Doesn't suprise me that someone associated with "chess diner" would try
to suppress someone elses work. They have a history of doing that.

http://www.angelfire.com/games/SBChess/criminal.html

On Jan 25, 11:58 am, "Rob" wrote:
Doesn't suprise me that someone associated with "chess diner" would try
to suppress someone elses work. They have a history of doing that.

http://www.angelfire.com/games/SBChess/criminal.html

Our Rob once again demonstrates his strange world-view, this time in
the area of ethical values and copyright law. In his mind, unauthorized
use of copyrighted material is "work" (rather than, say, plagiarism or
theft) and a request to cease the unauthorized use is "suppression"
(rather than a defense of one's property).
By this logic, if a burglar breaks into Rob's house and steals, he is
merely "working," and if Rob objects, he is guilty of "suppressing" the
burglar's work.

LOL

"Chess Diner" + "Chess Cafe'" I didn't think I would actually have to
spell it out. But Fact Curators may tend to be creativty challenged.

LOL

"Chess Diner" = "Chess Cafe'" I didn't think I would actually have to
spell it out. But Fact Curators may tend to be creativty challenged.

I received a letter from Chess Cafe virtually identical to the letter
described in
http://www.angelfire.com/games/SBChess/criminal.html

This letter claimed that Edward Winter has a copyright on a picture of
Raymond Weinstein published on my website and, by posting this picture
on my website I had violated Winter's copyright.

I wrote back pointing out that this particular of Raymond Weinstein had
appeared in a 1961 issue of Chess Review magazine. I also personally
knew Raymond Weinstein.

In short, it was Winter who was violating a copyright by copying this
picture, not me.

I never heard from Edward Winter or from ChessCafe on this subject
again.

Just because Edward Winter scans pictures found in old chess magazines,
that does not give him a copyright to those pictures.

Sam Sloan

On Jan 25, 5:55 pm, "samsloan" wrote:
I received a letter from Chess Cafe virtually identical to the letter
described inhttp://www.angelfire.com/games/SBChess/criminal.html

This letter claimed that Edward Winter has a copyright on a picture of
Raymond Weinstein published on my website and, by posting this picture
on my website I had violated Winter's copyright.

I wrote back pointing out that this particular of Raymond Weinstein had
appeared in a 1961 issue of Chess Review magazine. I also personally
knew Raymond Weinstein.

In short, it was Winter who was violating a copyright by copying this
picture, not me.

I never heard from Edward Winter or from ChessCafe on this subject
again.

Just because Edward Winter scans pictures found in old chess magazines,
that does not give him a copyright to those pictures.

Sam Sloan

There appears to bbe a pattern, Sam. Only certain"approved" writers are
allowed to write about chess. Perhaps you might make a submission to
the Vignettes site?

On Jan 25, 6:55 pm, "samsloan" wrote:
I received a letter from Chess Cafe virtually identical to the letter
described inhttp://www.angelfire.com/games/SBChess/criminal.html

This letter claimed that Edward Winter has a copyright on a picture of
Raymond Weinstein published on my website and, by posting this picture
on my website I had violated Winter's copyright.

I wrote back pointing out that this particular of Raymond Weinstein had
appeared in a 1961 issue of Chess Review magazine. I also personally
knew Raymond Weinstein.

In short, it was Winter who was violating a copyright by copying this
picture, not me.

I never heard from Edward Winter or from ChessCafe on this subject
again.

Just because Edward Winter scans pictures found in old chess magazines,
that does not give him a copyright to those pictures.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the photo in question did
come from a 1961 Chess Review, that does not of itself invalidate
Winter's copyright claim. Did Sloan consider the possibility that
Winter had purchased the rights to the photo from Chess Review?
While the predominant view among chessdom's many hacks is that
anything not nailed down is fair game, not everyone bases his ethics
on that conveniently self-serving premise.
On the subject of grabbing anything not nailed down, this article by
Edward Winter offers some telling examples:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/copying.html

On Jan 30, 7:04 am, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:
On Jan 25, 6:55 pm, "samsloan" wrote:





I received a letter from Chess Cafe virtually identical to the letter
described inhttp://www.angelfire.com/games/SBChess/criminal.html

This letter claimed that Edward Winter has a copyright on a picture of
Raymond Weinstein published on my website and, by posting this picture
on my website I had violated Winter's copyright.

I wrote back pointing out that this particular of Raymond Weinstein had
appeared in a 1961 issue of Chess Review magazine. I also personally
knew Raymond Weinstein.

In short, it was Winter who was violating a copyright by copying this
picture, not me.

I never heard from Edward Winter or from ChessCafe on this subject
again.

Just because Edward Winter scans pictures found in old chess magazines,
that does not give him a copyright to those pictures.


While the predominant view among chessdom's many hacks is that
anything not nailed down is fair game, not everyone bases his ethics
on that conveniently self-serving premise.
On the subject of grabbing anything not nailed down, this article by
Edward Winter offers some telling examples:


Not sure of your point exactly... but game moves are not
copyrightable, only annotations. This is not significantly different
from song writing. "You cannot copyright iambic pentameter" was a
ruling in a case. Can you borrow "ideads,themes and premaces?.. yes!
Nothing wrong with that so long as it is modified in such a way as to
not be considered a simple rewrite.

Much about nothing as it pertains to chess writing IMO. More money
will be made on a bad country song than on the best chess literature.
So when someone complains about their "work" being damaged... and
trying to prove any financial basis for it you would be hard pressed
to justify that. They should be thankful that anyone read what they
wrote and found it interesting enough to use.

On Jan 30, 9:47 am, "Rob" wrote:
On Jan 30, 7:04 am, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:

On Jan 25, 6:55 pm, "samsloan" wrote:

I received a letter from Chess Cafe virtually identical to the letter
described inhttp://www.angelfire.com/games/SBChess/criminal.html

This letter claimed that Edward Winter has a copyright on a picture of
Raymond Weinstein published on my website and, by posting this picture
on my website I had violated Winter's copyright.

I wrote back pointing out that this particular of Raymond Weinstein had
appeared in a 1961 issue of Chess Review magazine. I also personally
knew Raymond Weinstein.

In short, it was Winter who was violating a copyright by copying this
picture, not me.

I never heard from Edward Winter or from ChessCafe on this subject
again.

Just because Edward Winter scans pictures found in old chess magazines,
that does not give him a copyright to those pictures.

While the predominant view among chessdom's many hacks is that
anything not nailed down is fair game, not everyone bases his ethics
on that conveniently self-serving premise.

Not sure of your point exactly... but game moves are not
copyrightable, only annotations.

Since the subject was photographs, I am even less sure of your point
than you are of mine.

On Jan 30, 10:03 am, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:
On Jan 30, 9:47 am, "Rob" wrote:





On Jan 30, 7:04 am, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:

On Jan 25, 6:55 pm, "samsloan" wrote:

I received a letter from Chess Cafe virtually identical to the letter
described inhttp://www.angelfire.com/games/SBChess/criminal.html

This letter claimed that Edward Winter has a copyright on a picture of
Raymond Weinstein published on my website and, by posting this picture
on my website I had violated Winter's copyright.

I wrote back pointing out that this particular of Raymond Weinstein had
appeared in a 1961 issue of Chess Review magazine. I also personally
knew Raymond Weinstein.

In short, it was Winter who was violating a copyright by copying this
picture, not me.

I never heard from Edward Winter or from ChessCafe on this subject
again.

Just because Edward Winter scans pictures found in old chess magazines,
that does not give him a copyright to those pictures.

While the predominant view among chessdom's many hacks is that
anything not nailed down is fair game, not everyone bases his ethics
on that conveniently self-serving premise.



Not sure of your point exactly... but game moves are not
copyrightable, only annotations.

Since the subject was photographs, I am even less sure of your point
than you are of mine.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Sure. But the link you provided had game moves on it.