Ok, I came across this post by tchan in another thread. To quote:



Now, in the case of GoChild, I can see how the problems are grouped and pulled directly from the books, so I'm not going to argue about that. However, what ramifications does copyright have for these collections? Problems, even complicated ones are still just positions on a Go board. What are the grounds for copyright infringement? Does the product in question (blog post, program, etc) need to contain the solution as laid out in the book? Does it require a certain number of problems? Is it still copyright infringement if the new author provides deeper insight and analysis on the solutions?

I'm curious more than anything. I find copyright to be an interesting topic of conversation.

There are different laws in different countries, and this is a particularly complex issue.

But, at least under U.S. law, the problems themselves are almost certainly not protected by copyright. The collection and organization of problems most likely is protected, and the law in some other countries is even more protective of compilations. Once the conversation gets more detailed than this, it gets complicated very quickly.

If you're interested, a good place to start might be Feist v. Rural.

Excellent link, thanks!

In Treasure Chest Enigma (I guess it was it.) there is a reference to a professional player buying a problem from another player. So there seems to be something like recognized creator rights for individual problems. A lot of problems however is a) really old, b) too generic to possibly defend such a right as the same problem may be easily created independently (all those problems varying several standard shapes).

You also may want to distinguish between a possibly old problem and the commentary + given solutions. At least this is the reason for SL to present the old classics (taken from a new edition with commentary and solution) without solutions and commentary. And leave it to the readers who stumble upon it to add them.

Furthermore, US law is probably not the most relevant regarding Go Problem books.

As I clearly stated, I wasn't commenting on non-U.S. copyright law. That said, someone may wish to "purchase" a problem for reasons unrelated to copyright (e.g., it may be a good personal or business decision to maintain a good reputation or relationship). But, perhaps some laws in another country protect such things as individual creative go problems--I have no idea. What country's laws are you referring to? U.S. law might not be the most relevant, but it is certainly more useful than a non-specific, unidentified law you think might exist somewhere...

I agree that the presence of commentary is certainly relevant. I would surpised if someone could copy a problem or set of problems with commentary without violating copyright law. I suppose some countries' laws may permit it, but I would be surprised.

I am skeptical that a law permits the copyright of individual go problems by themselves, but I could be wrong, and openly admit that I'm not familiar with the copyright laws in most other countries. If there are such laws, the age issue may become relevant, if those laws have a "public domain" concept. I doubt the inclusion of solutions affects the copyright status of an individual problem, though it may be relevant to whether a copyright to a compilation has been infringed.

[paging kirkmc]...

I'd been under the hazy impression that copyright was primarily at issue based on where something was published/distributed. So if a book written in China was copied and then sold in the US, the question would be what US law requires.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

It is more complicated than that. Laws of multiple countries can apply. I think you meant to say if a book "is protected by Chinese copyright law," rather than "written in China." If that is what you meant, someone can infringe on Chinese copyright law while in the U.S., and vice-versa. Enforcement is another issue and involves treaties (or other international agreements and practices), personal jurisdiction, the location of the infringer's assets, etc. I'm not familiar with Chinese-U.S. treaties or Chinese copyright law.

No, actually, the rights still belong to the original rights holder, and they have the right to assign (or not) those rights for adaptation to who they want. They also have the right to enforce their rights by suing someone who illegally makes an adaptation. (Without discussing the question of problems qua problems, think more of text, as in commentary - these texts are copyright, and international treaties recognize the right of the original rights holder to "own" the rights for adaptations as well as the original.)

In such a case, it's kind of hard to get the correct jurisdiction, since it is Chinese copyright laws that are violated, not American. However, I'm pretty sure that with a US lawyer, it wouldn't be hard to get an injunction against such publication, in the absence of any contract.

But bear in mind that there are two different types of copyright that come into play once you go to another country: the original copyright for the original content, then the right to adapt it. Go problems would be a sticky case, because if you were simply copying problems with no commentary (which are nonetheless copyrighted as a collection of problems, according to current US law, and probably international treaties), you could say that there is no adaptation.

If you're curious, this part of the Berne Convention discusses the issues of different countries:

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/bern ... P109_16834

As judicata said above, it gets complicated very quickly.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Thanks. But a book can be out of copyright in one nation, and still in copyright in others, right? How does that fit in with what you've just said?

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Yes, of course, if one country has a shorter coverage than another. Let's say that there's a French book that's out of copyright, because it's life plus 50, whereas in the US it's life plus 70. Once the life plus 50 is over in France, anyone can do what they want with the book anywhere in the world.

Interestingly, there are recent cases about this regarding recordings. There are laws in the EU that say that performances (as opposed to publishing rights) expire 50 years after release. So classical and jazz labels have been issuing their own versions of popular recordings that were made more than 50 years ago. But there was a ruling in the US, that this does not apply, and they can't sell their CDs in the US. One such example is Glenn Gould's 1955 recording of Bach's Goldberg Variations. This can be copied in the EU but not in the US (I don't know about other countries). Note that this can be done irrespective of any other rights, since Bach has been dead for a long time. Miles Davis' Kind of Blue was published in 1959, and I think it's copyable in the EU, as long as those copying the disc pay the appropriate songwriting royalties to the rights holders of the tunes.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Well, be careful. This is a provision of the Berne Convention, but (a) it is non-binding, and the U.S. and some other countries have not adopted this particular provision; (b) it only applies if the shorter period is in effect in the country from which the work originated (which I assume you know because you gave a French book as an example).

And I'm sure there are other nuances I'm completely unaware of.

I am relying upon memory here, but, as I recall, in one of the many discussions on rec.games.go on this topic, someone cited a U. S. case early in the 20th century specifically about chess problems. As i recall the judge ruled that a chess problem itself (but not the commentary) could not be copyrighted because it could occur in a real game, and real game positions were not copyrightable.

My impression is that in Japan and Korea, and probably China, pro games are copyrightable, as are problems.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Pro games are copyrightable?

_________________
长考出臭棋.

We really need to get the GoDiscussion Archive up

Aren't they creative works?

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Yes, in the US that's the case. However, it's the actual organization of a set of problems (and, obviously, textual commentary, if any) that is copyrightable. In other words, a database of problems or games is copyrightable, though the individual games on their own are not.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

the problems itself arent copyrightable, the answers are.

To me, that's creative thought

Will joseki be copyrightable later then?

_________________
长考出臭棋.

What in the world are you talking about? The concept of "well, it's okay because there is no evidence" has not come up as far as I can tell.

And how can you you say that the solutions are copyrightable but the problems aren't? Under what country's law? Is there a statute or case? I seriously, seriously doubt it is acceptable to copy someone's problem collection without the solutions (assuming the solutions were there to begin with). Again, I'm referring to U.S. law--if someone can reference another law in another country, I'd be interested.

Under U.S. law, a professional game itself is not going to be copyrightable. Certain broadcasts, etc., maybe protected somehow (I don't know). And, as mentioned several times now, collections may be as well, at least given certain conditions.

I won't opine further.

Ha! No - I can't blame you for that. Sorry, I should've been clear that the rest of my post was not directed at you.