesting to see which texts from Dvoretsky, Nunn, Beim, Gelfand, Lipnitsky, Kramnik, etc etc etc, he decides to take his long quotations from. It's interesting to see how he plays them off each other, although I'd argue that it's much less profound than Rene says - it's 'he said, he said, oh that's interesting, let's move on' on my read. (Rene also ignores the obvious pro-Putin slant of the book and how it colors the material on Tukmakov. That's some, not all, of gossip I was referring to.)

'Conducting' isn't the same thing as authorship. A personal notebook of material copied from other authors isn't a publishable book. The analogy to a course reader is perhaps closer, but there (a) you have to get permission to include material in a course reader, and (b) you don't claim that you're the author of the reader at the end of it! This is the crux of the whole argument. I don't think it's morally right to do what Shereshevsky did in either language, and it wasn't legally permissable in the English edition. (I'll leave Russian copyright law, and how it is ignored, to the Russia experts.) It's stunning to me that anyone can willfully overlook this because the 'ideas are interesting.']

I'm not going to debate you point by point, but two of your most asinine claims need to be dealt with:

(1) "Moreover, it does not seem to have occurred to anyone that the inexplicable retranslations from English to Russian back into English might precisely preserve those rights under the law if an licensing agreement with the Russian Chess Federation exists."

It did occur to me, although I thought it was a way of getting around copyright. (I'm less charitable than you.) That's why I contacted multiple affected publishers and a legal expert, none of whom agreed with your theory.

(2) What's immoral [note: that word does not appear in the review!] is your attribution of ulterior motives to my work. It's borderline slanderous, in fact, and utterly without basis. If there's one thing that people can trust when they read what I write, it's that I'm honest. You don't have to agree with it, but it's an honest assessment.

You need to get the balance of your humours checked, Rene.