Can chess game notes ever really be copyrighted?

[Martin Regan]

I shall start by saying that this is not about a single person, website or about chess writers in general.

I just ask the question about whether an article about a chess game can ever be subject to copyright in these days of chess engines. Whether a chess article solely relating to a specific game can actually ever be plagiarised.

Say in a particular game one “copied” the following:

A catastrophic blunder....black had to try Ra5

But given that the move was indeed a catastrophic blunder and Black had to try Ra5, then why would one rewrite a perfectly good description written by someone else previously?

It was a blunder and Ra5 needed to be played and there are only a number of ways of saying that. Only the word “catastrophic” could remotely show a thought worth protecting, but as it fits the purpose better than “bad” or “disastrous” I doubt it.

The purpose of copyright law is to protect ideas and the way in which they are expressed.

For example: The phrase “I wandered lonely as a cloud” can clearly be copyrighted in a way that “I went for a walk” cannot.

In chess the moves are not given copyright protection and hence – in these days of engines - neither are the published variations that are discovered by later analysis. So if a long sequence of possible variations published by someone are reprinted, it is not a breach of copyright (though if they were horribly wrong, it might be). And if those variations are self-evidently correct then why wouldn’t the chess writer use them?

Where copyright does come into play is in the author’s thoughts, as written down. However, saying “black’s next move lays a trap” can-not be protected , it is a simple statement of fact, whereas “black’s next move lays a trap the like of which has not been seen since the exploits of Rommel,” perhaps can.

I would argue that it is next to impossible to plagiarise the notes on a chess game unless they were of such unique insight that the variations could not be unearthed by a chess engine and the comments were of such length and were so idiosyncratic that they could only ever be the work of that particular individual.

[Roger de Coverly]

the comments were of such length and were so idiosyncratic that they could only ever be the work of that particular individual.

Writers have a certain style and if they use ctrl C and ctrl V from their own or someone else's previous piece, it is usually quite apparent.

The historic interpretation is that game scores are not copyright, but notes are. Even when to write a note has to show some creative ability, such as being able to identify the turning point of a game. Computer assessments aren't absolute anyway, being influenced by both the depth of search and the weightings assigned by the programmers.

[Martin Regan]

RdC

Ten years ago, I might have agreed on the notes. But no longer.

Generally chess authors are of sufficient strength that they recognise the turning point in a game and then the variations become mainly self evident to the engine. Similarly, the spread of games databases means that knowing (though diligent research) that Fischer thought a variation possible, is no longer protectable as "everyone" could know it.

[MJMcCready]

You could go one further and ask whether games themselves should be subject to copyright, as Sveshnikov did, arguing that it is not in the best interests of players to allow their games to be reproduced without their permission.

[Richard Bates]

You could go one further and ask whether games themselves should be subject to copyright, as Sveshnikov did, arguing that it is not in the best interests of players to allow their games to be reproduced without their permission.

It doesn't really matter what is in their interests. Any attempt to copyright moves would easily founder on the fact that, even if technically feasible, it would be too easy to circumvent by simply recreating any game to be published involving different players.

[Richard Bates]

RdC

Ten years ago, I might have agreed on the notes. But no longer.

Generally chess authors are of sufficient strength that they recognise the turning point in a game and then the variations become mainly self evident to the engine. Similarly, the spread of games databases means that knowing (though diligent research) that Fischer thought a variation possible, is no longer protectable as "everyone" could know it.

All possession of a computer does is allow an individual to theoretically evaluate every move in every position to a certain search depth. I don't see the connection between this and selective use of a small fraction of these variations, usually with written notes, by an annotator. Essentially the only necessary commonality between any two annotations of the same game are the players involved and the moves played. Everything else (with the arguable exception of annotations which merely state where games have deviated from those played previously) is a creative choice.

[JustinHorton]

I would argue that it is next to impossible to plagiarise the notes on a chess game unless they were of such unique insight that the variations could not be unearthed by a chess engine and the comments were of such length and were so idiosyncratic that they could only ever be the work of that particular individual.

Of course copyright doesn't have anything at all to do with whether a text "could only" be the work of a particular individual. It is concerned solely with whether a text was the work of a particular individual.

[MJMcCready]

I don't think so as its often impossible to determine that.

[JustinHorton]

You can think so or not: it doesn't change anything. Copyright is there to protect the creator (and indeed the publisher, where applicable) of a work, not to claim that no part of it could have been created by another party. You would struggle to find a reputable source that claimed otherwise, though by all means have a go.

[Michael Farthing]

A situation similar to this has arisen in the area of computer code. I can't remember which case it was, but I do remember the interesting judgement. The case involved an accusation that source code had been stolen by one firm from another. In the judgement (which upheld the complaint) the judge said that he had been convinced not by the functionality or individual lines of borrowing code, which might could easily have been repeated by coincidence, but by the surrounding comments that were identical. Thus the line:
Mode:=Silent
might easily be repeated, but
Mode:=Silent //We don't want the user to see all our dirty linen
would not.

It was on the basis of these idiosyncratic comments, present in both code sources, that the judgement was made.

So in this case repetition of exact phraseologies might establish deliberate plagiarisms.

[Martin Regan]

JH:

Copyright is there to protect the creator (and indeed the publisher, where applicable) of a work

Yes, but the word "creator" is the key. Copyright does not and was never intended to protect simply anything that anyone put down on paper, it is to protect original content - my argument is that it increasingly difficult to see how this applies to a chess score.

If you start from the basis that publishing the moves of a game can not be copyrighted - then it follows that the mere act of stating facts during the game "wins a pawn" also can not be. The question is what can?

I think MF's last comment comes close to my position.

[Roger de Coverly]

If you start from the basis that publishing the moves of a game can not be copyrighted - then it follows that the mere act of stating facts during the game "wins a pawn" also can not be. The question is what can?

You can argue "wins a pawn" is a statement of fact.

wins a pawn and the game

or

wins a pawn but not the game

are both statements of opinion and thus annotations.

It's the time of year for coverage of the Hastings tournament. One of the newspapers this Saturday featured a game played a long time ago by Steinitz renowned for its finish and probably republished many of the years since. The notes in the paper were acknowledged as being based on those in Kasparov's predecessors book. It's left as an exercise as to whether "based on" is a polite way of saying "copied from".

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Roger,

It's a polite requirement to acknowledge you are using notes based from another source.
Sometimes you may wish to plug the source, use it as a cop out clause (if there is a mistake
then don't blame me.), or drop a big name into your piece for effect.

Is it a legal requirement when copying notes from within a non-copyright game......?

Without even knowing which paper you are referring to I know it must be the
Stenitz - von Bardeleben game. (how does the finish get explained - is it the
Bardeleben walking off in the huff version).

[David Blower]

On the same subject would chess results that you are copying for your chess club website from the opponents chess club website, be a breach of copyright.

[IM Jack Rudd]

No - chess results are a statement of fact, and therefore not copyrightable.