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: Macauley Peterson @Macauley64 · Mar 3
Great column from Mark Donlan @ChessEdu on fair use & copyright. Must read for all chess journalists & editors:
https://chesscafe.com/the-skittles-r 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:Yet, the material in question is likely not under copyright protection to begin with, so is this fair use, infringement, or just a case of ethics and a failure to respect journalistic integrity. Is non-copyrighted material posted on an Internet website simply free for the taking without permission or accreditation?
??? 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:Beyond borrowing of material there are many examples of clear-cut plagiarism, which is also rampant in the chess world both in print and especially on the Internet. Edward Winter devoted an entire essay to the issue in “Copying.”
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.