Stefan Buecker wrote on 06/02/12 at 05:58:20:


Whether credit should be extended or not is an ethical matter, not a legal one. Different people may disagree. Personally I think that not just anyone who lays out variations should have his name mentioned by someone else who decides to analyze those same variations. It might be nice to mention someone's name in passing, but it really needs to serve the larger purposes of the presentation. One's reader has to come first, and punctilious attention to credit-giving can bog down a presentation.

I do think, however, it's very bad form to try to stick your name on something that you know someone else thought of first.

If you're talking about Daniel Naroditsky's book, I think "entire sections lifted verbatim" may be overstating the charge.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 06/02/12 at 05:58:20:


If the variation I quote has a source I am aware of, I quote it. However, if some analyst mentions a previously-unplayed move, but the analysis extending from that point is irrelevant/non-existent, then I won't typically credit it.

The point I'm getting across is that ideas should definitely be credited, and ideas take the form of variations/explanations. Put simply, for example, writing "15.Ng6!?" is not something I'm going to credit unless there is an accompanying explanation, etc. Anyone can toss out moves, even people that have no idea what is going on and just know how to move the pieces.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 06/01/12 at 21:07:07:


The example I used was part of interaction between the two of us in "real time" (term used loosely, as this is a forum). If I had found the idea before he mentioned it, then no.

In the case of running across older analysis that beat me to the punch, it would follow that as an a posteriori it would be credited to the extent analysis followed my own and was relevant. If it was irrelevant, then I am unlikely to mention it, because at that point I view what I found to be of higher priority and the citation a distraction. There is, of course, a level of subjectivity in determining what is/isn't relevant, but c'est la vie.

Generally speaking, the amount of analysis on the forum on a given topic wouldn't occupy even 5% of any given book on a specific opening (even less for repertoire books). It's a drop in the bucket. If someone is willing really to drag lawyers into something like that, it's just sad.

I might be inclined to agree if the basis of an individual's financial gain was the entirety of something you put out there (ie: 50% of their work), but let's be honest - that's just not likely.

Just for sake of example - let's say I write a text on the Semi-Slav, and there has been a community project here on it that covers the entirety of the Cambridge Springs, and I lift the entire thing verbatim/line-for-line. That would form a very significant chunk of a book and would be serious.

Most of the analysis on the forum is usually dedicated to one specific variation. It's just such a smaller scope.

If I put my analysis on a public forum, and someone else uses it, I can't say it'd bother me that much. It pleases me to receive credit, but I don't think they owe it to me. Afterall, this is basically a community dedicated to advancing opening theory. Some contribute more than others, sure, but that entitles us to nothing.

If I write a book, and someone consciously copies the analysis, then appropriate credit should be given. Even then I wouldn't be mad if they independently reach the same conclusions I did... Practically speaking, it's not like you can tell whether they stole the variations unless they are repeated in their entirety.

Relating to chesspub analysis - in my current project there is a case where the user Pantu brought up an idea I was unable to find, and I credit the idea to him.

If someone is that concerned that their public analysis is being put to use, then they shouldn't put it out there. Most people have the sense of decency to give credit where it is due, but for the ones that don't - does it really effect you that much?

Relating to the financial aspect - one would have to think the endeavor would require the individual to put in a significant amount of work overall that copying a couple of variations wouldn't be the end of the world. Hell, it's not uncommon that ECO gets quoted regularly in books. The mark of a decent book is what it contributes to the advancement of the game.

Quote:


That is correct because "technical instructions" can be a work. I said in my previous post also that a blog can be a work. And of course a real test would be court decisicon but here we need somebody who has too much money and even then there is a danger that the court does not make a general statement. 

Quote:


There is no doubtthat such an articles is guarded by the Urheberrecht. Look at the Guttenberg case (and he was extremely lucky that there was no criminal punishment because he was prominent)

I have followed the discussion (i have a legal education) and i think the first question is: Can a chess variante be a subject of a copyright ? Without answering this quesition you can not serious discuss anythin. And lets face it clear: The question is not if you think or wish that it should be subject of copyright.

I have the strong opinion that it is not the case because ideas are not subject of a copyright. In Germany you need a "Werk" (work) and a move of a piece in chess is not a work.  Markovich is on the right path.

When you publish an analyse as part of a blog then the blog is protected by copyright (Urheberrecht).

(When chess variants are subject of a copyright then i would asap register all variantions as brand and offer you licenses for a litte royality.  )

(BTW It is from legal point of view not interesting who was the first who invented something, it is only of interested who was the first who registered it).