Stefan Buecker wrote on 05/24/12 at 08:14:59:
By just publishing on Chesspub nobody gives up his copyrights, these rights remain with the creator. The copyright protection by the law is very strong. I wished some members here would read about copyright, e.g. on Wikipedia, before they post their vague ideas (which are often totally wrong).
I agree, I knew basically what protection you have in principle. What I have been saying and what has been mentioned here, is that there are two things in practice:
1. What actions can you take against the commercial entity that has violated your rights?
2. Threshold of Originality.
1. has been a problem with rather small cases, e.g. one image illegaly posted on a web page for a US company. Unfortunately, this has been far too common (for companies in general, they either don't know or don't give a damn). As far as I have understood, since the copyright laws have been different in the US than other places, it has not been worth it to pursue action against the company if it is not willing to negotiate.
In the case with the recent gambit, whether or not brabo could take it to court, it might not be worth it financially, as pointed out by e.g himself.
2. Here is the tricky part for me. This is often settled in court, because there it really is decided what is new and not. Precedent cases will usually be used as guidelines. Therefore, I wonder if there are any cases at all when it comes to chess analysis.
Stefan Buecker wrote on 05/24/12 at 08:14:59:
But for the sake of cultural exchange and progress of science, there exists a right to quote. Forum members here are often far too anxious. When you see a variation in a book and have doubts about the correctness of the final assessment, you are doing nothing wrong when you quote the whole variation, give credit to the author and mention the precise source. And if you give a new idea of your own, every author must welcome the contribution.
This is good to hear, and I know it works this way in science.
Stefan Buecker wrote on 05/24/12 at 08:14:59:
you cannot be absolutely sure that a copyright trial in the Netherlands will have the same result as elsewhere.
See above. Also, I would be surprised if there always would be the same result in Europe vs US, because the special way the juridicial system is set up in the US.
This whole discussion would not be if both sides would know their rights and would handle each other with respect, which I think would be the most appropriate since the community is pretty small. It might be that there have been wrong expectations from brabo's side, and miscommunication, misunderstanding or just neglect from NIC and Max side, dunno.
brabo wrote on 05/24/12 at 05:17:12:
I believe one may expect that somebody tries at least a simple effort to define the identity behind a handle. Max Illingworth preferred not to do that so he made a clear mistake there. He admitted in a mail that he didn't make contact just not to jeopardize the deal with NIC. That is proof which could be used in a court.
This is an issue I've thought about. There is a way to contact members here (but maybe it could be made clearer that the possibility exist?). But if it is true that no contact was made, if something similar would happen, we can't change anything here anyway to avoid another story. Even if it unethical to act this way, there might not be anything illegal about it. That is why the question of originality vs credit is critical in my mind. How much can you use of someone else's work (with citations) and your analysis would still be considered new?