Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

[Paul McKeown]

The keyboard used to produce the book is located in the USA and belongs to ...

Get the name right: Spam Sloan, not Sam.

[Paul McKeown]

Carl,

Would it be possible to add a facility to recommend a post for a forum award, perhaps annual. Geoff's post (Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:26 am) is my nomination. The most sane commentary I have read here in months, buried under a deluge from Messrs. Rancour, Pedant and Piffwibble.

[John Saunders]

Paul

I'm guessing you mean this one: http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 30#p133921

If so, I second the motion. A breath of fresh air in this fuggy, flatulent place.

[Paul McKeown]

Yes.

[John McKenna]

Yes, Geoff at his serious best.

What about this, though?

John Saunders>... Let's imagine someone plagiarises your book. You go down the police station and say "I've got this evidence," (slams down a huge file of papers on the desk), "that this bloke has copied stuff from my book." After they've stopped laughing, the police will explain that plagiarism not actually a crime and that you need to take it up with a solicitor. If you had said something about "this bloke has copied stuff from other people's books", they'd probably threaten to charge you with wasting police time (which IS a crime)...<

Sounds suspiciously like an anachronism to me, John

That you will find a police station still exists anywhere near you is unlikely.
If it does it will be closed more hours than it will be open.
Even if you get inside it will probably be manned by a robocop in human form.
He/it will repeatedly rebuff all approaches unless the alleged crime is on the latest 'crime of the day/week/month/year/decade/century' list lodged in his memory circuits.

Therefore you will probably be traduced to the scenario in the following link

http://www.grumpyoldsod.com/leith%20police.asp

NB: I found the above by 'uncritical googling' of "the Leith police dismisseth us".
Having been alerted to the joys of uncritical googling by one David Robertson I will be indulging more often.

Edit: Here's one for Paul -

http://www.grumpyoldsod.com/yewtree.asp

There's probably something for everyone over the age of 50 at the site.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Paul

Thanks, but I have to confess I copied it word for word from a Spanish Chess Column edited by one Raymondo El Keano.

[John Saunders]

Perhaps your blog readers are titillated by juicy scandal

I don’t think so. They’re much more likely to tell us they’re bored.

And yet the page view count rises. Over recent years in general, but also specifically over recent months whilst we’ve been running the Ray Keene plagiarism stuff. 50% than when Chessbase picked up the story (we didn’t drop back to normal after that little bump contrary to my expectations at the time).

Fact is, those reports aren’t ‘juicy’ at all. They take a lot of painstaking work. A lot of that work is dull. It’s work you say chess mags can’t afford to do and wouldn’t make commercial sense. No doubt that is true.

But since we have the freedom to ignore readers who tell us that we should’t write something, what’s left carries a certain honesty. It’s our view of the world and how it works. Agree with it or not - and I have no problem with the latter - but what you’re getting is genuine and that’s an attractive quality for some. Especially if the subject matter isn’t being covered elsewhere.

Truth is, simply bandying insults about doesn’t make interesting reading. Sooner or later you run out of steam because actually you have no message and nothing real to say. As other bloggers with less stamina have discovered.

I suppose I could do a line-by-line dissection of this but it would probably be tedious for the reader. Whether or not S&B scandal reporting is 'juicy' or not is an opinion, not a fact. In the same way, 'honesty', and whether what your product is 'genuine' is a matter of opinion and the judgement of the readership. They also have to decide for themselves whether or not what they read is well-informed.

What you've written here comes across as a bit of an advert or trumpet-blowing for your blog, with perhaps a slight implication that other outlets may be less 'honest' or 'genuine'. Have you noticed, incidentally, that print chess magazines rarely knock each other in public? Can you figure out why? You should be able to figure it out for yourself. And it's not a conspiracy.

However, the discussion has moved on since you wrote this message, and Geoff Chandler has had Justin's anti-RDK campaign laughed out of court. I notice Justin hasn't been back to counter his comments and he also hasn't replied to my comments about S&B's use of images. As you guys like to say, shame. But that's just me kidding. I don't believe in putting on a public show of indignation when I don't actually feel the emotion. Please don't feel under any sort of obligation to reply at all.

[Jonathan Bryant]

... the S&B blog has a lot of images on it - photos, scans of pages, books, magazines, etc. For example, pages from the Spectator, Times, CHESS, etc, scanned and displayed to support the plagiarism allegations. ... it does make me wonder whether S&B have sought permission to use other material they've scanned and posted. If they haven't got permission, it could be construed as copyright infringement - and, what is perhaps rather worse, hypocrisy.

John, if you think about it there’s a rather logical reason to reprint material when demonstrating plagiarism.

E.g.

I say person X has copied something by person Y.
Everybody else says - or at least *should* say - “Really? I’ve just got your word for it? Perhaps you’re deliberating misinterpreting the material or simply making a mistake”.

Really, the only way is to show both pieces.

Could doing that be construed as copyright infringement? Only by people who are ignoring or simply not aware of the concept of “fair use", I think.



As for the idea that plagiarism being equivalent to a parking ticket ... well we’ll have to agree to disagree on that.

[Jonathan Bryant]

notice Justin hasn't been back to counter his comments and he also hasn't replied to my comments about S&B's use of images.

Ironically I’ve just cross-posted on that.

Justin’s travelling. I was out all day yesterday.


With regard to your specific photograph, I don’t know which post you’re referring to, but if you let me know I’ll be happy to remove the picture entirely.

[O.G. Urcan]

When Raymond Keene's "Complete Book of Gambits" plagiarized four and a half pages of John Donaldson's analysis of Lisitsin’s Gambit, the parking fine paid by Keene's US publishers was $3,000.

[Jonathan Bryant]

So burying your head in the sand and just giving the readers just chess is obviously
the safest and most sensible way to go. And I'm not being sarky.

Hi Geoff,

We agree on a lot actually (I don’t see why CHESS or the BCM should link to the Blog either, for example), it’s just that we differ on the conclusions we draw, I think.

So, yes, it’s easy to see why playing ‘safe’ is the option chosen. Although I don’t think it’s safe in terms of potential law suits. More in terms of potentially upsetting people, as you say elsewhere.

This debate started with the other Jonathan observing that chess journalism in this country wasn’t very good. An opinion that I agree with - precisely because playing safe almost always leads somewhere not particularly interesting. Not interesting to me, anyway.

I entirely understand that there are folk like you who are mostly or entirely interested in what happens on a chessboard. And that you are the majority of chessers and probably even a big majority.

But there are also those of us - and not all of us are called Jonathan - who are interested by what goes on away from the board. And because that’s not covered in the magazines I choose not to by them any more. Which is a shame because I’d like to.

Ultimately what the BCM and CHESS choose to print is entirely up to them. I wish it was different. And I think it could be different. But if it’s not then so be it. I carry on doing my own thing being interested in what I’m interested in.

[John Saunders]

... the S&B blog has a lot of images on it - photos, scans of pages, books, magazines, etc. For example, pages from the Spectator, Times, CHESS, etc, scanned and displayed to support the plagiarism allegations. ... it does make me wonder whether S&B have sought permission to use other material they've scanned and posted. If they haven't got permission, it could be construed as copyright infringement - and, what is perhaps rather worse, hypocrisy.

John, if you think about it there’s a rather logical reason to reprint material when demonstrating plagiarism.

E.g.

I say person X has copied something by person Y.
Everybody else says - or at least *should* say - “Really? I’ve just got your word for it? Perhaps you’re deliberating misinterpreting the material or simply making a mistake”.

Really, the only way is to show both pieces.

Could doing that be construed as copyright infringement? Only by people who are ignoring or simply not aware of the concept of “fair use", I think.



As for the idea that plagiarism being equivalent to a parking ticket ... well we’ll have to agree to disagree on that.

My specific point was about the use of images, not reprinting material. As well as the content, those images contain the typeset of the publications in question and that itself is subject to copyright, quite independently of the actual content. I would also question the 'fair use' argument. I'm not at all sure it applies in this case, especially given the large quantity of images published, and I think it very possible that you could have a case to answer.

As for photos: since you have not come back and specifically told me that you do seek permission to use other people's photos, we can now reasonably infer that you do not, as a matter of policy, seek permission. If this is the case, it is copyright infringement, pure and simple. It is not a defence in law to say that everybody does it.

Of course, in the case of most harmless little blogs, a blind eye is often turned to this sort of behaviour, annoying and damaging though it often is for the photographer or company which owns the rights to the photo. However, for a blog which sets itself up as some sort of moral guardian for chess and mounts long, ad hominem campaigns against specific people accusing them of plagiarism ( which is a specific sort of copyright infringement), it does rather invite a charge of hypocrisy.

P.S. don't worry about the specific photo I referred to. Permission was given, albeit retrospectively

[Roger de Coverly]

My specific point was about the use of images, not reprinting material. As well as the content, those images contain the typeset of the publications in question and that itself is subject to copyright, quite independently of the actual content. I would also question the 'fair use' argument. I'm not at all sure it applies in this case, especially given the large quantity of images published, and I think it very possible that you could have a case to answer.

They are making the case that column x appears to be based on an earlier column y which in turn appears to be taken from book z, then showing images of the relevant pages would seem to qualify as fair use. In any event, if copyright misuse is claimed, is it not up to the respective publishers of x, y and z to start any action? We might recall that Inside Chess did just that around 20 years ago about a few pages in a Batsford book that appeared to reproduce an article from their magazine.

Part of the premise of the long running blog series is that the copyright owners seem to take no public action about their material being endlessly repeated as supposedly new columns. A reaction against the whistle-blowers would at least give them something new to write about.

[John Saunders]

Part of the premise of the long running blog series is that the copyright owners seem to take no public action about their material being endlessly repeated as supposedly new columns. A reaction against the whistle-blowers would at least give them something new to write about.

Good point. Isn't it rather significant that the copyright owners themselves haven't as yet taken action against alleged copyright infringement? Kasparov's wave of the hand dismissal of the matter was also quite telling. From this we can conclude that the copyright owners themselves don't consider plagiarism to be a big deal or at least a pressing priority - so why do the S&B penguin-floggers? In the final analysis the legal side of the matter has got absolutely nothing to do with them. They can go on criticising the quality (and recycled-ness) of the writing if they like but chanting the p-word like a mantra hasn't impressed anyone.

Incidentally, Geoff Chandler's second post on the subject was also brilliant and contained this little zinger, which has been drowned out in the subsequent witterings...

Are they carrying the torch for every harmed writer or is this endless quest just aimed at one individual?

Right on the money. Has Justin taken a look at what else gets plagiarised and recycled in the chess press? Let's have a close look at the evidence. Here' m'lud, is exhibit A - his Twitter account by-line.

Socialist fogey. Prefer cats to people. Will post about Ray Keene until something is done about him

Notice the wording: "something is done about him", not "something is done about plagiarism."

Sorry, Justin, old darling, you've been rumbled. This is really just a personal attack on RDK, isn't it?

P.S. as you know, I like cats too. But I would be careful about writing a sweeping statement about how I preferred them to people. Opens one up to a charge of misanthropy.

[John Saunders]

On the 'fair use' point...

http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... lcolm.html

... which is a scan of the entirety of one of Malcolm Pein's Telegraph articles. It's taken from a paper copy - the electronic issue is behind a paywall. Open and shut case of copyright infringement? Looks like it to me.