Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis (Read 17164 times)
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 917
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #43 - 05/25/12 at 17:21:47
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 05/25/12 at 15:37:08:
Actually brabo, I must apologize, I don't know your identity (or perhaps have forgotten it), nor would I know how to discover it other than to ask you.

There is a trick to know an identity without having to ask somebody. I check the posts of that person and take out the games the person has published about himself. Then I put these games on my computer and check a position preferably deep in a game (move 30) with the megadatabase or correspondence database. If you find the same game then you can be pretty sure it is the same person. You can still repeat the process with other games to get confirmation. I found like that already from several members their identity.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #42 - 05/25/12 at 15:37:08
Post Tools
Actually brabo, I must apologize, I don't know your identity (or perhaps have forgotten it), nor would I know how to discover it other than to ask you.

If you want credit, you don't have to publish in NIC, but I would recommend, yes, that you publish in some sort of formal publication where your name appears on the material that you've submitted.

I am tired of discussing this.  Go get a lawyer, or else, please just stop posting here about it.  As many others have pointed out, this is not really a ChessPub matter.  I have posted only as a courtesy to you, but I shall not post again about this exceedingly wearisome subject.

However:

The copyright of a work on mathematical science cannot give to the author an exclusive right to the methods of operation which he propounds, or to the diagrams which he employs to explain them, so as to prevent an engineer from using them whenever occasion requires. The very object of publishing a book on science or the useful arts is to communicate to the world the useful knowledge which it contains. But this object would be frustrated if the knowledge could not be used without incurring the guilt of piracy of the book. And where the art it teaches cannot be used without employing the methods and diagrams used to illustrate the book, or such as are similar to them, such methods and diagrams are to be considered as necessary incidents to the art, and given therewith to the public; not given for the purpose of publication in other works explanatory of the art, but for the purpose of practical application.

U.S. Supreme Court, Baker vs. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879)

It seems quite plausible to me that chess variations are methods and thus comprehended by this.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 917
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #41 - 05/25/12 at 14:04:23
Post Tools
fling wrote on 05/25/12 at 13:16:33:

I believe only the one from chess.com is a bit interesting for my case. However no clear answers are given just interpretations and there are clear differences between the countries. In fact I am not sure if there exists a precedence.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #40 - 05/25/12 at 13:18:11
Post Tools
For most countries it is 70 years from the death of the author. I think the 50 years are for photos, from moment of publication. - But it should be quite clear that opening names are not protected by copyright laws. I am not a lawyer, but I've never thought of this as a copyright issue. This falls - in my opinion - more into another area, what brabo had called "respect for other authors".
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
fling
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1547
Joined: 01/21/11
Gender: Male
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #38 - 05/25/12 at 09:26:37
Post Tools
It is default at 50 years after the author's death I think, but can potentially be longer if the legislation in the country is specifying it.

Source - Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 917
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #37 - 05/25/12 at 07:57:28
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 05/25/12 at 07:31:40:
Full disclosure: When I published Die Nordwalder Variante I wasn't aware that 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Qf6 had already been analyzed by Jaenisch in 1843. - My Vulture had been played earlier in a slightly different version by Esteban Canal. - "My" version of a From's Gambit had older roots (circa 1914). So when I made my first steps in chess publishing, as a naive 18-year-old, I fear that some people were rotating in their graves. 

I believe there exists an expiry date on copyright, isn't it? So I don't think that you did something wrong at that time.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #36 - 05/25/12 at 07:31:40
Post Tools
brabo wrote on 05/25/12 at 07:20:43:
Stefan Buecker wrote on 05/25/12 at 07:06:38:
Brabo lives in the Netherlands, so he can ignore the © stuff. Also in Australia, as far as I know, the Berne Convention is respected since 1968.

I am not living in the Netherlands as a bit lower, people are still speaking as native language Dutch. In fact if you do a quick wikipediacheck on my handle then you can perfectly know where I am living. I don't think that I can ignore the © stuff.

Sorry, my mistake. But Belgium was one of the original signers of the Berne Convention, so I don't see what's the problem.

In the other thread I had written:

Quote:
Who says that the right to name a variation is worth nothing? I remember a newspaper article claiming "world honors for Wilkes-Barre".

Full disclosure: When I published Die Nordwalder Variante I wasn't aware that 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Qf6 had already been analyzed by Jaenisch in 1843. - My Vulture had been played earlier in a slightly different version by Esteban Canal. - "My" version of a From's Gambit had older roots (circa 1914). So when I made my first steps in chess publishing, as a naive 18-year-old, I fear that some people were rotating in their graves. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 917
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #35 - 05/25/12 at 07:20:43
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 05/25/12 at 07:06:38:
Brabo lives in the Netherlands, so he can ignore the © stuff. Also in Australia, as far as I know, the Berne Convention is respected since 1968.

I am not living in the Netherlands as a bit lower, people are still speaking as native language Dutch. In fact if you do a quick wikipediacheck on my handle then you can perfectly know where I am living. I don't think that I can ignore the © stuff.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #34 - 05/25/12 at 07:06:38
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 05/25/12 at 02:36:37:
I used to post my poetry on the compuserve peotry forum, but I never forgot to put my own name on it and a copyright notice as well.

Markovich, you belong to an older generation which is still used to the copyright laws as they were before the United States signed the 1886 Berne Convention. The Copyright law of your country used to be very different to the law in Europe, but there have been some changes in 1988 (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States ):

Quote:
Prior to 1989, use of a copyright notice — consisting of the copyright symbol (©, the letter C inside a circle), the abbreviation "Copr.", or the word "Copyright", followed by the year of the first publication of the work and the name of the copyright holder — was part of United States statutory requirements.


Brabo lives in the Netherlands, so he can ignore the © stuff. Also in Australia, as far as I know, the Berne Convention is respected since 1968.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 917
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #33 - 05/25/12 at 05:35:50
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 05/25/12 at 02:36:37:
brabo wrote on 05/24/12 at 05:17:12:
Markovich wrote on 05/24/12 at 00:39:52:
You posted anonymously! 

Using a handle is not the same as anonymously. From a handle you can easily (like in this case) find the real identity. From anonymously this is much harder and often impossible.
I believe one may expect that somebody tries at least a simple effort to define the identity behind a handle.


Really? I don't. Why should someone else bother to lift his little finger for your sake if can't see fit to post over your own name? If you seriously wanted credit, you should have supplied your name. In fact, I suggest you should have written to the NIC forum page. That's what I do when I have what I consider to be a bright idea.  I'm talking credit, not copyright.

Frankly I think it's bizarre to think that after you post anonymously in a higjly public forum, you have some sort of ownership claim.

I used to post my poetry on the compuserve peotry forum, but I never forgot to put my own name on it and a copyright notice as well.

So to get the right credit, I first have to post an idea on NIC forumpage? Since when is that considered as the standard. Why NIC forumpage and not chesspubforum? What if somebody else doesn't consider NIC forumpage either as a reference?

I believe you pretty well know my identity so it is clear that I am not anonymous. People interested in chess can easily find out the identity. People not interested in chess but only in my person (family, friends, boss, colleagues, HR, Taxdepartment, ...) I don't wish them to read here my personal thoughts. I avoid that by using a handle so a simple googlesearch doesn't work.
« Last Edit: 05/25/12 at 06:36:01 by brabo »  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #32 - 05/25/12 at 02:36:37
Post Tools
brabo wrote on 05/24/12 at 05:17:12:
Markovich wrote on 05/24/12 at 00:39:52:
You posted anonymously! 

Using a handle is not the same as anonymously. From a handle you can easily (like in this case) find the real identity. From anonymously this is much harder and often impossible.
I believe one may expect that somebody tries at least a simple effort to define the identity behind a handle.


Really? I don't. Why should someone else bother to lift his little finger for your sake if can't see fit to post over your own name? If you seriously wanted credit, you should have supplied your name. In fact, I suggest you should have written to the NIC forum page. That's what I do when I have what I consider to be a bright idea.  I'm talking credit, not copyright.

Frankly I think it's bizarre to think that after you post anonymously in a higjly public forum, you have some sort of ownership claim.

I used to post my poetry on the compuserve peotry forum, but I never forgot to put my own name on it and a copyright notice as well.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2114
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #31 - 05/25/12 at 00:14:36
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 05/24/12 at 15:33:11:
Jupp53 wrote on 05/24/12 at 10:22:24:
As this kind of problems have risen in the past the creative commons license has been worked out. The advantage imo is the clear regulation of copyright and further use of original content fitting to web demands.

I'm no publisher - like Tony or Stefan. So I don't have experience and I'd like listen to what they have to say about it. If they think it's not good in this context I'd accept it without problems. But why starting something new?

The concept of "Creative Common License" was developed for people who are willing to give free access to some of their work, without giving up all of the rights or let others profit commercially from their own non-profit work. But that's a very special situation, and a small circle of people, e.g. musicians who want to get a foot into the real market. 

GMTonyKosten wrote on 05/24/12 at 10:21:36:
Very annoying at the time, but I didn't see any real point complaining about it.

In 1983 I commented a game for a bulletin. My comments were used in a German chess magazine, credit given, but the text edited which I hated. I wrote an angry letter to the editor and asked for payment. He replied that the organizer sent him the bulletin, thus it were okay to use the comments. We kept a friendly relationship, but he never again used my work without asking. (It was, of course, a very minor case.)

brabo wrote on 05/24/12 at 10:39:03:
It is a well known fact that many last round games are arranged. [...] Suddenly people became aware that such actions were really not acceptable but a complaint was necessary to get people fully aware of this.

The chess world was aware of the problem of selling last-round games since, ... Ware - Grundy, New York 1880. Wink


Also happens in education. Teachers are often sharing sorts, but also don't want to be taken for a ride by the lazy cynics who will just nick everything. So yes, CC Licence when we remember.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #30 - 05/24/12 at 15:33:11
Post Tools
Jupp53 wrote on 05/24/12 at 10:22:24:
As this kind of problems have risen in the past the creative commons license has been worked out. The advantage imo is the clear regulation of copyright and further use of original content fitting to web demands.

I'm no publisher - like Tony or Stefan. So I don't have experience and I'd like listen to what they have to say about it. If they think it's not good in this context I'd accept it without problems. But why starting something new?

The concept of "Creative Common License" was developed for people who are willing to give free access to some of their work, without giving up all of the rights or let others profit commercially from their own non-profit work. But that's a very special situation, and a small circle of people, e.g. musicians who want to get a foot into the real market. 

GMTonyKosten wrote on 05/24/12 at 10:21:36:
Very annoying at the time, but I didn't see any real point complaining about it.

In 1983 I commented a game for a bulletin. My comments were used in a German chess magazine, credit given, but the text edited which I hated. I wrote an angry letter to the editor and asked for payment. He replied that the organizer sent him the bulletin, thus it were okay to use the comments. We kept a friendly relationship, but he never again used my work without asking. (It was, of course, a very minor case.)

brabo wrote on 05/24/12 at 10:39:03:
It is a well known fact that many last round games are arranged. [...] Suddenly people became aware that such actions were really not acceptable but a complaint was necessary to get people fully aware of this.

The chess world was aware of the problem of selling last-round games since, ... Ware - Grundy, New York 1880. Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
proustiskeen
God Member
*****
Offline


Hello from Omaha!

Posts: 647
Joined: 08/11/08
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #29 - 05/24/12 at 15:31:01
Post Tools
The second part (bordered by the </quote>) is from fling.  In my effort to minimize unnecessary quoting, I broke the quote.   My apologies for the confusion.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo