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 16815 times)
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #58 - 06/03/12 at 01:23:46
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 06/02/12 at 05:58:20:
I am not sure whether I understand you. When a variation is irrelevant, you'll surely not mention it at all in your book, so no crediting, obviously. If there is any overlap between your analysis and older sources, you should credit. (Full disclosure: I am not perfect and sometimes fail to credit older sources. But I do my best.)


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.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
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 #57 - 06/02/12 at 21:26:08
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 06/02/12 at 07:37:05:
If the variation I quote has a source I am aware of, I quote it.

That's all I wanted to hear - for your chapter on 1.Nf3 h6, see:
www.chesscafe.com/text/kaiss15.pdf

Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4488
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #56 - 06/02/12 at 18:51:23
Post Tools
If you're talking about Daniel Naroditsky's book, I think "entire sections lifted verbatim" may be overstating the charge.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #55 - 06/02/12 at 18:28:42
Post Tools
A move, whether it's been played before or not, isn't subject to copyright.

The precise words describing those moves are subject to copyright.

It's appropriate to give credit to someone who has analysed an entire variation. But you're allowed to play that line in a tournament without giving credit to the author.

There was a book written by a teenager a few years ago where entire sections were lifted verbatim from other works, including by Karpov. This was a clear case of plagiarism because the descriptions of the variations were identical to extant books,  not because the variations themselves were the same.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #54 - 06/02/12 at 07:37:05
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 06/02/12 at 05:58:20:
I am not sure whether I understand you. When a variation is irrelevant, you'll surely not mention it at all in your book, so no crediting, obviously. If there is any overlap between your analysis and older sources, you should credit. (Full disclosure: I am not perfect and sometimes fail to credit older sources. But I do my best.)


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.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
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 #53 - 06/02/12 at 05:58:20
Post Tools
I am not sure whether I understand you. When a variation is irrelevant, you'll surely not mention it at all in your book, so no crediting, obviously. If there is any overlap between your analysis and older sources, you should credit. (Full disclosure: I am not perfect and sometimes fail to credit older sources. But I do my best.)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #52 - 06/01/12 at 21:18:06
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 06/01/12 at 21:07:07:
Are you saying that if you find a new move on Sunday, and on Monday you recognize that the same move had already been published one year ago on chesspub, no credit is necessary, because you had been "able" to find it yourself?


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.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
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 #51 - 06/01/12 at 21:07:07
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 06/01/12 at 20:32:38:
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.

Are you saying that if you find a new move on Sunday, and on Monday you recognize that the same move had already been published one year ago on chesspub, no credit is necessary, because you had been "able" to find it yourself?



  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #50 - 06/01/12 at 20:55:43
Post Tools
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.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
fling
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1534
Joined: 01/21/11
Gender: Male
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #49 - 06/01/12 at 20:45:41
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 06/01/12 at 20:32:38:
If someone is that concerned that their public analysis is being put to use, then they shouldn't put it out there.


You might not be the only one of this opinion. If I have anything I'll post the analysis here, but I am not sure where I would stand if I were a professional. But whatever you or me think in this matter, the law might say something else. As discussed here already, the forum won't matter, rather just how extensive the analysis is and how much is copied from it. And as I have pointed out earlier, this seems to be the idea when it comes to images on the web. I.e. many think it is free for them to use these without any credit or permission from the creator.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #48 - 06/01/12 at 20:32:38
Post Tools
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.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 908
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #47 - 05/25/12 at 21:13:38
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 05/25/12 at 15:37:08:
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.


I start to understand your logic. Some people like myself find this stuff very interesting probably because we regularly post analysis.

I believe the purpose of submitting analysis is that people can play the idea on the board and further develop it. These people (with your mentioned precedent) indeed should be allowed to copy the idea. However if people only use it for own (commercial) profit then this can not be considered the purpose of the originator.
Question of course is, from which point can a derived publication be considered insufficient development. A question which likely can only be answered in a court and on top will depend from country to country.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Tullius
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 71
Joined: 05/03/11
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #46 - 05/25/12 at 20:44:13
Post Tools
Quote:
There was a trial in Germany won by someone who translated technical instructions, and yes, it was confirmed that this "literature", in principle, CAN be protected by the Urheberrecht. 


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:
hat I have in mind when I talk about copyright in chess is the kind of articles which I do, and that includes chess history, and lots of words.


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)
  
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 #45 - 05/25/12 at 20:06:15
Post Tools
Tullius wrote on 05/25/12 at 18:30:35:
[...] 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.  Wink )

(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).

I don't have a legal education, but I have a different opinion. The real test would be a decision on a concrete case from the highest court in a country, e.g. from the Bundesgerichtshof in Germany, but even then it would be easily possible that the same case in the USA would result in a different decision.

What I have in mind when I talk about copyright in chess is the kind of articles which I do, and that includes chess history, and lots of words... and there is no doubt that "literature", in the widest sense, even technical instructions for the use of a new screwdriver, are a "work" protected by copyright. There was a trial in Germany won by someone who translated technical instructions, and yes, it was confirmed that this "literature", in principle, CAN be protected by the Urheberrecht. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tullius
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 71
Joined: 05/03/11
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #44 - 05/25/12 at 18:30:35
Post Tools
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.  Wink )

(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).
  
Back to top
 
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