Latest Updates:
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis (Read 16338 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: 4466
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: 1500
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: 902
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
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 902
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: 902
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: 1500
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: 902
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: 902
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: 902
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: 2091
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: 637
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
 
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 #28 - 05/24/12 at 15:28:06
Post Tools
proustiskeen wrote on 05/24/12 at 15:16:13:
The legal issues and the practical facts of the Internet age are two different things.  As a practical matter, if you put it on the Internet, you must expect that people will do things with it that run contrary to your desires.  Copyright may well be implied in authorship, but unless brabo takes this up in the courts (which he seems unwilling to do) there is _literally_ no remedy.

Tony has created this contest to shore up morale here.  Can we now let this matter rest?  The grievance has been aired, concerns heard, and positions stated.  We're running in circles.

proustiskeen wrote on 05/23/12 at 20:46:35:
  If you put it online, someone can make use of it.  We can argue about whether this young FM made use of it properly or not - and I'm pretty sure, having looked at the article, that he did cite your prior work and is thus without blame - but this is the risk that you take in putting your material out there.

If such risk is unacceptable to you, don't post here, or anywhere else.  This is the world we live in.  Nothing is private anymore.  Take it up with NIC and your lawyer.

In my opinion, the very last thing chesspub should do is further lock out future users and contributers via any of the mechanisms discussed above.


I don't agree at all with the first paragraphs (even though the last might make sense). Just because you put something online does NOT in any way mean it doesn't have to be copyright protected. This "mistake" is made with e.g. photos. It has been very hard to do something about this, because if I in Europe want to take action against an American company, it is often not worth it, even if I have full rights.

[/quote]

Excuse me for quoting the entire text.

Proust, are you really quoting yourself and then disagreeing with yourself?  I haven't found the original quote that you use.


There seems to be something wrong with the way things are being quoted... There was an added " [/quote]" to the text.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
proustiskeen
God Member
*****
Offline


Hello from Omaha!

Posts: 637
Joined: 08/11/08
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #27 - 05/24/12 at 15:16:13
Post Tools
The legal issues and the practical facts of the Internet age are two different things.  As a practical matter, if you put it on the Internet, you must expect that people will do things with it that run contrary to your desires.  Copyright may well be implied in authorship, but unless brabo takes this up in the courts (which he seems unwilling to do) there is _literally_ no remedy.

Tony has created this contest to shore up morale here.  Can we now let this matter rest?  The grievance has been aired, concerns heard, and positions stated.  We're running in circles.

proustiskeen wrote on 05/23/12 at 20:46:35:
  If you put it online, someone can make use of it.  We can argue about whether this young FM made use of it properly or not - and I'm pretty sure, having looked at the article, that he did cite your prior work and is thus without blame - but this is the risk that you take in putting your material out there.

If such risk is unacceptable to you, don't post here, or anywhere else.  This is the world we live in.  Nothing is private anymore.  Take it up with NIC and your lawyer.

In my opinion, the very last thing chesspub should do is further lock out future users and contributers via any of the mechanisms discussed above.


I don't agree at all with the first paragraphs (even though the last might make sense). Just because you put something online does NOT in any way mean it doesn't have to be copyright protected. This "mistake" is made with e.g. photos. It has been very hard to do something about this, because if I in Europe want to take action against an American company, it is often not worth it, even if I have full rights.
[/quote]
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Jupp53
God Member
*****
Offline


be

Posts: 845
Location: Frankfurt/Main
Joined: 01/04/09
Gender: Male
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #26 - 05/24/12 at 12:42:59
Post Tools
GMTonyKosten wrote on 05/24/12 at 10:39:39:
Jupp53 wrote on 05/24/12 at 10:22:24:
But why starting something new?

I started this thread because I want to lock and then delete the other one (renamed "... intellectual property...") as it is too inflammatory.

Sorry - it was meant not about the thread, it was meant about the copyright issue without looking at indeed inflammatory other thread.
  

Medical textbooks say I should be dead since April 2002.
Dum spiro spero. Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
fling
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1500
Joined: 01/21/11
Gender: Male
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #25 - 05/24/12 at 11:51:58
Post Tools
brabo wrote on 05/23/12 at 21:14:46:
proustiskeen wrote on 05/23/12 at 20:46:35:
Brabo, you're the _only one_ who has raised this issue here.  I get that you're upset.  But this really isn't a chesspub issue.  It doesn't matter where you post your analysis.  If you put it online, someone can make use of it.  We can argue about whether this young FM made use of it properly or not - and I'm pretty sure, having looked at the article, that he did cite your prior work and is thus without blame - but this is the risk that you take in putting your material out there.

If such risk is unacceptable to you, don't post here, or anywhere else.  This is the world we live in.  Nothing is private anymore.  Take it up with NIC and your lawyer.

In my opinion, the very last thing chesspub should do is further lock out future users and contributers via any of the mechanisms discussed above.

I am probably also the first one on chesspub of whom content was used so extensively  in a commercial article without permission or even informing.
I ask what Max did for the forum here. What is the extra value of having a mass of readers which are never posting neither buying content but only searching free info for own amusement or profit. Is it really too much asked to put a limited restriction on this type of readers and ask them to give up their anonymity (only to Tony Kosten) in return for full content to read here on the forum for free? If that can solve such cases, is that too much asked from chesspub by a member whom is regularly posting quality analysis for free?


Now I am breaking a forum rule (because I can't find a response to this post. If there is one I broke another). But my answer is no, it is not too much to ask for.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
fling
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1500
Joined: 01/21/11
Gender: Male
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #24 - 05/24/12 at 11:34:21
Post Tools
GMTonyKosten wrote on 05/24/12 at 10:39:39:
Jupp53 wrote on 05/24/12 at 10:22:24:
But why starting something new?

I started this thread because I want to lock and then delete the other one


I think it was referring to "creative commons licenses" rather than a new thread.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3028
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #23 - 05/24/12 at 10:39:39
Post Tools
Jupp53 wrote on 05/24/12 at 10:22:24:
But why starting something new?

I started this thread because I want to lock and then delete the other one (renamed "... intellectual property...") as it is too inflammatory.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 902
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #22 - 05/24/12 at 10:39:03
Post Tools
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.

I think that is the wrong attitude. If you don't complain then people consider it as ok. If complaining is considered as defamation (my interpretation of GM Ian Rogers last post) then so be it. Without a complaint nothing will change.

An example of a local complaint about behavior in chesstournaments (without details where and who):
It is a well known fact that many last round games are arranged. Sometimes money is split, sometimes even the result is fixed. Anyhow it is extremely hard to proof such things so complaints are very rare and people are getting used to that behavior. Last year finally a complaint was accepted. It has lead to one courtcase after another and still isn't finished. Suddenly people became aware that such actions were really not acceptable but a complaint was necessary to get people fully aware of this.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Jupp53
God Member
*****
Offline


be

Posts: 845
Location: Frankfurt/Main
Joined: 01/04/09
Gender: Male
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #21 - 05/24/12 at 10:22:24
Post Tools
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?
  

Medical textbooks say I should be dead since April 2002.
Dum spiro spero. Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3028
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #20 - 05/24/12 at 10:21:36
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 05/24/12 at 08:14:59:
In my 35 years of chess publishing, I have been involved in about hundred cases of copyright problems, and maybe ten of them were pretty serious. Not counting the many cases where I just open a chess book from another author and think: "How can he quote so excessively? Has he asked the author?" Some people don't care about such matters. And yes, I do think that discussing it here can be useful for the Forum. Tony is in a similar position as the editor of a magazine. When there is a copyright quarrel, it is usually between one of your contributors and somebody else who doesn't "work" for you. But somehow you are involved and interested to keep the author, so you try to give advice to find a solution. 

Wow, that's a lot of copyright problems! At ChessPublishing we have been aware of our authors' analysis reappearing elsewhere from time-to-time without attribution, but nothing very serious. There is a 'Copyright ...' tag added to all pages, all the popup games, and all the eBooks, although I don't know if anyone takes that very seriously.
The worst plagiarism I've suffered was when I annotated a game of mine once for the Hastings Tournament bulletin (for free). Quite by chance I noticed this game appeared in a US magazine word-for-word but under someone else's name!
Very annoying at the time, but I didn't see any real point complaining about it.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
fling
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1500
Joined: 01/21/11
Gender: Male
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #19 - 05/24/12 at 08:57:00
Post Tools
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?
  
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 #18 - 05/24/12 at 08:14:59
Post Tools
fling wrote on 05/24/12 at 05:07:37:
I have seen people here posting that they don't want to post too much from this or that book because of copyright issues. That is why I asked. [...] This "mistake" is made with e.g. photos. It has been very hard to do something about this, because if I in Europe want to take action against an American company, it is often not worth it, even if I have full rights.

When someone does an analysis of a certain extent, his mental work is copyrighted. He can give up his rights, if he wants, partly or entirely, for example in a contract with a publisher, either for money or for nothing. 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).

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.

Copyright law varies a bit from country to country, and the USA is still special. The basics are clear enough, but you cannot be absolutely sure that a copyright trial in the Netherlands will have the same result as elsewhere.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 05/24/12 at 00:08:49:
On reflection there haven't been many copyright problems in the nearly ten years since the Forum was started (one?!). Maybe we're just overreacting.

In my 35 years of chess publishing, I have been involved in about hundred cases of copyright problems, and maybe ten of them were pretty serious. Not counting the many cases where I just open a chess book from another author and think: "How can he quote so excessively? Has he asked the author?" Some people don't care about such matters. And yes, I do think that discussing it here can be useful for the Forum. Tony is in a similar position as the editor of a magazine. When there is a copyright quarrel, it is usually between one of your contributors and somebody else who doesn't "work" for you. But somehow you are involved and interested to keep the author, so you try to give advice to find a solution. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 902
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #17 - 05/24/12 at 07:12:15
Post Tools
GMTonyKosten wrote on 05/24/12 at 00:08:49:
On reflection there haven't been many copyright problems in the nearly ten years since the Forum was started (one?!). Maybe we're just overreacting.

I understand so no actions are to be expected from chesspub !? At least with my posts, members are now fully aware what can happen if you publish valuable content on this forum.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 902
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #16 - 05/24/12 at 05:17:12
Post Tools
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. 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.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
fling
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1500
Joined: 01/21/11
Gender: Male
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #15 - 05/24/12 at 05:07:37
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 05/24/12 at 00:39:52:
Stefan Buecker wrote on 05/23/12 at 23:14:06:
I believe (I am not even sure whether any such case was brought to court). The general consensus is that a single game or single variation cannot be copyrighted, but a work consisting of games/variations is copyrightable.


I believe that you're right about that, but I think that anyone's claim that 16 variations posted in an open forum are a copyrighted work would be very difficult to maintain.  You want to say someone has stolen your credit?  You posted anonymously!  You want to say someone has stolen your enjoyment of your property?  How exactly?   

Secondly I'm not completely sure that if someone merely copied out all the variations of, say, Avrukh's tome on 1.d4 and put them on the web, just the chess moves, nothing else, it would be a copyright violation.  I could be argued either way, it seems to me.


As I said, I don't know how it actually is. I have seen people here posting that they don't want to post too much from this or that book because of copyright issues. That is why I asked. I agree with Markovich's former post that this issue is also about citation vs copying, and what is really threshold of originality. The comparison to math is interesting. It might be that brabo is mixing up copyright and credit, i don't know. Tricky is what it is. Are there actually any court cases?

proustiskeen wrote on 05/23/12 at 20:46:35:
  If you put it online, someone can make use of it.  We can argue about whether this young FM made use of it properly or not - and I'm pretty sure, having looked at the article, that he did cite your prior work and is thus without blame - but this is the risk that you take in putting your material out there.

If such risk is unacceptable to you, don't post here, or anywhere else.  This is the world we live in.  Nothing is private anymore.  Take it up with NIC and your lawyer.

In my opinion, the very last thing chesspub should do is further lock out future users and contributers via any of the mechanisms discussed above.


I don't agree at all with the first paragraphs (even though the last might make sense). Just because you put something online does NOT in any way mean it doesn't have to be copyright protected. This "mistake" is made with e.g. photos. It has been very hard to do something about this, because if I in Europe want to take action against an American company, it is often not worth it, even if I have full rights.
  
Back to top
 
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 #14 - 05/24/12 at 00:39:52
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 05/23/12 at 23:14:06:
I believe (I am not even sure whether any such case was brought to court). The general consensus is that a single game or single variation cannot be copyrighted, but a work consisting of games/variations is copyrightable.


I believe that you're right about that, but I think that anyone's claim that 16 variations posted in an open forum are a copyrighted work would be very difficult to maintain.  You want to say someone has stolen your credit?  You posted anonymously!  You want to say someone has stolen your enjoyment of your property?  How exactly?   

Secondly I'm not completely sure that if someone merely copied out all the variations of, say, Avrukh's tome on 1.d4 and put them on the web, just the chess moves, nothing else, it would be a copyright violation.  I could be argued either way, it seems to me.
  

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


Hello from Omaha!

Posts: 637
Joined: 08/11/08
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #13 - 05/24/12 at 00:29:20
Post Tools
I like it when GMs say I'm right.  Wink

GMTonyKosten wrote on 05/24/12 at 00:08:49:
proustiskeen wrote on 05/23/12 at 19:10:46:
This isn't a chesspub issue anymore.  It's between brabo and the author.

Yes, you're probably right. On reflection there haven't been many copyright problems in the nearly ten years since the Forum was started (one?!). Maybe we're just overreacting.

  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3028
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #12 - 05/24/12 at 00:08:49
Post Tools
proustiskeen wrote on 05/23/12 at 19:10:46:
This isn't a chesspub issue anymore.  It's between brabo and the author.

Yes, you're probably right. On reflection there haven't been many copyright problems in the nearly ten years since the Forum was started (one?!). Maybe we're just overreacting.
  
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 #11 - 05/23/12 at 23:14:06
Post Tools
From Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_quote ):

Quote:
Right to quote [...] allows for quoting excerpts of copyrighted works, as long as the cited paragraphs are within a reasonable limit (varying from country to country), clearly marked as quotations and fully referenced, and if the resulting new work is not just a collection of quotations, but constitutes a fully original work in itself.

In chess, nobody puts cited variations into quotation marks. But basically that's the only diffference. "Fully referenced" means that it isn't sufficient to give only the author's name, the source (the book, magazine,...) should be identified.

The question whether chess is copyrightable is old, and I guess there has been a dozen articles or so about it, starting in the late 19th century. Mainly by lawyers interested in chess. The thing isn't really settled, I believe (I am not even sure whether any such case was brought to court). The general consensus is that a single game or single variation cannot be copyrighted, but a work consisting of games/variations is copyrightable.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 902
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #10 - 05/23/12 at 21:14:46
Post Tools
proustiskeen wrote on 05/23/12 at 20:46:35:
Brabo, you're the _only one_ who has raised this issue here.  I get that you're upset.  But this really isn't a chesspub issue.  It doesn't matter where you post your analysis.  If you put it online, someone can make use of it.  We can argue about whether this young FM made use of it properly or not - and I'm pretty sure, having looked at the article, that he did cite your prior work and is thus without blame - but this is the risk that you take in putting your material out there.

If such risk is unacceptable to you, don't post here, or anywhere else.  This is the world we live in.  Nothing is private anymore.  Take it up with NIC and your lawyer.

In my opinion, the very last thing chesspub should do is further lock out future users and contributers via any of the mechanisms discussed above.

I am probably also the first one on chesspub of whom content was used so extensively  in a commercial article without permission or even informing.
I ask what Max did for the forum here. What is the extra value of having a mass of readers which are never posting neither buying content but only searching free info for own amusement or profit. Is it really too much asked to put a limited restriction on this type of readers and ask them to give up their anonymity (only to Tony Kosten) in return for full content to read here on the forum for free? If that can solve such cases, is that too much asked from chesspub by a member whom is regularly posting quality analysis for free?
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
proustiskeen
God Member
*****
Offline


Hello from Omaha!

Posts: 637
Joined: 08/11/08
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #9 - 05/23/12 at 20:46:35
Post Tools
Brabo, you're the _only one_ who has raised this issue here.  I get that you're upset.  But this really isn't a chesspub issue.  It doesn't matter where you post your analysis.  If you put it online, someone can make use of it.  We can argue about whether this young FM made use of it properly or not - and I'm pretty sure, having looked at the article, that he did cite your prior work and is thus without blame - but this is the risk that you take in putting your material out there.

If such risk is unacceptable to you, don't post here, or anywhere else.  This is the world we live in.  Nothing is private anymore.  Take it up with NIC and your lawyer.

In my opinion, the very last thing chesspub should do is further lock out future users and contributers via any of the mechanisms discussed above.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 902
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #8 - 05/23/12 at 20:07:12
Post Tools
proustiskeen wrote on 05/23/12 at 19:10:46:
I suggest brabo contact a lawyer if he wants to continue this.  This isn't a chesspub issue anymore.  It's between brabo and the author.

We all  know (NIC included) that financially it is not worth to start a courtcase for this.
I believe chesspub better tries to avoid such cases in the future as it will otherwise lead to less quality of analysis on this forum, less members, ... In that sense it is still an issue for chesspub.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 902
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #7 - 05/23/12 at 20:01:56
Post Tools
proustiskeen wrote on 05/23/12 at 19:09:04:
This seems an overreaction.  One user is upset, in short, because a move he suggested was named after someone else in print.  From a bibliographic perspective, it seems that attribution was made in the text of the NIC article, even if that attribution sometimes seems sloppy.  That might be an editorial problem on their end - how many 'fact checkers' does NIC employ, anyway?  So why are we now all concerned with determining who reads what, who has access to what, etc.?

Look, unless I'm sorely mistaken, it's not like Anand or Gelfand are here on this site giving away their secret homebrew.  We're amateurs who love the game and who enjoy the analytical camraderie that can be found here.  Let's not poison the well just because of one incident of bad feelings.

I think that you forget the mainpart and that is that unknown readers can just take everything from the site without any permission or even informing and use it for own profit (money, status,...). It won't happen often as most analysis isn't that spectacular on this forum but don't people (like myself) whom are pushing the quality higher than the average deserve at least a serious discussion on this topic ? Is that really an overreaction or is it also in the interest of the forum that quality analysis can also have a place here without a constant threat of being copied without permission?
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
proustiskeen
God Member
*****
Offline


Hello from Omaha!

Posts: 637
Joined: 08/11/08
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #6 - 05/23/12 at 19:10:46
Post Tools
Also, what is this 'commercial profit?'  How much does NIC pay for a contribution to an SOS volume, anyway?

I suggest brabo contact a lawyer if he wants to continue this.  This isn't a chesspub issue anymore.  It's between brabo and the author.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
proustiskeen
God Member
*****
Offline


Hello from Omaha!

Posts: 637
Joined: 08/11/08
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #5 - 05/23/12 at 19:09:04
Post Tools
This seems an overreaction.  One user is upset, in short, because a move he suggested was named after someone else in print.  From a bibliographic perspective, it seems that attribution was made in the text of the NIC article, even if that attribution sometimes seems sloppy.  That might be an editorial problem on their end - how many 'fact checkers' does NIC employ, anyway?  So why are we now all concerned with determining who reads what, who has access to what, etc.?

Look, unless I'm sorely mistaken, it's not like Anand or Gelfand are here on this site giving away their secret homebrew.  We're amateurs who love the game and who enjoy the analytical camraderie that can be found here.  Let's not poison the well just because of one incident of bad feelings.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3028
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #4 - 05/23/12 at 18:56:16
Post Tools
brabo wrote on 05/23/12 at 14:38:03:
Maybe we need to block some parts of the forum to unsigned people so we get a better logging of who reads what.

Not only can I block parts of it, but I can can also limit particular boards to certain categories of members (like God Members, say).
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 902
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #3 - 05/23/12 at 14:38:03
Post Tools
Important to notice is that one can from every member know how relevant its membership still is, as tools are available to see the activity on the site. If a member hasn't been active for a long time, it is well possible that you won't get a reply anymore on the email so the IP can be considered from the forum.

I have no issue that unknown people are reading the posts but if these unknown people start to copy parts for commercial profit then I do have. Maybe we need to block some parts of the forum to unsigned people so we get a better logging of who reads what.
« Last Edit: 05/23/12 at 15:43:17 by brabo »  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3028
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #2 - 05/23/12 at 14:03:20
Post Tools
fling wrote on 05/23/12 at 13:55:03:
First of all, Tony, you do have access to the email for all users, don't you? In that case, it should at least in principal be possible to get access to all users via you. This could be a good start - have it posted clearly somewhere that if you want to use analysis posted here, contact the author(s) via Tony.

Yes, agreed (note that I would never give anyone's name or email without their permission).
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
fling
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1500
Joined: 01/21/11
Gender: Male
Re: Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
Reply #1 - 05/23/12 at 13:55:03
Post Tools
First of all, Tony, you do have access to the email for all users, don't you? In that case, it should at least in principal be possible to get access to all users via you. This could be a good start - have it posted clearly somewhere that if you want to use analysis posted here, contact the author(s) via Tony.

Another issue is of course what you are allowed to do irrespective of what the guidelines say, i.e. general copyright issues applied to chess analysis. Stefan Bucker seemed to imply that it is clear, that it is protected. Sure, but it still isn't really clear to me. How much can you use from other sources - how many lines can you cite in one article without asking for permission, as many as you want as long as you cite the author or just a few? Compare this to e.g. music, where you can't really have many tones in a row that are the same, or as in software coding.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3028
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Guidelines for the use of ChessPub.com analysis
05/23/12 at 13:45:09
Post Tools
Let's setup some guidelines for anyone who wishes to use analysis first published on this Forum somewhere else.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo