Ametanoitos wrote on 03/05/14 at 06:35:33:


I kinda understood this, but still wasn't sure exactly what you meant I how it would apply to chess! Irony and jokes are sometimes very hard to convey in written form, as is feelings in general. I have learned many times how easy something written can be interpreted in different ways, which would most likely not have been the case had I met the person IRL.

Anyway, I wanted to say something, because both sides had valid points, but there were so many things I felt just wasn't worthy either side. I am no copyright expert either.

In this case, Stefan had apparently send copyrighted material to QC and then seen analysis published without being credited. Of course QC might have come up with this independently. But imagine being in Mr Buecker's shoes when seeing the King's Gambit book. Ignoring how the copyright issue applies to chess is maybe not illegal, but clearly ground for unnecessary, heated conflicts, something which I see is only detrimental to the chess world.

I am not sure I agree on "IP laws largely rest largely on patents". Books are clearly copyrighted. I admit that I have confused the idea issue with the expression of the idea, though. I am interested to see what GabrielGale comes up with.

I did say right at the beginning of the "other" thread that we should be very careful of the terms we used and in what contexts we use them. Speaking as a lawyer but not a copyright specialist!, I am again dismayed at the half-truths and misconceptions and misunderstandings that is being posted about copyright and copyright infringement.

Perhaps the article on plagiarism on Wikipedia is a good starting point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism. please read before posting about copyright. One excerpt:

Quote:


Copyright 101: You cannot copyright "ideas". For copyright protection, it must be in material form. You are allowed to simultaneously or at different times by different avenues come up with the material. It is only an infringement if there is a "copying".

The post of the photo of the bird and a subsequent comment is example of how the discussion is misguided. The idea of taking a photo of a bird in that location at the time of the day is not copyright protected. But the material form of the idea, ie, a photo itself is now copyright protected. No one can copy that photo by reproduction except with license from copyright owner.

Now of course it is much more difficult applying it to chess and chess writings. Let's start with the simplest:
1) playing a chess game and making moves. The moves themselves are not copyright protected.
2) Writing the moves in material form. The material exact form is copyright protected but is the sequence of moves copyright protected? I think not. Since someone watching the game can also notate the game with the same sequence of moves.
3) Now when we extend the above to home analyses, it is a bit more difficult. If you analyse a variation and it is in material form (ie not just in your head and headspace), paper or e-form, then that exact material form is copyright protected.
If someone else analyses the same variation to a remarkably sameness independently, their material form is also copyright protected.
The idea which is not copyright protected is now manifest materially in two material forms and both equally protected.
To prove copyright infringement, you have to establish that there is a copying of the first form by the second. Here it is a question of proof and evidence. Law and the legal system ultimately resolves dispute by proof and evidence. Otherwise it remains only an assertion and an allegation.

Here is where I am the first to admit my ignorance for I am no copyright specialist. How to prove the "copying" is quite a difficult question. It also depends on the added complication which Copyright Laws add to the mix. The above is written from the standpoint that the copyright protection sought is that of copyright protection as an "original literary work". Here we have to deal with the term "original". Note "fling" has also a comment on this. To quote a UK judgment (University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd [1916] 2 Ch 601 at 608-10):
Quote:


Things are made even more difficult, I think, if the analysis of the variation is stored materially as a computer electronic file. Again the requirement of "copying" to be established before there is infringement is even more acute. More research is required into this issue.

To illustrate using the photo of the bird. Note "fling" also has a comment on this.  If someone now digitally copies that photo (easy to do with computers), alters it, and publish it, is there copyright infringement? We would say yes. This is similar to adaptation of literary works.
But what if someone sees the photo, and adapts the idea, ie take a similar photo of the same species of bird in similar surroundings at similar time of the day?

To further complicate matters, and here is where individual jurisdictions are a factor as they can be different in their provisions. I am referring to so-called Defences to allegations of infringement, is "acts not constituting infringements". Eg, "fair use" and "fair dealing".

In addition, as pointed out by "fling" the discussion in the other thread is also influenced by the factor of the protection period which is usually life plus 70. Please bear this in mind.

It is not an easy task to determine whether there has been copyright infringement of chess material but  I think we should at least start from where things are certain in law and proceed onwards .

This and previous instances of copyright infringement allegations has now inspired me to look into this. I will report back when I think I have some answers. If I am lucky there may even be a journal article and/or a book.

When I think about it, from a copyright perspective - A novelty played in a game, "by mistake", I.e. it might not have had the best follow up etc, would be clearly less important than careful analysis.