Official Staunton's Piatigorsky Cup Reproduction Chess Set & History
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
verylate wrote:
history aside, its an interesting design. I do like the knight
Yes, the Knight is gorgeous!
The 1966 Piatigorsky Cup Program
The 1963 Piatigorsky Cup Program
Are there any original Steiner sets extant?
tournament bulletins and tickets to the 1963 event
Feb 26, 2016
0
#27
Hello Mike
I would like to congratulate you for your fine contribution of the Piatigorsky cup chessmen and to Carl for producing this beautiful set,It will be treasured along with my 1849 and 1851 Official Staunton sets....Thanks again Mike and Carl!!!
Bobby_Falcone wrote:
Hello Mike
I would like to congratulate you for your fine contribution of the Piatigorsky cup chessmen and to Carl for producing this beautiful set,It will be treasured along with my 1849 and 1851 Official Staunton sets....Thanks again Mike and Carl!!!
Hi Bobby, you are most welcome. Thank you as your kind words are much appreciated. But all the credit goes to Carl, as he has put his heart and soul into this magnificent historic reproduction, for which I'm eternally greatful. His dedication to bringing premium quality reproduction Staunton sets to colectors is unparalleled.
Bent Larsen was 2-0 against Tigran Petrosian in the 1966 event.
The Piatigorsky Cup tournamnet books are a must have for every collector and player. Here's a pic of my hardback editions.
GM Issac Kashdan was tournamnet director for both Piatigoesky Cups
Feb 29, 2016
0
#33
Hi Mac you sound like a lawyer? I only have had 2 courses in Business Law which of course doesn't even scratch this knowledge but I have been reading many articles on line. To me it doesn't seem one would be able to copyright a pattern that has been out since pre 1849 called Staunton design. I really do not think the design varies to where it would hold up in a court of law just on design, never mind it was never filed for.
Anyways Mac I wish I could write so eloquently as you do, I agree with your statement above.
@rcmacmillan,
I'm not an attorney, but I am fanatically thorough in my research, and seek help in things beyond my qualifications.
I was informed by an intellectual property attorney that Copyrights are not abrogated when the author sells the underlying original work of art. He or she still retains the copyright and the right to control reproductions.
When Picasso sold one of his original paintings, he didn't necessarily also sell the copyright. And if he didn't sell the copyright he retained the right to prevent others from making copies of the original.
And that's what we're talking about here, an original work of art.
Personality rights (also known as rights of publicity) survive to the person, and pass to the person's heirs. I have approval from the Steiner family to utilize Herman's image for publication. You'll see many of these stunning photos in my above-mentioned New in Chess article, including one of the publicity photos Herman had done by a professional photographer to advertise the new line of chess equipmet he was selling. These included luxury chess tables, his new 'Steiner Timer' electronic chess clock... and the "Herman Steiner Master Chess Set."
There are also copyrights in the photographs of the Piatigorsky Cup tournament, as well as in Steiner's photo archives. Those copyrights may survive to this day and are owned by the organization (like movie studios), the photographers, or their heirs. Incidentally, many of the photos in Jacqueline's archives (held at the World Chess Hall of Fame), actually came out of Herman's personal archives. Herman and Jacqueline were close personal friends and she took over his club after his death, acquiring many of the photos Steiner famously had hanging on his club walls.
@wicsmike,
Herman Steiner's set was not created in 1849. You're a century off. And the problem here is not about the 'Staunton design,' but the Steiner design, specifically the knight. This is an original work of art. As I noted in my first post the original brass mold--a brass sculpture in fact--is as real and present today as any Picasso painting displayed in an art gallery.
Feb 29, 2016
0
#36
bamonson wrote:
@wicsmike,
Herman Steiner's set was not created in 1849. You're a century off. And the problem here is not about the 'Staunton design,' but the Steiner design, specifically the knight. This is an original work of art. As I noted in my first post the original brass mold--a brass sculpture in fact--is as real and present today as any Picasso painting displayed in an art gallery.
The knight is indeed unique, the 5 counterparts are staunton design and are public domain, therefore are you refering to the knight only or as part of a chess set? It seems you cannot claim intellectual property for the 5 counterparts and therefore cannot offer the knight as part of a full chess set. If the counterparts where also unique you would have a claim no doubt.
Feb 29, 2016
0
#37
bamonson wrote:
@rcmacmillan,
I'm not an attorney, but I am fanatically thorough in my research, and seek help in things beyond my qualifications.
I was informed by an intellectual property attorney that Copyrights are not abrogated when the author sells the underlying original work of art. He or she still retains the copyright and the right to control reproductions.
When Picasso sold one of his original paintings, he didn't necessarily also sell the copyright. And if he didn't sell the copyright he retained the right to prevent others from making copies of the original.
And that's what we're talking about here, an original work of art.
Personality rights (also known as rights of publicity) survive to the person, and pass to the person's heirs. I have approval from the Steiner family to utilize Herman's image for publication. You'll see many of these stunning photos in my above-mentioned New in Chess article, including one of the publicity photos Herman had done by a professional photographer to advertise the new line of chess equipmet he was selling. These included luxury chess tables, his new 'Steiner Timer' electronic chess clock... and the "Herman Steiner Master Chess Set."
There are also copyrights in the photographs of the Piatigorsky Cup tournament, as well as in Steiner's photo archives. Those copyrights may survive to this day and are owned by the organization (like movie studios), the photographers, or their heirs. Incidentally, many of the photos in Jacqueline's archives (held at the World Chess Hall of Fame), actually came out of Herman's personal archives. Herman and Jacqueline were close personal friends and she took over his club after his death, acquiring many of the photos Steiner famously had hanging on his club walls.
is there a copyright in force? we cannot find one at all under the searches.
B.T.W.
Historically, a copyright work had to be registered in the US to be protected in the US; this is no longer the case and under the Berne Convention international citizens enjoy the same copyright protection in the US as they do elsewhere.
There is however still a single stipulation that the US Copyright Office, which is run by the Library of Congress, makes in relation to US citizens. This appears in US Copyright Office document Circular 1 ‘Copyright Basics’ (source:http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf - August 2011) and states “Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of US Origin”. Because of this one statement we advise that US Citizens also consider registering with the US Copyright Office.
Mar 1, 2016
0
#38
No one has noted that, as Frank Brady wrote in his biography of Fischer, PROFILE OF A PRODIGY, that Bobby did not like the proportion of the size of the pieces of the Piatigorsky set and settled instead on the excellent plastic Drueke Players Choice set.
(Brady doesn't mention the name, but photos of Bobby in all his games except the first rounds with Reshevsky and Spassky show the substitute set, and it is the Players Choice.)
It's kind of funny, because Bobby and Reshevsky had used the Piatigorsjy set in their abortive match in 1961. But as we all know, Bobby often changed his mind about some things.
(Brady doesn't mention the name, but photos of Bobby in all his games except the first rounds with Reshevsky and Spassky show the substitute set, and it is the Players Choice.)
It's kind of funny, because Bobby and Reshevsky had used the Piatigorsjy set in their abortive match in 1961. But as we all know, Bobby often changed his mind about some things.
@Spassky69
Yes, I was aware of that. There are many more quirks about Fischer, many disturbing. In addition to the Steiner biography, I'm also writing a commemorative book on Jacqueline Piatigorsky and the two Piatigorsky Cup tournaments. I commissioned an article from Brady--for the Fischer perspective--which will be included in the book. I also have original essays from Spassky, Larsen, Gligoric, Portisch & Panno.
Edit: My theory is the set brought back some of nasty memories in the Reshevsky match debacle.
GM4U wrote:
bamonson wrote:
@wicsmike,
Herman Steiner's set was not created in 1849. You're a century off. And the problem here is not about the 'Staunton design,' but the Steiner design, specifically the knight. This is an original work of art. As I noted in my first post the original brass mold--a brass sculpture in fact--is as real and present today as any Picasso painting displayed in an art gallery.
The knight is indeed unique, the 5 counterparts are staunton design and are public domain, therefore are you refering to the knight only or as part of a chess set? It seems you cannot claim intellectual property for the 5 counterparts and therefore cannot offer the knight as part of a full chess set. If the counterparts where also unique you would have a claim no doubt.
Interesting argument. It appears you're arguing that it is free game for anyone to reproduce every piece in the Steiner Designed set except the 'unique' knight.