Copyright and chess puzzles

I was looking at one of the tactics books that I purchased a while ago and this is what was written on it:

All rights are reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher.

So that created many questions in my mind:

1) Almost all the puzzles in that book were taken from games played by others. So how did the author get the right to 'copyright' those positions/puzzles?

2) If I create a math textbook with the questions - "9x4 =?" and "12x5=?" and copyright it and then argue that no one should be allowed to ask these questions, practice these questions or solve these questions without my prior permission - won't you call it illogical? Are chess puzzles - especially Mate in 1 or Mate in 2 essentially not the same?

I like to support grandmasters, chess writers by purchasing their books. But I want to understand how copyrighting works with chess puzzles.

The copyright protects the publication which includes the text, design, layout, etc. of the book itself. There is no copyright on positions arising from games.

Like micberu said, copyright applies to the particular text, design, layout, etc. Games themselves can't be copyrighted.

So if I scanned the book, and converted the positions to FEN using some pattern recognition tool and published the compilation online - will I be violating any copyright?

It depends on the country, but in many countries you are violating copyright.

Under the Copyright Act, a compilation is defined as a "collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship." 17. U.S.C. § 101. The preexisting materials or data may be protected by copyright, or may be unprotectable facts or ideas.

r_k_ting

If I collected 5000 puzzles from 10 different books, and added 500 of my own puzzles and jumbled them up and presented them on the internet in random chunks of 250 - will that still be violating copyright?

If you are reproducing another book entirely or substantially, then this is violation of copyright.

Here is an interesting case on the issue of copyright in compliations of facts: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/499/340.html.

While the general rule has been you can copyright expressions of ideas but not the ideas themselves, it can get murky when it comes to chess positions. If memory serves Bobby Fischer was peeved that games which were so obviously the creative work of two players weren't actually copyrightable, even though commentary on the same games could be.

Let's say you photocopied some pages of Reinfeld's classic "1001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate" for use in your own work. It could be argued that you've copied not the positions themselves but the creative presentation of them: that is, the specifics of the diagram fonts, their arrangement on the page, etc. However if you chose some positions from that book and made your own presentation with your own analysis, diagram style, etc you'd probably be fine. (Note that although I've worked with lawyers in the publishing field, IANAL). Using those positions and others from other sources to create "Dave's Killer Collection of 2,500 Pretty Good Checkmates" might be legal, depending on the country. (Russia's legal stance on copyright law for example is, er, unique.)

This isn't just an academic issue. Lazlo Polgar has compiled some great (and huge) collections of chess positions. I personally think it's a great idea to support his decades of chess research and buy dead tree copies of his books. That said, I also realize that his books are heavy enough to serve as door stops and not particularly portable. So when I downloaded a tactics database for my Anki smartphone memory training app, I had mixed feelings. I realized that the chess tactics flashcards that someone compiled into an Anki collection are based on positions that Polgar (and other authors) have previously compiled. The flashcard presentation of the positions is different and original, however, so I could see lawyers arguing either side of a copyright case. Oddly enough, that often seems to be the case when lawyers are involved.

Copyright covers both the presentation and the selection of a set a chess positions. An Anki reproduction of a previous compilation of positions is most certainly infringement.

As for Fischer's issue of copyright not covering the moves that he played, he does have something of a point. You could argue that there was significant creative input into creating a chess game. On the other hand, copyrighting the moves of a game might have unpleasant consequences. If you could copyright a novelty, you can prevent others from playing it by suing anyone who 'copies' your move.

That's precisely the point. It takes far more creativity to create a chess game than to design 'fonts', 'layout' etc. Its ironic that the players involved in creating the game have no copyrights, but a publisher publishing the game in a particular design or font with some explanation gets copyrights.

By the way, thanks all for sharing your knowledge.

Especially, @tygorius, thank you for the lengthy and insightful post!

From the case I mentioned above,

United States Supreme Court
FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. RURAL TEL. SERVICE CO., (1991)

"The mere fact that a work is copyrighted does not mean that every element of the work may be protected. Originality remains the sine qua non of copyright; accordingly, copyright protection may extend only to those components of a work that are original to the author. Patterson & Joyce 800-802; Ginsburg, Creation and Commercial Value: Copyright Protection of Works of Information, 90 Colum.L.Rev. 1865, 1868, and n. 12 (1990) (hereinafter Ginsburg). Thus, if the compilation author clothes facts with an original collocation of words, he or she may be able to claim a copyright in this written expression. Others may copy the underlying facts from the publication, but not the precise words used to present them. In Harper & Row, for example, we explained that President Ford could not prevent others from copying bare historical facts from his autobiography, see 471 U.S. at 556-557, but that he could prevent others from copying his "subjective descriptions and portraits of public figures." [499 U.S. 340, 349]   Id. at 563. Where the compilation author adds no written expression, but rather lets the facts speak for themselves, the expressive element is more elusive. The only conceivable expression is the manner in which the compiler has selected and arranged the facts. Thus, if the selection and arrangement are original, these elements of the work are eligible for copyright protection. See Patry, Copyright in Compilations of Facts (or Why the "White Pages" Are Not Copyrightable), 12 Com. & Law 37, 64 (Dec. 1990) (hereinafter Patry). No matter how original the format, however, the facts themselves do not become original through association. See Patterson & Joyce 776.

This inevitably means that the copyright in a factual compilation is thin. Notwithstanding a valid copyright, a subsequent compiler remains free to use the facts contained in another's publication to aid in preparing a competing work, so long as the competing work does not feature the same selection and arrangement. As one commentator explains it: "[N]o matter how much original authorship the work displays, the facts and ideas it exposes are free for the taking. . . . [T]he very same facts and ideas may be divorced from the context imposed by the author, and restated or reshuffled by second comers, even if the author was the first to discover the facts or to propose the ideas." Ginsburg 1868.

Yep, that telephone listing case is a key precedent. And I used the Reinfeld and Polgar examples specifically for the reason that those books consist almost entirely of pages and pages of chess diagrams with a list of answers in the back of the book. As opposed say to a collection like Chernev's "Combinations - The Heart of Chess" where he added analysis and comments after almost every move. In a book like Chernev's the positions themselves are only part of the book's value.

If we haven't reached it yet, we'll soon be in a situation where a computer program will be able to scan a public game database, pull positions based on criteria you (or it) have selected, and automatically provide an engine's analysis. From automatic puzzle collection software it's a small step to having a program that analyzes your last 100 games and in essence says, "I've noticed you have problems attacking fianchettoed king positions, so I've loaded a selection of similar positions from master games into a new training database for you, sorted by difficulty." At which point the issue of position copyright, like the puzzle collections themselves, will likely fade into history.

But then I thought George Harrison got a bum deal in the "He's So Fine" lawsuit, so what do I know?

Copying wholesale chess positions from a book, even one without commentary is infringement. The telephone book precedent does not apply. Exhaustive telephone listings require no judgement in the selection of what to list. But a selection of positions in a chess book does require judgement to compile, and thus qualifies for copyright.

The Supreme Court in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., held that the degree of creativity necessary in order to be entitled to copyright protection is “extremely low,” such that “[t]he vast majority of works make the grade quite easily.” Even a slight amount of original authorship will suffice. Feist involved the compilation of names and telephone numbers into an alphabetical listing for a telephone book. The Court held that “there is nothing remotely creative about arranging names alphabetically in a white pages directory.” This alphabetical directory was not protected by copyright because “[i]t is an age-old practice, firmly rooted in tradition and so commonplace that it has come to be expected as a matter of course.” Thus, the level of creativity necessary to qualify for copyright protection is based on whether the work presents a configuration embodying more than an “age-old practice” so familiar and “commonplace” that it would be “expected as a matter of course.” Indeed, a simple work that shows some creative spark meets the threshold level of creativity, “no matter how crude, humble or obvious” it might be. Inasmuch as “an artist is a man who says a difficult thing in a simple way,” a creative spark may be found in a simple design.

For a more international perspective, here is the WTO view:

Compilations of data or other material, whether in machine readable or other form, which by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual creations shall be protected as such. Such protection, which shall not extend to the data or material itself, shall be without prejudice to any copyright subsisting in the data or material itself.

Some players in the past have argued for the right to copyright game scores saying they should be compensated for them (Emmanuel Lasker comes to mind) as far as I know this has never been tested in court.

Personally I think it's a waste of everyone's time the judge woul throw the case it out he or she has got better things to do.

Copying the same selection and arrangement of positions is an infringement but using those same positions in authoring a new compilation is not. Copyright protection does not extend to the positions themselves. The primarily concern is the level of creativity and originality involved in authoring the new compilation. If there are substantial differences between the two compilations it is unlikely to be challenged.

@r_k_ting: I agree somewhat. The arrangement point would be moot in the Anki deck case because the cards aren't grouped by theme. Indeed, I think that's a strength of a randomized collection versus most books: just as in a real game, you aren't told what to look for.

I think the selection criteria is only the one that would pertain vis-a-vis Polgar's positions. And frankly, when your collection ends with a list of over 100 book collections you cribbed, er, researched to create your book, I'd consider that case a weak one. The defendent says, in effect, "Yes, your honor, I liked these positions so much I copied them from the same sources the plaintiff did."

Here in the States we have also copyright exceptions for "fair use" and per IMJustice's original query, while just copying all the positions from one of Polgar's books could result in a DMCA notice, a selection of puzzle positions culled from a variety of sources should qualify as fair use. He wouldn't be selling access to the positions, nor would his position collections have a significant impact on the market of a particular book -- at least no any more than Polgar's books impacted his sources.

As an aside, the Anki flashcard collection I mentioned isn't actually all that useful in practice. For study purposes it's far better to select your own positions as noteworthy and then create your own flashcards so you'll remember them. Spaced repetition training software helps you lock things into long term memory, but only after you have already learned them.

To clarify, I have always been addressing this point, that copying all or a substantial part of the positions in a book is infringement. Also, I don't believe that merely reordering the positions will shield you from infringement (when copying all or a substantial part). Taking a few positions is permitted, and it's not necessary to invoke fair use since individual positions are not subject to copyright.

Also, it's interesting you mention the DMCA. Unlike the similar EU directive, the DMCA does not provide database rights. This protects compilations selected using objective criteria, as opposed to the copyright protections we have been discussing for compilations selected using subjective criteria. Instead, the DMCA largely covers audio/video and copyright circumvention technology, and does not pertain to chess positions from a book.

You could search databases for move orders that are similar :) .