Huebner was a GM. He made it to the Candidates Finals in 1980 which would make him one of the top 3 or 4 in the world at the time.
Players copyrighting their moves
Sort:
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.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/fun-with-chess/death-rang-my-doorbell-copy?cid=8211679#last_comment
Can't wait until someone uses in a book and then I can sue and make some money.
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.
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].
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
I think chess is ok until somebody copyrights checkmate. 
Copyright infringes upon civil liberties when it inhibits freedom of expression and/or innovation. Which makes me wonder, is it possible to copyright ideas or intangibles? 
Probably not, you need concrete specifications for a product.
The requirement for dissimilarity for products that serve similar functions to avoid infringement on copyright; I guess that's the key consideration for the courts on a case-by-case basis, 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...
"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 question...in this case "property rights".
I think it probably should be noted that Sveshnikov's argument is that allowing his games to be publicized makes it easier for other players to prepare against him. He also thinks that players should be creative, and come up with their own opening plans, instead of borrowing from other players. I don't think his argument is only about money.
Lautier was speaking as a spokesman for the Association of Chess Professionals. I think both Sveshnikov and Lautier recognize that chess players are unlikely to receive exclusive rights to publicize the moves of their own games. I don't think there have been any court cases in that area anyway.
Topalov's manager however was demanding that Chessbase pay a fee for the right to publicize the games of the match while it was still ongoing. I believe that the IOC makes a fair bit of money from awarding broadcasters with the right to televise the Olympic Games, so I think Danailov was seeing if they could get the same deal going. Broadcasting something on TV is a bit different from just posting the moves of a game though, so I don't know if they'll be able to pull that off.
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.
I don't think Chessbase had any video cameras at the Topalov match. They were just posting the moves as they were played to Playchess and/or their web site.
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.
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!!!
trigs wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
trigs wrote:
nobody quote my forum posts. i own the copyrights for them and i will sue!
OK.
sued!
I laughed out loud!
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!
PERIOD!
lawyers service their clients. clients service their wallets. other wallets get screwed.