Instead of creating a new thread, I would like to resuscitate this thread to point to an article published on ChessCafe (https://chesscafe.com/features/the-skittles-room/) [I am not sure how long it will remain accessible before disappearing behind paywall which is what ChessCafe has become.]

Briefly, the article was written due to complaints received from Edward Winter (noted chess historian and scourge of copyright violaters and plagiarists worldwide) of a video taken from Youtube which ChessCafe re-posted on their site under their "Video Spotlight" column.

I was alerted to this by a tweet from Macauley Peterson and re-tweeted by Mark Crowther.
Quote:


I have to say that I am disappointed by the article and by the "blind" recommendation from Macauley and Mark.

Again, there are some serious misunderstandings about copyright and the distinction from plagiarism, which boundaries are blurred in the article.

1) The author cites the US doctrine of "fair use" but this is a specific doctrine which is not necessarily applied nor adopted elsewhere in the world. The US is not the Internet nor the world. For example, Australia has not adopted fair use and our equivalent is much more restrictive of what you can use "fairly".
PS, the "apology" from the original Youtube video creator is very underwhelming to say the least!
2) There is this remarkable passage:
Quote:

??? It was acknowledged that Edward Winter spent considerable time, effort and possibly money to acquire certain images which he duly "published" on his website. IMHO That "publication" gives rise to a new copyright in that particular image!
This is similar to novels which come into public domain. Publishers "rush" to get their edited versions into the market. They cannot stop anyone from publishing their edited version BUT they can certainly stop anyone from "copying" their published edited version.

3) In following passage, no distinction is made between copyright violation and plagiarism:
Quote:


IMHO, Publishers, Authors, Editors, Journalists, and ordinary chess players should be wary of this "supposedly Great column ..... on fair use & copyright", no it is not!!!

PS, my apologies to Stefan, I realised I never did post back on my findings on copyright. Sorry, that research got derailed. I was mainly looking at copyright of chess analyses and not so much on copyright of games.

brabo wrote on 05/09/14 at 08:35:53:

It is only one camp - the authors working in the right way, who do research their topics and credit their sources -, plus the occasional cases of starting authors who don't know (yet) how to do it.

Accelerated Dragons by Donaldson/Silman, London 1998, was regarded as a milestone for this opening. It earned raving reviews when it came out. Above the bibliography of that work, p.6, you can read the following acknowledgement:

Quote:


The book was listed in the bibliography of Accelerated Dragon, London 1998, by Peter Heine Nielsen/Carsten Hansen. That's what you'd expect. After Donaldson/Silman have put so much work in their own work, it would have been quite a shock for these two authors to find their book ignored.

How can an author expect that his book is duly quoted from other authors in the future, if he doesn't care about studying works of authors who came before him?

LeeRoth wrote on 03/09/14 at 16:24:42:


And I don't completely agree with you of course 

I fully agree that it isn't a copyright issue, I got it wrong and my later posts explained that. But I still think that claiming something a novelty, using what looks like analysis from a source you were given by a known author, leaves you open to fair criticism no matter what the issue really is about...

Regarding checking sources, yes, it is hard to check everything, but it is just an explanation of why you missed something, not an excuse. There are examples of nobel prize laureates that should not have been, and vice versa. But in general, the prize is pretty strictly accredited to the scientists that were first with the idea, not the ones that popularized it etc.

Furthermore, as I stated before, I don't have a super database and I still see many games that have been played quite some time before publication date of QC books, meaning that those N's really aren't novelties by their definition in the books.

Lastly, I still like the books very much, but I much more like when credit is given to whomever it should be given to. That is just proper respect for work people has spent on something. And yes, I know it is hard, I do have a Ph D in Immunology. At least I read over 2,000 publications just before preparing my thesis, but still could have read much more...

LGXIII wrote on 03/11/14 at 15:44:29:


Well, if they do I hope they proofread it first! 

brabo wrote on 03/11/14 at 13:43:18:


Hi Brabo,

Yes, I kind of 'short-circuited' the thing, trying to rectify : "about the TN part of the discussion I think that brabo has a point, and in my opinion the signification of TN cannot be the same as it used to be anyway"

I agree with LGXIII. Nevertheless, I think that including a sentence such as "I (We) would like to thank Stefan Bruecker for sending me (us) issues of Kaissiber free of charge." in the acknowledgment section would have been appropriate. While it certainly wasn't intentionally omitted, I can understand some of the initial complaints of Bruecker as a result.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 03/11/14 at 07:54:50:

"N" already exists much longer than databases. However there is no universal law which obliges new authors to use the "N" sign in the old traditional way. There is certainly also a valid argument just to state that chess has developed too much to keep on using the traditional way of the "N" sign. Something you maybe can compare with the abolishment of adjournments.

Besides I also believe you need to make a distinction where you are making the "N" sign. I analyze all my personal games and I use the "N" sign very often but obviously I can't spend the same amount of time at the openings compared with an author writing about 1 specific opening for sometimes years. I publish quite a lot of my personal games on my blog but I believe nobody will expect that my "N" signs are more than a database check (although often it is more !!). So when a "N" sign is deserved, is linked to the expectations.

Now if one thing became clear of the quarrel on QC is that expectations can be very different.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 03/10/14 at 20:59:34:


Totally agree - databases are more cut and dry than parsing through magazines, books, or searching internet forums and such. I think it's the authors responsibility to keep track down all of the games and keep it maintained for the duration of his work. Nowadays this isn't particularly difficult.