|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > January 2007 > On copyrights (was: Chessville Vignettes )
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
On copyrights (was: Chessville Vignettes )
|
|
| Taylor Kingston 2007-01-30, 8:26 pm |
|
On Jan 25, 6:55 pm, "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> 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" <tkings...@chittenden.com>
wrote:
quote:
> On Jan 25, 6:55 pm, "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
> 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.
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2007-01-30, 8:26 pm |
|
On Jan 30, 9:47 am, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
quote:
> On Jan 30, 7:04 am, "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
> 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" <tkings...@chittenden.com>
wrote:
quote:
> On Jan 30, 9:47 am, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> 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.
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2007-01-30, 8:26 pm |
|
On Jan 30, 12:19 pm, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
quote:
> On Jan 30, 10:03 am, "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sure. But the link you provided had game moves on it.
I provided that link ( http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/
copying.html ) not as an example of copyright violation with a
photograph, but as an example of the wholesale pilferage that passes
for "chess literature." Schiller's book did not, I suppose, violate
any copyright, but the fact that it was copied almost entirely from
another book makes his introduction highly misleading:
"The combinations include most of the most famous and well-known
examples, but **there are also many positions taken from *_rare and
unexplored literature_*.**" (emphasis added)
Trust me, Rob: "The Encyclopaedia of Chess Middlegames" is *_not_*
"rare and unexplored literature." That would be a bit like saying "the
little-known musical group, the Beatles." Schiller just saw a way to
make an easy buck, and helped himself hand-over-fist to someone else's
hard work, putting his own name on it.
| |
|
|
On Jan 30, 11:54 am, "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com>
wrote:
quote:
> On Jan 30, 12:19 pm, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I provided that link (http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/
> copying.html ) not as an example of copyright violation with a
> photograph, but as an example of the wholesale pilferage that passes
> for "chess literature." Schiller's book did not, I suppose, violate
> any copyright, but the fact that it was copied almost entirely from
> another book makes his introduction highly misleading:
Taylor,We were discussing copyrights and you posted a link to a
critique of someone elses work that claims it was plagerized? Did the
publisher of the works enforce their rights? I think we are
complicating the discussion without need here. If this allegation were
true and there was any money to be made, trust me when I say there
would have been a lawsuit filed.
Which leads to another supposition. If there was a violation and the
publisher resufed to sue then I would suspect that they are implying
the material was worthless in that there was not sufficient economic
damage to make it important.(This is I suspect an entire new thread)
quote:
> "The combinations include most of the most famous and well-known
> examples, but **there are also many positions taken from *_rare and
> unexplored literature_*.**" (emphasis added)
quote:
> Trust me, Rob: "The Encyclopaedia of Chess Middlegames" is *_not_*
> "rare and unexplored literature." That would be a bit like saying "the
> little-known musical group, the Beatles." Schiller just saw a way to
> make an easy buck, and helped himself hand-over-fist to someone else's
> hard work, putting his own name on it.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Well,The Beatles backing of Tony Sheridan singing "My Bonnie" which
hit #5 on the German charts is obscure for sure. LOL
I think here it could be explained by looking at the qualifer
"many"( one might have said several or a few) in describing games. I
am not taking one side or the other in that fight, simply giving a
possible explaination.
| |
| samsloan 2007-01-30, 8:26 pm |
| On Jan 30, 8:04 am, "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com>
wrote:
quote:
> On Jan 25, 6:55 pm, "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
The USCF bought the rights to Chess Review magazine in 1969. There is
no way that the USCF would ever sell those rights to Edward Winter.
However, the actual owner of the copyright was the photographer, who
ever that was. The copyright was not renewed and has therefore
expired.
Yet another example of Edward Winter and Taylor Kingston just blowing
steam.
Sam Sloan
| |
| Chess One 2007-01-30, 8:26 pm |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1170162252.617572.233040@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
>
> On Jan 25, 6:55 pm, "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Assuming,
Why suppose anything - does Winter hold copyright or not?
quote:
> for the sake of argument,
His pulbisher should argue for him - but I think that has not happened. So
let us instead argue the contrary, and Winter took material for which he
claimed copyright, but which has not been legally determined - only
complained about. I think that is the current state of the game.
quote:
> 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?
Since all is supposition, perhaps he did perhaps he did not...
quote:
> 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.
But that is a leap based on three successive suppositions, no evidence being
presented for each - and if Winter could not claim a bid for lawful
copyright, he is, in Kingston's term alike 'many hacks', and proceeds on
'convenient self-serving premise'.
So, in order to determine if Winter is a self serving hack as Kingston
describes such common people; who holds copyright to this specific material,
or is it unknown. or is the material in the public domain?
How is any of those three known to be true?
Phil Innes
quote:
> 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
>
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2007-01-30, 8:26 pm |
| On Jan 30, 6:05 pm, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
quote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170162252.617572.233040@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Why suppose anything - does Winter hold copyright or not?
>
>
> His pulbisher [sic] should argue for him - but I think that has not happened.
Our Phil clearly has not been paying attention. His publisher did,
as attested for example by Sam Sloan, a witness whom Innes normally
finds quite credible.
quote:
> So
> let us instead argue the contrary, and Winter took material for which he
> claimed copyright, but which has not been legally determined - only
> complained about. I think that is the current state of the game.
And your basis for this is? I mean, besides your dislike of Winter,
ChessCafe, et al?
quote:
>
> Since all is supposition, perhaps he did perhaps he did not...
If you wish to rest a legal case on that kind of argument, I wish
you luck in court. You will need it.
quote:
>
> But that is a leap based on three successive suppositions, no evidence being
> presented for each - and if Winter could not claim a bid for lawful
> copyright, he is, in Kingston's term alike 'many hacks', and proceeds on
> 'convenient self-serving premise'.
>
> So, in order to determine if Winter is a self serving hack as Kingston
> describes such common people; who holds copyright to this specific material,
> or is it unknown. or is the material in the public domain?
>
> How is any of those three known to be true?
>
> Phil Innes
Our Phil, as always, argues for presumption of innocence only when
convenient, and as always, for presumption of guilt when it concerns
an adversary.
|
| |
|
|