"Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 11, 6:06 am, The Historian wrote:
On Sep 11, 5:38 am, "



wrote:
Doesn't the USCF and CHess Life own those articles since they were
work for hire? If they do, then isn't Sloan in violation of
copyright?

Rob,

Just curious -- what makes you think Benko's articles were "work for
hire" (a technical term regarding ownership of copyright of produced
work)?

As far as I know, during the time the "Endgame Laboratory" articles
were published in Chess Life, the usualy arrangement for magazines was
the publication of "first North American serial rights" or somesuch.
If so, Benko would have retained rights for further publication.

Or did CL columnists have a different kind of arrangement?

Chess Life occasionally published a story of mine (and School Mates, a
lot of stories, interviews and miscellanea) and republication was
never an issue.

If I recall correctly, a few (5?) years ago CL changed its acquisition
policy and began buying all rights. Still, I'd bet they'd ok
republication if asked to add something like "first published in Chess
Life on such-and-such a date".

Rick

I agree, Rick. I don't see this as work for hire at all. Material from
Chess Life often is reprinted under covers - Soltis, Evans, and Keres,
to name three writers, have had column collections available. And
Benko's columns have already been reprinted at least once.

Rick and Neil,
I really don't know what arrangements the USCF had at that time. I am
only familiar with work for hire. It can fall under a broad umbrella..
The "for hire" has been found to include work in exchange for any
thing of value( free memberships, ect)

Also about 5 years ago NY Times instituted the controversial claim to
copyright all contents of the newspaper, without exception. Thereby all
contributions by staff or freelance writers became work for hire.

The only issue here is who owns the copyright, and who protects the
copyright? If Benko owns it, does USCF protect it? I believe the first is
true, but don't know about the second. If Benko gives permissions in advance
to use his work, then USCF merely need to note reprints are authorised.

As to the matter of CL's format, this is far harder to claim as
copyrightable, since there is nothing particularly original about the
format. I think CL probably /could/ successfully sue to prevent facsimile
editions being produced, but of what worth is that to anyone? it would also,
imo, have to argue that CL lost something of value by others using it's
format as facsilimile - but i don't think USCF have published a book for
yonks, and have no current plans to do so

In the song publishing business the author retains some rights(unless
signed away) but the publisher retains control of the work. If it is
somehow different with books, I dont know. I will yeild to someone
with greater knowledge on this than myself.

Things have changed a bit in these digital times. It usally makes little
difference to the writer who owns copyright unless the work is to be further
reproduced; either anthologised, serialised, or can be recombined with the
work of others without the originator's permission or even knowledge! [that
was the journalistic beef at NY Times.]

eg: if you want to take all your columns and extract in part or entirely for
a book, then you cannot do this under work-for-hire arrangements, but the
publisher could! and besides, since publisher already paid you, you don't
get a cent more! now that chess authors are going digital they naturally
want to recycle material in new formats to represent them

so: bottom line here is really only if advanced permssion has been gained
from estate-of-Benko for in-copyright material?

phil innes

Rob