[ -- rec.games.chess.misc and .politics -- there's nothing to do with
computers or analysis here. ]

Ray Gordon wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
I'm not familiar with the case but Chessbase were almost certainly
asserting copyright in the compilation of the games rather than the games
themselves. This is a very different thing as Chessbase had put their
`creative efforts' into collecting together the set of games.

I still think the right-to-publicity angle is stronger than the
"copyright" of a game.

That using the publicity of the players involved to put the game in
context adds value to the moves is without question the only question
is why the players shouldn't be compensated by such use.

I can think of at least two other questions.

First: why should they be paid? After all, there's definite value in the
BBC reporting `Arsenal 1-0 Celta Vigo. Thierry Henry gives Arsenal the
perfect start as he scores with a low drive after Dennis Bergkamp puts him
clear in the penalty area with a superb flick' over `A soccer game is in
progress. Somebody just scored a goal with the assistance of one of his
team mates.' You appear to be suggesting that the BBC should pay Henry,
Bergkamp and probably Arsenal and Celta Vigo football clubs, too.

And yet I notice that you're not offering to pay me for the the text that
I wrote which you quoted (unattributed, I might add) above, even though I
own the copyright in it.

Second: would it be good for chess if players were paid for the use of
their name alongside their games? I do not doubt that the answer to this
question is no! I imagine that most chess books would do well to sell a
thousand copies. Take Sadler's book on the QGD (which I chose merely
because I have it to hand). Its index of games lists 75 different players
with white so it's safe to say it gives games of at least 100 different
players in total.

At a conservative estimate, it will cost at least $10 to contact each of
these players for permission to use their games and another $10 to cover
the admin costs of paying each of them. That's already $2000 of admin.
Split that over the thousand books sold and that's $2 per book, which will
need to be added to the cover price. Say we pay each of them 1c for each
copy of the book sold: that's another dollar per book. So, we've added a
total of $3 to the cost of each copy of the book (currently $19.95, so
we've added 15%), of which only $1 goes to support the chess players, each
of whom gets only $10 from the total sales of the book. And, of course,
they will probably want to buy a copy of that book, too, so their profit
from the scheme is only $7. (Oh, you think the publisher should give them
a copy? OK, that's another $2.30 on the cover price to cover the
increased costs.) This doesn't make economic sense.

That's before we consider issues like players withholding permission for
their rivals to publish books containing their games as was suggested by
someone else in this thread.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Disgusting Widget (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ thingy but it'll turn your stomach!

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
[ -- rec.games.chess.misc and .politics -- there's nothing to do with
computers or analysis here. ]

Ray Gordon wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
I'm not familiar with the case but Chessbase were almost certainly
asserting copyright in the compilation of the games rather than the
games
themselves. This is a very different thing as Chessbase had put their
`creative efforts' into collecting together the set of games.

I still think the right-to-publicity angle is stronger than the
"copyright" of a game.

That using the publicity of the players involved to put the game in
context adds value to the moves is without question the only question
is why the players shouldn't be compensated by such use.

I can think of at least two other questions.

First: why should they be paid? After all, there's definite value in the
BBC reporting `Arsenal 1-0 Celta Vigo. Thierry Henry gives Arsenal the
perfect start as he scores with a low drive after Dennis Bergkamp puts him
clear in the penalty area with a superb flick' over `A soccer game is in
progress. Somebody just scored a goal with the assistance of one of his
team mates.' You appear to be suggesting that the BBC should pay Henry,
Bergkamp and probably Arsenal and Celta Vigo football clubs, too.

If they showed literally the entire game (which is what a chess score does),
then definitely.


And yet I notice that you're not offering to pay me for the the text that
I wrote which you quoted (unattributed, I might add) above, even though I
own the copyright in it.

Second: would it be good for chess if players were paid for the use of
their name alongside their games? I do not doubt that the answer to this
question is no! I imagine that most chess books would do well to sell a
thousand copies.

Even the *only* copy of Fischer or Kasparov's collected games?


Take Sadler's book on the QGD (which I chose merely
because I have it to hand). Its index of games lists 75 different players
with white so it's safe to say it gives games of at least 100 different
players in total.

The book could be written with just the moves and analysis, and no reference
to the events at which they were played.


At a conservative estimate, it will cost at least $10 to contact each of
these players for permission to use their games and another $10 to cover
the admin costs of paying each of them. That's already $2000 of admin.
Split that over the thousand books sold and that's $2 per book, which will
need to be added to the cover price. Say we pay each of them 1c for each
copy of the book sold: that's another dollar per book. So, we've added a
total of $3 to the cost of each copy of the book (currently $19.95, so
we've added 15%), of which only $1 goes to support the chess players, each
of whom gets only $10 from the total sales of the book. And, of course,
they will probably want to buy a copy of that book, too, so their profit
from the scheme is only $7. (Oh, you think the publisher should give them
a copy? OK, that's another $2.30 on the cover price to cover the
increased costs.) This doesn't make economic sense.

A system could be designed where the organizers handle tournament books and
the players handle rights to their names.

A collection of opening analysis could be published without naming the
players who made the moves. Why would that change the quality of the book?


That's before we consider issues like players withholding permission for
their rivals to publish books containing their games as was suggested by
someone else in this thread.

That could be fixed either by setting a standard copyright fee (like they do
with music), by giving the copyright to the winner (public domain if it's a
draw), or by allowing the loser to publish the game as long as the winner
gets a fixed percentage.


--
Everything you need to know about women. FREE!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library

http://www.cybersheet.com/hotties.html
Why Hotties Choose Losers

Ray Gordon wrote:
"David Richerby" wrote:
First: why should they be paid? After all, there's definite value in
the BBC reporting `Arsenal 1-0 Celta Vigo. Thierry Henry gives Arsenal
the perfect start as he scores with a low drive after Dennis Bergkamp
puts him clear in the penalty area with a superb flick' over `A soccer
game is in progress. Somebody just scored a goal with the assistance
of one of his team mates.' You appear to be suggesting that the BBC
should pay Henry, Bergkamp and probably Arsenal and Celta Vigo football
clubs, too.

If they showed literally the entire game (which is what a chess score
does), then definitely.

The scoresheet doesn't show the entire game. It doesn't show anything
that happened during the time of the game other than which pieces were
moved where. For example, many scoresheets do not indicate the time spent
on each move, which can be of great importance as it allows the reader to
see when the player was in time trouble.


Second: would it be good for chess if players were paid for the use of
their name alongside their games? I do not doubt that the answer to
this question is no! I imagine that most chess books would do well to
sell a thousand copies.

Even the *only* copy of Fischer or Kasparov's collected games?

I said `most' not `every'.


Take Sadler's book on the QGD (which I chose merely because I have it
to hand). Its index of games lists 75 different players with white so
it's safe to say it gives games of at least 100 different players in
total.

The book could be written with just the moves and analysis, and no
reference to the events at which they were played.

You still haven't provided a coherent argument as to why chess players
should be paid if their names are mentioned: you've just asserted it as
an obvious truth. Could you please provide an argument?


At a conservative estimate, it will cost at least $10 to contact each
of these players for permission to use their games and another $10 to
cover the admin costs of paying each of them. [...] This doesn't make
economic sense.

A system could be designed where the organizers handle tournament books
and the players handle rights to their names.

I've already explained how the players handling rights to their names
leads to unacceptable costs.


A collection of opening analysis could be published without naming the
players who made the moves. Why would that change the quality of the
book?

Pardon me but, if you don't believe that including the names of the
players in the book doesn't increase the quality or merchantability of
the book, how can you possibly argue that the players be paid for this
inconsequential use of their name which resulted in no financial gain to
the author?

Having the names of the players does increase the value of the book
because it allows the reader to check that the author isn't just making it
up but is referring to real games by strong players. But I still don't
feel that it's feasible to pay the players for that.


That's before we consider issues like players withholding permission
for their rivals to publish books containing their games as was
suggested by someone else in this thread.

That could be fixed either by setting a standard copyright fee (like
they do with music),

That doesn't fix anything. The copyright holder has the right to deny
permission for somebody to republish his work. The payment of the fee is
part of the contract between copyright holder and publisher and the
copyright holder is under no obligation to enter into any such contract.
He or she is perfectly entitled to decline the fee and deny permission.


by giving the copyright to the winner (public domain if it's a draw), or
by allowing the loser to publish the game as long as the winner gets a
fixed percentage.

That's ludicrous! Why should wins be copyrighted and not draws? Why
should Karpov be allowed to write a book, `Kasparov's worst ever play
against me' but I not be allowed to write `Karpov beats Kasparov again!'
without Kasparov's permission?

As a further problem, there is, I believe, no concept of `public domain'
in English law: one can allow one's work to be distributed free of charge
but one still holds copyright in it unless one signs it over to somebody
else.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Laptop Radio (TM): it's like a radio
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ that you can put on your lap!

David Richerby writes:
That could be fixed either by setting a standard copyright fee (like
they do with music),

That doesn't fix anything. The copyright holder has the right to deny
permission for somebody to republish his work.

Not so in the case of music in the US. The rules are complicated, but
basically, if you want to publish your own recording of a Beatles
song, you can do so by notifying the Beatles' publisher and paying
them a standard royalty set by the Copyright office. This is called a
"compulsory license": you don't have to negotiate with the copyright
holder, and they cannot deny you permission as long as you notify them
properly and you pay on time. (You can of course try to negotiate a
lower royalty than the standard one). Similarly, if you run a
restaurant and want to play Beatles CD's on your jukebox, you can do
so by paying a similar standard royalty, no negotiation required and
no permission denial possible.

I think copyrighting chess games is horribly undesirable, but it does
seem to me that it could be handled with compulsory licenses similar
to the ones for music recordings.

As a further problem, there is, I believe, no concept of `public
domain' in English law: one can allow one's work to be distributed
free of charge but one still holds copyright in it unless one signs
it over to somebody else.

Who currently has the UK copyright for Milton's "Paradiso"? If nobody
has it, then there's such a thing as a public domain in the UK.

Paul Rubin wrote:
David Richerby writes:
As a further problem, there is, I believe, no concept of `public
domain' in English law: one can allow one's work to be distributed
free of charge but one still holds copyright in it unless one signs
it over to somebody else.

Who currently has the UK copyright for Milton's "Paradiso"? If nobody
has it, then there's such a thing as a public domain in the UK.

Nobody holds the copyright in it because the copyright which would have
been Milton's[1] has expired. However, I (since I'm still alive) hold the
copyright in anything that I write. I don't have the option to place it
`in the public domain', though I do have the option of not requiring any
licensing conditions on my copyrighted work (such as this post). Fifty
years after my death, my estate will cease to have any copyright in this
post but, until then, copyright rests with me or with whomever I assign
the copyright to.


Dave.

[1] I'm not sure copyright law existed back then but that doesn't really
matter for this discussion.

--
David Richerby Nuclear Radio (TM): it's like a radio
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ that's made of atoms!

I believe that the publication rights to a chess game could be owned
by a tournament organizer who required the players to sign agreements
to that effect. Since the tournament does not happen in the public
domain, the right to publish the game scores would remain solely with
the organizer. The organizer could allow the press to report on the
noature of the struggle, the outcome, etc .. but not publish for free
the actual game score.

ChessHobbyist wrote:
I believe that the publication rights to a chess game could be owned
by a tournament organizer who required the players to sign agreements
to that effect. Since the tournament does not happen in the public
domain, the right to publish the game scores would remain solely with
the organizer. The organizer could allow the press to report on the
noature of the struggle, the outcome, etc .. but not publish for free
the actual game score.

Why do you believe that this would be

a) beneficial for chess as a whole;
b) beneficial for the players in the tournament?


Dave.

--
David Richerby Disposable Beefy Book (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a romantic novel that's made from a
cow but you never have to clean it!

(ChessHobbyist) writes:

I believe that the publication rights to a chess game could be owned
by a tournament organizer who required the players to sign agreements
to that effect. Since the tournament does not happen in the public
domain, the right to publish the game scores would remain solely with
the organizer. The organizer could allow the press to report on the
noature of the struggle, the outcome, etc .. but not publish for free
the actual game score.

That would work for *first* publication - but it would take a
fundamental change to copyright law to prevent anyone from re-publishing
the very same games *after* the first publication.

And, if someone published first *anyway*, recourse would *not* be
through copyright law, but would havae to be based on the contract
between the organizer and the press, players, spectators, etc.

Even worse...if someone published first, and it was impossible to
determine which of the press, players, spectators, etc. communicated the
games scores to that publisher, the organizer would have no recourse.

Which, of course, is why no one has tried it!



--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/info/faculty/sloan/

David Richerby writes:
Who currently has the UK copyright for Milton's "Paradiso"? If nobody
has it, then there's such a thing as a public domain in the UK.

Nobody holds the copyright in it because the copyright which would have
been Milton's[1] has expired.

Yes, that makes it public domain.

However, I (since I'm still alive) hold the copyright in anything
that I write. I don't have the option to place it `in the public
domain', though I do have the option of not requiring any licensing
conditions on my copyrighted work (such as this post).

I don't know about the UK, but in the US you can place stuff in the
public domain. See www.creativecommons.org for some info.

[1] I'm not sure copyright law existed back then but that doesn't really
matter for this discussion.

Milton's works (and Shakespeare's) were among those held in perpetual
copyright by the Stationers' Guild until the Statute of Anne in 1709
made all copyrights in England expire after 14 years. There was then
a huge amount of kicking and screaming and decades of litigation from
publishing interests that wanted copyright to never expire, but at
least temporarily, the good guys won out (limited copyright was good
for authors since it meant publishers kept having to find new material
to generate revenue from, instead of milking old monopolies forever).
Over the centuries since then though, things have gotten as bad as
before, maybe worse.

David Richerby wrote:

As a further problem, there is, I believe, no concept of `public domain'
in English law: one can allow one's work to be distributed free of charge
but one still holds copyright in it unless one signs it over to somebody
else.

You forget that copyright protection is for a (reasonably) fixed period
of time. Once that time has passed, the work in question has passed into
the public domain.

The moral rights that are part and parcel of copyright protection can't
be signed away, though: you may possibly be thinking of those.

--
Anders Thulin ath*algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~ath