FIDE to copyright games
John Saunders
Larry Parr wrote:
>
> (Reposted from Compuserve Chess Forum)
>
> #: 1026830 S22/Chess Politics
> 15-Aug-97 04:31:05
> Sb: #FIDE claims copyright
> Fm: Egon Ditt 100563,2344
> To: All
>
> The new FIDE handbook published after the Cairo Executive Council Meeting in
> June contains the regulations for the Worldchampionship in Groningen, Elista
> and Lausanne.
>
> Under 10 - Playing Condidtions - a remarkable regulation is hidden (10.2 c):
>
> >The players' score sheets are the property of the players and FIDE, and FIDE
> has exclusive rights to publication<
>
> So the players in return for the mimimum prize of $ 4.800 have to transfer
> their right to FIDE, and journalists will be depending on FIDE when they wish
> to publish the games.
>
> The idea is to generate additional money so chess magazines, newspapers, chess
> databases, internet and other media contribute to the prizefunds and so to the
> players. This money will be paid by the amateur chessplayers, because of course
> the magazines and other media will charge the additional costs to them. From a
> moral point of view I have no objections, all chessplayers enjoy the great
> games of the professional players and should contribute to their income, which
> normally is very poor.
>
> The amount of money to be paid is not decided yet, perhaps the right of
> publication even will be free at the beginning. but not so in the course of
> time.
>
> Though there seem to be legal difficulties, for instance it seems quite clear
> that there is no copyright protection for chess games in Germany , FIDE has a
> lot of means if journalists do not respect the FIDE claim. Especially players
> in the event are concerned, because they have to sign the player's contract and
> so to accept the regulations. They may publish their own games only if FIDE
> consents!
>
> There is also the danger that the general newspapers could report less on chess
> if they have to pay for the published games.
>
> If FIDE has success with this idea many others will follow, national
> federations as well as private organizers.
>
> This is a new situation for all chess journalists and media, so they should pay
> attention to this.
>
> #: 1026884 S22/Chess Politics
> 15-Aug-97 07:32:17
> Sb: #1026830-FIDE claims copyright
> Fm: Paul Onstad 70641,3236
> To: Egon Ditt 100563,2344 (X)
>
> >>If FIDE has success with this idea many others will follow, national
> federations as well as private organizers.
>
> >>This is a new situation for all chess journalists and media, so they should
> pay attention to this.
>
> I believe the rule calls out for the most blatant disregard at the earliest
> possible opportunity, else it may come to be accepted on precedent.
>
> Bad rules (and laws) always come about because they purport to some good
> principle: "contribute to their income" (chess players). However, in this
> case, it doesn't broaden the chess economy but only shifts it--like a price
> increase for a product being passed onto the consumers.
What happens if someone opts to get round this by 'sports reporting' the
games, e.g. "Ivanchuk pushed his e-pawn two squares, to which Timman
replied by pushing the pawn in front of the c8 bishop just one square"
etc. Do sports writers have to pay the national federation money for
reporting soccer matches - I don't think so. It'll never stand up in
court.
John Saunders
Doug Coulter
could have recourse against the players under a contractual theory, but
thats about all their condition will permit them to do, with one big IF.
The IF is the issue of whether games are subject to copyright. I've seen
this discussed in a general fashion, a number of times, but I've never
heard of a court decision on the topic. If games were copyrightable
under local law, then maybe FIDE has some sort of argument that the
copyright had been assigned to them.
Are there any real copyright lawyers out there who could comment on
this?
Doug Coulter
Larry Parr
Alastair Scott
Larry Parr <75227...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in article ...
[snip]
>>The players' score sheets are the property of the players and FIDE, and
FIDE
>has exclusive rights to publication<
Well spotted!
I'd like to see FIDE pursuing an illicit game score posted on a Web site in
country A which, when an injunction is granted in A, appears on sites in
countries B, C, D ...
Alastair
Hans Bodlaender
In <urKER8a...@ntdwwaaw.compuserve.com> Larry Parr <75227...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
> (Reposted from Compuserve Chess Forum)
>
>#: 1026830 S22/Chess Politics
> 15-Aug-97 04:31:05
>Sb: #FIDE claims copyright
>Fm: Egon Ditt 100563,2344
>To: All
>
>The new FIDE handbook published after the Cairo Executive Council Meeting in
>June contains the regulations for the Worldchampionship in Groningen, Elista
>and Lausanne.
>
>Under 10 - Playing Condidtions - a remarkable regulation is hidden (10.2 c):
>
>>The players' score sheets are the property of the players and FIDE, and FIDE
>has exclusive rights to publication<
>
>So the players in return for the mimimum prize of $ 4.800 have to transfer
>their right to FIDE, and journalists will be depending on FIDE when they wish
>to publish the games.
>
(...)
>
>Though there seem to be legal difficulties, for instance it seems quite clear
>that there is no copyright protection for chess games in Germany , FIDE has a
>lot of means if journalists do not respect the FIDE claim. Especially players
>in the event are concerned, because they have to sign the player's contract and
>so to accept the regulations. They may publish their own games only if FIDE
(...)
There was some discussion on this newsgroup a some time ago, and someone
argued that chess games are not copyrighted. Anybody recalling that argument?
Is this FIDE-idea showing that it is not.
By the way, this seems another step taken by FIDE towards the destruction of
chess. If newspapers etc. have to pay to publish games, then fewer will, and
in the end chess loses visibility - something it certainly needs.
--
Hans Bodlaender - Department of Computer Science - Utrecht University
P.O. Box 80.089 - 3508 TB Utrecht - the Netherlands
ha...@cs.ruu.nl http://www.cs.ruu.nl/~hansb/index.html
Mark Crowther
FIDE Copyright to games.
In response to a posting I made to compuserve Willy Iclicki made
FIDE's position very clear.
"FIDE will first copyright tournament which they will organize like
World Champs and Olympiads then it is possible to this will move to
private tournaments. It is depends of the wish of the organisers,
players and succes of legal cases. For sure in England FIDE will have
a easy task to hit you in case..."
Sounds like a threat to me. Also members of the FIDE assembly ought to
ask why they weren't consulted on this. They should be asking why
members of the FIDE executive are issuing threats on their behalf.
Essentially FIDE are bluffing. Unless someone can come up with
convincing legal opinion to the contrary I will report the FIDE event
as normal and await their actions. I'm sure I'll find a lawyer eager
to defend me. Game scores are simply a mechanical record of an event
(a game of chess). As such I don't see how they can be copyright. 100
years of chess history says I'm right doesn't anyone see what's
changed?
Anyone prepared to give a convincing reason why I should believe the
contrary?
Mark Crowther Editor of THE WEEK IN CHESS.
David A. Dickson
If I recall the original post on this subject, FIDE is getting the
permission from the tournament participants and organizers for FIDE to hold
the copyright. Of course, this "permission" is irrelevant because the
players and organizers do not have the copyright to sign away! The only
copyright that exists is for the broadcast rights. Since chess is a sport
according to FIDE and IOC, it is treated the same as any other sport. I
don't think that FIDE could even claim intellectual property rights
because, as you say, it is a record of an event.
If a copyright was possible, how could one play an opening from a
copyrighted work without the author/publisher permission for you to use
"their" opening? Patently ridiculous. Go for it, Mark!
--
dad
one without the crust
Mark Crowther <mdcr...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in article
<33f98c35...@nntp.netcruiser>...
rba...@legis.state.ia.us
In article <33f98c35...@nntp.netcruiser>,
mdcr...@netcomuk.co.uk wrote:
>
> FIDE Copyright to games.
>
> In response to a posting I made to compuserve Willy Iclicki made
> FIDE's position very clear.
>
> "FIDE will first copyright tournament which they will organize like
> World Champs and Olympiads then it is possible to this will move to
> private tournaments. It is depends of the wish of the organisers,
> players and succes of legal cases. For sure in England FIDE will have
> a easy task to hit you in case..."
>
> Sounds like a threat to me. Also members of the FIDE assembly ought to
> ask why they weren't consulted on this. They should be asking why
> members of the FIDE executive are issuing threats on their behalf.
>
> Essentially FIDE are bluffing. Unless someone can come up with
> convincing legal opinion to the contrary I will report the FIDE event
> as normal and await their actions. I'm sure I'll find a lawyer eager
> to defend me. Game scores are simply a mechanical record of an event
> (a game of chess). As such I don't see how they can be copyright. 100
> years of chess history says I'm right doesn't anyone see what's
> changed?
>
> Anyone prepared to give a convincing reason why I should believe the
> contrary?
>
Mark, I believe that you have the right attitude -- continue your
excellent reporting on world chess events, and call FIDE's bluff. In my
opinion, many of their decisions are not based on the best interests of
chess players or chess in general, and this strikes me as another
example.
I think there are all kinds of problems with the new FIDE proposal. As
another poster noted, there may be some way of enforcing this vis-a-vis
the players contracturally, but FIDE's "rights" to the scoresheet should
end there -- with the actual physical scoresheet. Listing the moves
themselves is nothing more than reporting the events of a sporting
contest: I can't see any way that this will pass muster.
The real earnings potential for games is in the annotations, and the best
annotations come from the players themselves. My fear is that FIDE is
going to seek some form of revenue sharing in this area from the players
playing in their events. If that is the case, it will be clear that
their actions are not to recoup money for the players but for the
bureaucrats that rule the world organization.
Randy Bauer
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Rick Kennedy
If FIDE wants to make money for the players, using the games, perhaps it
can get all of the participants to agree not to tell anyone about the
games as played. Then, the Tournament Director (or whoever) can contract
with the highest bidder for some "checkbook journalism" and split the
income amongst the players...
Of course, there are a few loopholes in this plan - at least as many as
there are players, plus TDs, arbiters, etc - but it _might_ work in a World
Championship match, where the number of folk to keep under control would
be fewer. (If the players don't talk in their sleep, if they don't go over
their games afterwards with their seconds, etc, etc).
Note, this has nothing to do with "copyright" of games, and more with
control over access by/to the media.
I'm not sure about laws outside of the US, but there's nothing I've read
or researched on copyright and chess that suggest US law would allow
copyrighting of chess games. (I've put the question to a competent
computer law / 1st amendment lawyer, and will post his responses.)
Rick Kennedy
Staunton's concern about "a 30 stretch" notwithstanding, a copyright
infringement suit would more likely revolve around
argued/hypothetical/claimed/demonstrated/etc lost revenues.
Mark might have to pay a gazillion samoleons, but likely wouldn't wind up in
the gulag.
Staunton
The irony is of course that American justice is the most 'copyrighted'
restricted money making scheme yet devised.
Staunton
I've seen many a show of bravado in the face of the law, but when they
take you into custody, you accidentally fall down a flight of stairs,
your file is mislaid, you get a 30 stretch, a campaign starts to free the
FIDE 1 etc., where will your 'supporters' be?
Simply because chess games have never been subject to copyright, it
doesn't follow that this in itself counts as grounds for dismissal, and
that the case is absurd. Morally and practically absurd, but not legally
absurd. As the man said, "never confuse the legal system with the notion
of justice."
Let's say a game, in it's totality is a piece of intellectual property.
Does a record of the moves constitute that property. Perhaps a novel is
only a written record of created ideas? My point is that what we regard
as justifiable copyright is partly due to the existing framework.
I don't know how the players feel, but perhaps if they see the chance to
make some money they will go along with it. The sales of authorised post
match books would be sizeable, except if authored by Keene.
The period of copyright may be relatively short, but long enough to
exploit the situation. Of course, bootleg copies of games will be freely
available, especially on the Net, but legitimate news organisations may
well agree to pay, like in many other fields.
I am assuming FIDE have taken expert legal opinion, or they may simply be
trying to create some wider publicity for the event, and will backdown in
the end.
On the copyright of analysis, hasn't there been examples where
uncredited usage or plagiarism has been the subject of legal proceedings?
Otherwise surely I could copy all the analysis straight off BCO2 and sell
it for half the price.
The period of copyri
Robert Howard
Mark Crowther wrote:
>
> FIDE Copyright to games.
>
> In response to a posting I made to compuserve Willy Iclicki made
> FIDE's position very clear.
>
> "FIDE will first copyright tournament which they will organize like
> World Champs and Olympiads then it is possible to this will move to
> private tournaments. It is depends of the wish of the organisers,
> players and succes of legal cases. For sure in England FIDE will have
> a easy task to hit you in case..."
>
> Sounds like a threat to me. Also members of the FIDE assembly ought to
> ask why they weren't consulted on this. They should be asking why
> members of the FIDE executive are issuing threats on their behalf.
>
> Essentially FIDE are bluffing. Unless someone can come up with
> convincing legal opinion to the contrary I will report the FIDE event
> as normal and await their actions. I'm sure I'll find a lawyer eager
> to defend me. Game scores are simply a mechanical record of an event
> (a game of chess). As such I don't see how they can be copyright. 100
> years of chess history says I'm right doesn't anyone see what's
> changed?
>
> Anyone prepared to give a convincing reason why I should believe the
> contrary?
>
copyright on baseball, tennis, and the Olympic games. TV has to shell
out a vast fortune to broadcast such a game.
The best way to resist FIDE is for all chess journalists to just refuse
to publish any game FIDe wants to charge for. Mine the archives until
FIDE gives up.
David Hanley
MSBurkett wrote:
> I personally believe that a good master chess game is a work
> of art and should be "copyrightable" by the two people who
> created it, even if one them is Walter Browne.
I think your post is interesting, but this of what this would do to
thestate of chess. The publisher of MCO could be immediately sued
by thousands of players. Chess literature is interesting and rich
precisely because we can show game scores freely.
Newspapers can print accounts of sports events freely.
Game scores are not copyrightable, but chess books certianly are.
If your tourney bulleting had any original writing, you certianly have a
case against Mr Browne.
dave
MSBurkett
>Subject: Re: FIDE to copyright games
>From: David Hanley <da...@nospan.netright.com>
>Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:58:36 -0500
>> I personally believe that a good master chess game is a work
>> of art and should be "copyrightable" by the two people who
>The publisher of MCO could be immediately sued by thousands >of players.
Not really. Copyright isn't automatic. It must be filed for, the
filing announced, and a fee paid (MaxB).
>Chess literature is interesting and rich
>precisely because we can show game scores freely.
The literature is rich and the players are poor. You're so
used to sucking on this free tit that you are unwilling to
give a pittance to the mother that is providing the milk.
MaxB
Staunton
Fair comment, but it only serves to demonstrate the lack of commercial
viability of chess below the highest level .ie. the world championship.
We are told there are millions of chess players around the world, but how
many are actually prepared to pay to watch chess. Most people prefer to
play third rate chess, than watch first rate players. Chess is probably
unique in this respect, in that it's finest practice is too complicated
for most followers. Even for world championships which do command big
prize funds, I am not convinced that most chess players are that
interested beyond the personalities. How many supposedly famous games
could you replay from memory; does anyone really seriously study these
games after the match is finished?
The argument against any attempt to restrict the free provision and
distribution of chess games is that it would hinder the popularity and
influence of the game, but the present situation hardly speaks in favour
of the status quo.
In economic terms, many chess followers are getting a free ride; they do
not pay for the utility they derive. No doubt the media, and many
lukewarm fans are from self interest against any change, but impoverished
players of the world's greatest entertainment is the result. We've been
paying peanuts, so we deserve monkeys.
Shaughan Feakes
In article <33FCEC...@cc.newcastle.edu.au>, Robert Howard
<ed...@cc.newcastle.edu.au> writes
There is (probably) a significant difference between copyright of event
*coverage* as per the Olympics, tennis, cricket, various exotic bat-and-
ball games etc etc, and the *event* itself. I'm sure any lawyer could
argue plausibly that as chess scoresheets are an actual part of the game
in question - defaulting on one's scoresheet can lose the game as
effectively as making a bad move on the board, for example - then the
moves recorded thereon surely cannot be copyright.
I'm convinced an athlete's performance cannot be copyrightable
(otherwise everyone would be banned from equalling the world record, and
I wouldn't be allowed to open 1.d4 because somebody else has already
done it), even if the live TV coverage of his performance is. The only
fly in the ointment is that the scoresheets are technically the property
of the tournament organiser according to the Laws of Chess - an
interesting paradox!
There was a celebrated attempt to impose copyright of a particular
tournament in the U.K. in the 1980's, but it proved impracticable in
addition to the various legal considerations.
What a world this is: first the tin boxes take over our game, and then
the lawyers threaten to move in! ;)
Shaughan
--
Shaughan Feakes
Der Macheide
In article <19970823173...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, msbu...@aol.com
says...
>Not really. Copyright isn't automatic. It must be filed for, the
>filing announced, and a fee paid (MaxB).
>The literature is rich and the players are poor. You're so
>used to sucking on this free tit that you are unwilling to
>give a pittance to the mother that is providing the milk.
Actually, this is bullroar. I probably have $700+ worth of chess books on my
shelf; in addition to hundreds of issues of chess magazines bought and paid for.
On top of that is the hundreds of dollars I've paid for chess-related software
over the past 5 years, since such software became viable. It's not my fault if
you're standing on the sidelines with your hand out. Yasser Seirawan isn't.
You do make plain the reality that chess is only a serious pastime for those
that can afford it. Online connections cost money. Tournaments cost money.
Books and magazines cost money. Teachers and coaches cost money. Why not --
let's milk the bourgeois for a little bit more -- they've got the money.
The glut of "generally-available" games has only come into existence with the
past few years. When I first took up the study of chess as a serious pastime,
none of this material was available. The ordinary player was pretty much on his
own. Especially if he did not have the funds to pay and pay and pay, as Max
Burkett thinks he should. Well I have to add one more "pay" to that list, since
Max is getting in line for a share of my money, too.
Welcome to the "New Capitalism."
mp
Michael Powe lo...@europa.com
Portland Chess Club: http://www.europa.com/~looie/intro.htm
Paul Keres Web Page: http://www.europa.com/~looie/keres.htm
Peter Coleman
Ah, but Chess is a vocation, not a profession...
Staunton wrote in article <33FFA0...@hotmail.com>...
Rick Kennedy
Max, if you're talking about the USofA, copyright _is_ automatic, as soon
as the work is in "fixed form." True, if you register your copyright, etc,
you have more on your side, and more you can go after, in a copyright
infringement suit, etc., but the current law provides coverage and
protection without registration.
MSBurkett
>What a world this is: first the tin boxes take over our game, and >then
the lawyers threaten to move in! ;) >Shaughan
Well put. I recommend Jonathan Swift's expanation of the
function of lawyers (to the Houynyms) to those who like
lawyer humor.
MaxB
Duif Calvin
MSBurkett wrote:
>
> Rick
> that copyright protection was expected (and for good reason).
> There are other ways of doing this but I'll leave that to others.
> And you right in saying filing and the paying of a fee may be
> deferred (up to 5 years when I last filed).
>
I'm not an attorney, but as a professional author and editor
I have to follow intellectual property issues quite closely.
What you're describing was, indeed, how things worked under
older US copyright law. However, this law was amended a few
years ago to conform more closely to international law.
It is no longer necessary to put ANY indication on a work to
preserve copyright--copyright exists at the moment that the
work is created and fixed in a tangible medium (including
stored on disk).
However, you must register the copyright prior to filing a
lawsuit. But you still own the rights from the time of
creation.
In the example given previously of MCO, it would depend
on when the works were created as to which version of the
law applied.
My understanding on chess scores is that they are literally
regarded the same as the "box score" to a sporting event--
a physical record of an event that took place. Box scores
have been addressed in US and British copyright law many
times. They simply can't be copyrighted. However, the
Motorola case last year (which was reversed on appeal) has
introduced the concept of the "time value" of events
_during the time of broadcast_. Motorola lost the original case
to the NBA (when the NBA attempted to restrict the reporting
of scores during an event as being damaging to their commercial
interests)--but although much less widely-reported than the
original opinion, Motorola WON the case on appeal, the court
relying on traditional understanding of what a box score is.
In the case of a chess game, it becomes similar to a sporting
event when (the classic example used with other sports
copyrights) "3 reporters sitting on three sides of the room
would make exactly the same record of the event."
The player plays Nc3. That is, indeed, a creative moment,
just as a batter hitting a ball out of the park is individually
in control. But the _record_ of that event, the writing down
of 1R (or in our case, Nc3) would meet the "historical
record" test.
The question, of course, is why is that any different than
3 musicians sitting on three sides of a room and writing down
the score of a song being performed?
And the answer, simply, is that law is NOT logical. It is
political. It is built on a case by case, vote by vote,
precedent by precedent structure. Artists have extended
copyright protection. Athletes do not.
If chess is defined as an art, than the argument that the
creation is in deciding what move to make, and that should
extend to the records made. However, when chess is defined
as a _sport_, then the law looks at those records differently.
It is interesting that at the exact same time that FIDE is
promoting a definition of chess as a sport, and has official
press releases and reports filled with information supporting that
definition, it might also be trying to redefine the scores of
the events as something _less_ sportlike.
And as the NBA/Motorola case showed, lots of people are reconsidering
the issues of the time value of sports records--and judges are
showing a willingness to hear the arguments, even if they're
still ultimately ruling in the other direction.
There are a number of very helpful intellectual property
resources on the Web. One of the most popular (and which
will address the first set of issues raised, whether a
copyright symbol is required) is Brad Templeton's THE TEN
BIG MYTHS OF COPYRIGHT EXPLAINED at
http://www.clari.net/brad/copymyths.html
I highly recommend it.
Other good sites include the IP Mall (Franklin Pierce Law Library)
http://www.fplc.edu/ipmall.htm
and the International Copyright Resource, a nice list of resources ofr
Australian, Japanese, European, and Canadian copyright issues.
http://magna.com.au/%7Eprfbrown/ip_links.html
Regards,
Duif
--
jade...@jaderiver.com Jade River Designs
Honesty, Quality, and Service
Professional Web Design including CGI/Database
http://www.jaderiver.com/ Atlanta 770-989-7407
Roy Schmidt
MSBurkett <msbu...@aol.com> wrote:
> Read what Duif Calvin has to say in the previous message.
> I am happy I finally poked somebody into explaining the
> current situation. Nonetheless, a good copyright lawyer
> could argue my musical composition analogy. The score
> (note the word) of a game of chess is a lot more like music
> than like Marv Albert describing a sporting event. In my
> arrogance I believe that I could win a chess copyright
> argument if I were allowed to do so by the "law club".
> Duif deserves great thanks for his knowledge and insight.
Max, I think you missed one of the point. Marv Albert's description of a
sporting event *is* copyrightable. It is the facts of the event, the box
score (note the word) of the event is not copyrightable.
Your music analogy is flawed in one basic way. The copyright on the music
being performed belongs to the creator of the music. The copyright is in
force as soon as the music is set in some tangible form (which could be a
recording or a score sheet). The three people observing the performance
have no right to copy the music as they listen, any more than you would
have the right to copy a poem being read or a play being performed. Many
musicians can perform the same musical work. Each performance is a
creative endeavor, and is also protected. Note that the musicians are all
following the same score. Their individual creativity comes from the way
they interpret the score. So Marv Albert, along with other commentators,
reports on the facts of a sporting event, but Marv puts his own "spin" on
it.
Applied to the chess world, the facts of the event (the moves of the game)
are not protected, but if Max Burkett replayed the game in a usenet
posting, making his own description along the way ("and, look out, that
white knight will come crashing down on d6 and black won't be able to
chase it away) then you would have a copyrightable work (the comments, not
the basic moves of the game).
BTW, somewhere in this thread someone said something about "renewing" a
copyright and a 17 year limit. Those ideas come from *trademark* law. A
copyright lasts anywhere from 75 years after first publication on up to
100 years after the author's death. There is no longer any renewal
clause.
*Disclaimer* Please don't mistake me for a lawyer. I am just an author
that believes in knowing about his profession.
=====================================================
my reply-to address is: schmidt at ust dot hk
=====================================================
Roy Schmidt, Assistant Professor | Go
The University of Science and Technology | for
Clearwater Bay, Hong Kong | Go!
http://www.bi.ust.hk/~schmidt
David Hanley
MSBurkett wrote:
> >From: "Roy Schmidt" <sch...@anti-spam.com>
>
> A brief response:
>
> >Max, I think you missed one of the point. Marv Albert's description
> of a
> sporting event *is* copyrightable (snip)
>
> More's the pity, but listen to the disclaimer sometime. The
> copyright claim is for all PICTURES and descriptions.
Sure. You can sure copyright pictures of a game, and descriptionsof
moves.
> (MaxB)
>
> >Your music analogy is flawed in one basic way. The copyright on the
> music being performed belongs to the creator of the music.
>
> I don't see a whit of difference between Rogers & Hammerstein
> (Okahoma) and Lasker Em v Capablanca (New York 1924). Both
> are masterpieces and both were created by the named persons.
> It seems to me like you are making my point for me. (MaxB)
There is a difference--in the Rogers & Hammerstien example,
they are really one legal entity that created oklahoma. It could
have been one person, and it could have been a dozen. In the
Lasker & Capa example( great game ) it is two parties striving
twoards opposite goals.
What if Lasker wanted it published & Capa didn't? Would
Capa be able to restrict Lasker from telling anyone the moves?
Doesn't that seem the least bit surreal? It sure does to me!
Maybe Lasker could just publish his moves???
> So Marv Albert, along with other commentators,
> reports on the facts of a sporting event, but Marv puts his own "spin"
> on it.
Uh-huh. That is what can be copyrighted, not the actual eventsof
the game. This has been the argument of the anti-copyright
contingent all along!
> >Applied to the chess world, the facts of the event (the moves of the
> game) are not protected, but if Max Burkett replayed the game in a
> usenet
> posting, making his own description along the way ("and, look out,
> that
> white knight will come crashing down on d6 and black won't be able to
> chase
> it away) then you would have a copyrightable work (the comments, not
> the
> basic moves of the game).
>
> So only drivel is protected? [ :) ]. I still say chess is more akin
> to music than hoops and that a different set of standards apply.
Hm. I certianly don't see it that way. In every way I can think
of,chess seems like a sport.
What if the players don't think it's "art"? Is it? If one player
in a game thinks it's art, and the other thinks it's a sport, what
is it then?
> (MaxB)
>
> I also note that in this newsgroup last year a large number
> went to great lengths to disassociate chess from sport.
Sure, and a large number felt otherwise... Else it would havebeen a
pretty dull discussion.
Again, this seems to stem from the Walter Browne photocopy
issue. But surely you recognize that if the laws you are advocationg
had been in effect, there would have been no tournament book?
I certianly understnd your desire to give provide better for master
players. But I feel that this would deal chess culture and materials
a serious blow.
Look at it this way. I live in chicago. Sometimes Dimitry Gurevich
shows up at a small local tourney. If I play I have a chance of playing
a
GM, which is great, but there's no way in the world I'm going to get
prize money. If we meet, he's going to squish me like a bug.
I'm putting money in his pocket, which I don't mind at all..
It's an honor to play him. And I'd like to be able to show people the
moves!
dave
Grobmeister Archfiend
FIDE would really be asking to die. Games shall always be public
domain...just analysis can be copywrited....and to a small degree...
Grobmeister
Mark Ioli
MSBurkett <msbu...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970828175...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> >From: "Roy Schmidt" <sch...@anti-spam.com>
>
> A brief response:
>
> >Max, I think you missed one of the point. Marv Albert's description of
a
> sporting event *is* copyrightable (snip)
>
> More's the pity, but listen to the disclaimer sometime. The
> copyright claim is for all PICTURES and descriptions.
> (MaxB)
>
So what about PICTURES? What if I'm listening on the radio? Is the image in
my mind copyrighted?
> I don't see a whit of difference between Rogers & Hammerstein
> (Okahoma) and Lasker Em v Capablanca (New York 1924). Both
> are masterpieces and both were created by the named persons.
> It seems to me like you are making my point for me. (MaxB)
>
I don't see the music analogy or the Oklahoma analogy. At what point does a
game become copyrightable? At the first novelty? Who has the copyright on
1. e4? Chess games are built upon games that have gone before them, they
are not entirely unique. If I play 30 moves into a Lopez, then come up with
a new move, what about the previous 30 moves? They are not mine. Applying
this to music, I could append a single note to Beethoven's Fifth, and call
it my own.
> When a high school drama club puts on _Oklahoma_ does it
> receive a copyright for putting its 'spin' on the work? What
> in fact happens is that it pays a nominal royalty for the right
> to produce the musical. (MaxB)
>
Oklahoma is an original work. No chess game is original, since every
possible first move has been played by someone at some time.
>
> So only drivel is protected? [ :) ]. I still say chess is more akin
> to music than hoops and that a different set of standards apply.
> (MaxB)
>
Well, that's very romantic. But it doesn't really matter, because it will
never fly. Even if some country decided game scores were copyrightable, you
would never stop the distribution of them. I would look forward to the
illegal traffic of chess games :)
Mark Ioli
University of Pittsburgh
MSBurkett
>From: David Hanley <da...@nospan.netright.com>
>Again, this seems to stem from the Walter Browne photocopy
>issue.
No.
>But surely you recognize that if the laws you are advocationg >had been
in effect, there would have been no tournament book?
Actually there was no tournament book. What was at issue was
tournament bulletins. And you're wrong. It's a simple matter for
a tournament organizer to obtain the right to game scores under
any system of rules.
>I certianly understnd your desire to give provide better for master
players. But I feel that this would deal chess culture and materials a
serious blow.
I have already answered this BUT I don't think it would have
dealt the music world a cruel blow if Schubert had not starved,
nor the chess world if the same had not happened to Schlecter.
> Look at it this way. I live in chicago. Sometimes Dimitry Gurevich
shows up at a small local tourney. If I play I have a chance of playing a
GM, which is great, but there's no way in the world I'm going to get prize
money. If we meet, he's going to squish me like a bug. I'm putting money
in his pocket, which I don't mind at all..t's an honor to play him. And
I'd like to be able to show people the moves!
As a partner in the copyright, that would be your privilege. And
you are indulging in hyperbole in the extreme.
MaxB
Benjamin J. Tilly
In article <3400DB...@jaderiver.com>
Duif Calvin <du...@jaderiver.com> writes:
[...]
> My understanding on chess scores is that they are literally
> regarded the same as the "box score" to a sporting event--
> a physical record of an event that took place. Box scores
> have been addressed in US and British copyright law many
> times. They simply can't be copyrighted. However, the
> Motorola case last year (which was reversed on appeal) has
> introduced the concept of the "time value" of events
> _during the time of broadcast_. Motorola lost the original case
> to the NBA (when the NBA attempted to restrict the reporting
> of scores during an event as being damaging to their commercial
> interests)--but although much less widely-reported than the
> original opinion, Motorola WON the case on appeal, the court
> relying on traditional understanding of what a box score is.
[...]
If I get this right then while the game would not be protected, a case
could be made for protecting it while it is being played? If so then
the chess servers would be unable to replay championship games in real
time without paying money?
Ben Tilly
Roger de Coverly
In article <5uajtj$k0a$2...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, "Benjamin J. Tilly"
<Benjamin...@dartmouth.edu> writes
There was a case in Britain about 10 years ago. A television station
arranged a 6 game G/25 match between Kasparov and Short as the basis for
a 6 program series and was able through legal action or threats thereof
to prevent publication of the results and moves until after the
transmission date. No claims of game ownership were made after then.
There were some special circumstances though :-
The games were played in front of an invited audience who I believe had
to agree to non-disclosure of the moves and results.
The event was "made for TV" ie it wouldn't have happened unless the TV
company recorded it.
I don't see that this argument applies to the FIDE Knockout
Championship.
--
Roger de Coverly
Duif Calvin
Benjamin J. Tilly wrote:
>
> In article <3400DB...@jaderiver.com>
> Duif Calvin <du...@jaderiver.com> writes:
>
> [...]
> > My understanding on chess scores is that they are literally
> > regarded the same as the "box score" to a sporting event--
> > a physical record of an event that took place. Box scores
> > have been addressed in US and British copyright law many
> > times. They simply can't be copyrighted. However, the
> > Motorola case last year (which was reversed on appeal) has
> > introduced the concept of the "time value" of events
> > _during the time of broadcast_. Motorola lost the original case
> > to the NBA (when the NBA attempted to restrict the reporting
> > of scores during an event as being damaging to their commercial
> > interests)--but although much less widely-reported than the
> > original opinion, Motorola WON the case on appeal, the court
> > relying on traditional understanding of what a box score is.
> [...]
>
> If I get this right then while the game would not be protected, a case
> could be made for protecting it while it is being played? If so then
> the chess servers would be unable to replay championship games in real
> time without paying money?
>
That was the argument that the NBA made. They authorized released of
scores only at certain intervals (I believe twice each quarter) to
protect the value of the broadcast rights which are sold to radio and
television. However, the Motorala company, through a unit which sold a
special "sport page", was providing much more frequent score updates
to its pager customers.
The NBA sued, on the basis that the Motorola early release of
information was damaging the commercial value of the broadcast rights.
Note that the only thing be reported was the scores themselves, things
like Chicago-LA 68-62 with a timestamp. No commentary.
The first judge found for the NBA--sending shockwaves through the
intellectual property law communities. However, note that the decision
was OVERTURNED on appeal, meanng that the appeals court ruled that the
NBA could NOT restrict scores reporting mid-game, because box scores
cannot be copyrighted.
However, the issues of the time value of a sporting event have been
raised, and will unquestionably be raised again. People do tune in
midway to those paid broadcasts (radio and TV) to get the scores--when
they can pick it up for free on the Internet or through services like
Motorola's, then there may indeed be a loss of value in the broadcast
rights. The only question is whether it is a _legally-protectable_ loss
of rights.
Again, remember, I am NOT a lawyer--but as a professional editor
and writer I do follow these issues closely. All I can give you
is the general news background; obviously one should consult an
attorney before making any potentially actionable decisions on these
matters.
MSBurkett
>Well, that's very romantic. But it doesn't really matter, because it
>will never fly. Even if some country decided game scores were
>copyrightable, you would never stop the distribution of them. I >would
look forward to the illegal traffic of chess games :)
Actually the song "Happy Birthday" is under a copyright that is
universally ignored. Therein lies a great story but it belongs
elsewhere, along with the PRINCESS DI thread and that super
drivel with the pretensious title ON THE -----. One of the clowns
contributing to the latter sent me e-mail today claiming to have
beaten Fischer 3 times. I have asked his true name. When I get
it and the scores of his victories, I will post them, copyrighted or
not. :)
MaxB
Peter Dorman
The discussion so far has centered on the legal basis for FIDE's claim.
I would like to shift it to the social merits. Let me weigh in for a
moment as an economist. Setting aside the very large and difficult
issues of enforcement, the justification for any form of patent or
copyright monopoly depends on the balance between the gains from
rewarding the monopolist producer and the costs to users. As a
practical issue, a lot depends on who the users and what their purposes
are. If the users are simply consumers/spectators, there is much to be
said for granting monopoly rights. So if the question is whether I as a
spectator who likes to play over grandmaster games should pay the GMs
for that privilege, I think I could be persuaded to fork out. But if
the users are also producers, then one has to think carefully about the
costs of restricting access. I can't think of a better example than the
use of recorded games by other chessplayers. They incorporate ideas
from games they play over in their own games, and these in turn show up
in future games. Imagine what would happen if FIDE could somehow
prevent players from having access to its tournament games, either
directly (bulletins) or indirectly (posting on the net etc.) without
paying for them. Players would ration their purchases. (The "law of
demand".) There would be less collective rumination on the value of
individual moves and less experimentation building on them. This would
lower the overall quality of play. True: most serious tournament
players would pay for games from the top events, but many useful ideas
also pop up in the games of nonprofessionals. (I can remember when many
of the themes of the Benko Gambit were being worked out in Swisses
across the US, in many instances by amateurs.) And, even if the quality
of GM chess is unaffected, most active players derive much of their
enjoyment from the quality of amateur-level games -- theirs and others.
On balance, it would be hard to support the use of copyrights in this
case -- even if they could be enforced, which they almost certainly
couldn't. This case is interesting not only for chess reasons, but
because the music world, IMO, is gradually moving toward a similar
situation, e.g. with sampling. As the proportion of users who are also
producers rises, the case for enforcing intellectual property rights
diminishes. (This is why, incidentally, it would be idiotic for
academic advocates of intellectual property rights to try to copyright
the clever arguments they invent to support IPR in academic journals.
Most of the readers are also model-spinners...)
I hope the FIDE initiative collapses.
Peter Dorman
Roy Schmidt
MSBurkett wrote
> I have already answered this BUT I don't think it would have
> dealt the music world a cruel blow if Schubert had not starved,
> nor the chess world if the same had not happened to Schlecter.
Max,
Schubert, and other composers you might throw out in this forum, were paid
for their work. Under whatever copyright rules you might employ,
Schubert's work is now in the public domain, but when he first wrote his
works, he was paid by patrons and his publisher for the rights to the
works.
David Lipscomb
Peter Dorman and others wrote:
>The discussion so far has centered on the legal basis for FIDE's claim.
>I would like to shift it to the social merits
and a lot more to boot.
Having read all of this thread for several weeks now, it would seem
that we are witnessing the beginning of the end for F.I.D.E.. Through
a combination of greed and stupidity, it will lose any credibility it
may still have -- not much, granted -- and will, within a year or two,
have become utterly irrelevant, yet another testimony to the notion
that no organization can really monopolize a popular pursuit such as
chess, nor can it actually kill it.
I for one will not be mourning for F.I.D.E.
David Lipscomb
MSBurkett
>Schubert, and other composers you might throw out in this forum, were
paid for their work. Under whatever copyright
rules you might employ, Schubert's work is now in the public domain, but
when he first wrote his works, he was paid by patrons and his publisher for
the rights to the works.
>=================================================
Roy
Gee, and I thought the international copyright convention
postdated Schubert's death. His biography makes interesting
reading. You should do so before making further comments
about him.
Max