Players copyrighting their moves

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #21


    I don't consider a Copyright a monopoly. All writers copyright their pieces. Here is one of mine the is has a copyright symbol © after the title.

    Can't wait until someone uses in a book and then I can sue and make some money.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #22


    Copyrighting annotations not only makes sense, it's international law.

    But that doesn't mean you can't play copyrighted moves, it means you can't claim the annotations as your own.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #24


    My chess friend in the USA was telling me that a cypress tree off the coast of California is copyrighted. You can't publish photo's of it etc. I wonder if that is true?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #25


    I will copyright the mistakes,so whoever make a mistake on the game of chess has to paid me a royalty I become the richest man of the world

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #26


    Any attempt to allow copyrighting of chess moves will result in major problems...the individuals who first played e4 and d4 will certainly have a good aguement for royalties. And any game will be owned by two individuals?...what about FIDA who payed them for playing? She will also have a good aguement that the games belong to her. The Broadcasting of Games will also have to consider the Royalties oweing...and decide if it will be financially worthwhile to do so. And what about the situation where more than one individual claims to have first played this move? How do we sort than one out?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #27


    Petrosianic wrote:

    i read somewhere moves are considered as facts and thus not copyrightable by US law.  annotations are of course copyrightable [for instance, some chesspub subscriber analyses].

    Exactly.  It's like a sporting event - the owners have the right to the pictures and video, and their "official" commentary, but they have no right of ownership over the events which occur on the field.

    Besides, it's ridiculous from a number of directions.  No one would pay to view the games of any but the world's best players, so it would do no others any good and serve to depress interest in chess overall.  In that respect it is a completely counterproductive idea.

    And if you think you "own" the rights to your novelty on move 14 of the Openchensky Variation of the Najdorf Sicilian, should your royalties also be "taxed" to pay the estates of Openchensky and Nadjorf for their contributions?  And what of Sicily - you don't want those folks feeling cheated . . .

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #28


    Another problem with copyrighting is someone could simply generate random move lists (I mean sensible games) using Houdini and claim they're "copyrighted" even though they're unplayed games.  Suppose then Carlsen plays a game featuring just those moves.. the original person could then claim copyright and disallow the game's publication.  

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #29


    Also, Kim Kardashian tried to copyright her looks, and make it illegal for anyone to look like her.

    This one was settled out of court. In the future, maybe you should get jail time if you look like Kim, or play like Topalov.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #30


    Ubik42 wrote:

    Also, Kim Kardashian tried to copyright her looks, and make it illegal for anyone to look like her.

    This one was settled out of court. In the future, maybe you should get jail time if you look like Kim, or play like Topalov.

    It might be equally offensive to look like Topalov or play like Kim!


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #32


    "although it's somewhat a mystery to me how lawyers are necessarily more qualified to make judgments in fields that they do not necessarily understand as well as the parties that have an interest in the outcome, ultimately somebody has to judge these cases..."


    The point is that lawyers and judges do not pretend to know more about any field...other than law. They plead their aguements on existing law as it relates to the field in this case "property rights".

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #33


    That's not really a copyright issue though. A football team can expect compensation for playing, so should a chess player. The issue isn't one of copyright, but of compensation for playing. If there's a live broadcast, the players may be entitled to some of the royalties, but that's more of a contract issue.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #34


    The London Chess Classic has made arrangements for the players to be involved with the broadcasts. Most tournaments have contracts with their players and the fees for those contracts are often paid in part by broadcasts. It's not about copyrighting moves, but about getting paid to perform.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #35


    I could have copyrights in the Grob opening (1-g4) that I mastered very well, but, no, I'm not capitalist... Just look my games, it's free!!!

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #36


    trigs wrote:
    Scottrf wrote:
    trigs wrote:

    nobody quote my forum posts. i own the copyrights for them and i will sue!



    I laughed out loud!

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #37


    Since nobody else has done it yet, I am going to claim a copyright on 1.d4.  Nobody is allowed from here on out other than me to play 1.d4 or any other combination of moves that directly transpose into a 1.d4 opening!


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #38


    I take a copyright on winning a game. No one is allowed to win a game of chess or any other type of game or sport unless they pay me.


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #39


    The domination of the internet in our Society today, will no doubt have the law makers going back to the classroom to deal with a whole new way of doing things, and with it many risks and pitfalls. I believe that it is only a matter of time when "Big Brother" will try to control/police the internet as well.

Back to Top

Post your reply: