Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Novelties, copyright, inflamed feelings (Read 33534 times)
fling
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1591
Joined: 01/21/11
Gender: Male
Re: Novelties, copyright, inflamed feelings
Reply #5 - 03/05/14 at 06:49:04
Post Tools
Ametanoitos wrote on 03/05/14 at 06:35:33:
As far as my argument about the photograph is concerned, of course it is ridiculous (that's why i put a smiley at the end of it) but it triggered the excellent above post!


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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Ametanoitos
God Member
*****
Offline


The road to success is
under construction

Posts: 1427
Location: Patras
Joined: 01/04/05
Re: Novelties, copyright, inflamed feelings
Reply #4 - 03/05/14 at 06:35:33
Post Tools
Hello guys. Excellent posts! Thank you very much!

I think that the issue here is not of a technical matter, as i understand it. Maybe Mr Buecker used many times expressions such as "copyright", "plagiarism" etc, but (again forgive me if i have understood this wrongly) for him the issue is more about if "it is moral" to misquote someone's else work.

As far as my argument about the photograph is concerned, of course it is ridiculous (that's why i put a smiley at the end of it) but it triggered the excellent above post!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GabrielGale
Senior Member
****
Offline


Who was Thursday?

Posts: 471
Location: Sydney
Joined: 02/28/08
Gender: Male
Re: Novelties, copyright, inflamed feelings
Reply #3 - 03/05/14 at 02:30:43
Post Tools
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:
Plagiarism is not the same as copyright infringement. While both terms may apply to a particular act, they are different concepts, and false claims of authorship may constitute plagiarism regardless of whether the material is protected by copyright.


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:
The word "original" does not in this connection mean that the work must be the expression of original or inventive thought. Copyright Acts are not concerned with the originality of ideas, but with the expression of thought, and, in the case of "literary work", with the expression of thought in print or writing. The originality which is required relates to the expression of the thought. But the Act does not require that the expression must be in an original or novel form, but that the work must not be copied from another work -- that it should originate from the author.


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.
« Last Edit: 03/06/14 at 01:54:08 by GabrielGale »  

http://www.toutautre.blogspot.com/
A Year With Nessie ...... aka GM John Shaw's The King's Gambit (http://thekinggambit.blogspot.com.au/)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
fling
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1591
Joined: 01/21/11
Gender: Male
Re: Novelties, copyright, inflamed feelings
Reply #2 - 03/04/14 at 23:55:24
Post Tools
Reading more about it at Wikipedia,  maybe most of what I say above falls under the idea-expression divide and fair use? I have only looked at copyright issues in science and photography, not chess.

Sorry,  I forgot (should stop post at night) . Plagiarism is a very harsh word. I suspect it is not the case here. Rather a misunderstanding.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
fling
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1591
Joined: 01/21/11
Gender: Male
Re: Novelties, copyright, inflamed feelings
Reply #1 - 03/04/14 at 23:33:35
Post Tools
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
fling
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1591
Joined: 01/21/11
Gender: Male
Novelties, copyright, inflamed feelings
03/04/14 at 23:08:07
Post Tools
I am not sure I have much to add to the debate. But I need to say something.

My personal experience from discussions over the Internet is that they tend to get ugly much quicker than what happens IRL, mainly due to the problem that much of the information gets lots compared to when you talk to somebody in person. In this case, I think Stefan Buecker, John Shaw and Jacob Aagaard shouldn't really have ended up in such a sad argument as the one here if they had met in person. I base this solely on the feeling I have gotten from reading what you have written publicly over the years. You all seem like very kind people that have a sincere passion for chess as the primary motivation for what you do, not putting the business side first.

I try to buy as many QC books as possible, because the standard is high chess-wise. And I do understand that it is very hard to write a chess book, especially checking sources. However, this is still no excuse for disregarding a critical question.

That critical question is copyright issues. I don't know if it has been tested in chess circles (please enlighten me if anyone knows about it). I can see that it is very hard and differs from other litterature in many ways. Anyhow, I can't see why chess books should not fall under normal copyright laws.

Many people don't have a clue about what is correct. Some have an idea, but still seem off the mark. Interestingly, most of the frequent members here refrain from posting any kind of analysis from books, from fear of copyright issues. Yey, I haven't seen anyone (sorry, I might have missed someone) except Stefan and brabo (remember, old in this case is usually 50-70 years after the death of an author) pointing out the crop of the matter in this issue.

Some specific comments on the debate:

*Just because you don't have time to read everything doesn't mean you can say it is ok to claim an old idea as yours with the excuse that you haven't seen it. This is absolutely not the same thing as taking a similar (not identical, this could be a problem) picture of the same bird as someone else.

The critical definition is "Threshold of originality". Translated to chess it could mean that you can analyze the same position as someone else and publish that analysis as long as it is different. The problem here would be if the analysis is exactly the same and you claim it is yours.
Anyway, if you do publish identical analysis as someone else without checking if it has been made before, you should expect it to at least be questioned, as pointed out by brabo.

*I have pointed out that there have been several "novelties" in QC books for moves played long time before publication date. Sometimes in corr. games, but even OTB. To say that these are novelties just because they don't exist in a certain database is to me a bit dubious (my corr. database is from Chessbase, circa 2011, and my OTB database is Megabase 2012, not too hard to find those). Btw, it reminds me of the megapixel race for cameras, I don't want more pixels, I want better quality in those I choose to keep...

*Just run a check in Pubmed for e.g. HIV and imagine how it is to work on that scientific topic. Still, you have to acknowledge the appropriate sources (but unfortunately many scientist don't).

*The chess world is too little to have these kinds of fights. Seriously.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo