Life In 19x19

Bill Spight wrote: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.

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.

the problems itself arent copyrightable, the answers are.

Bill Spight wrote:

kokomi wrote:Pro games are copyrightable?

Aren't they creative works?

To me, that's creative thought

Will joseki be copyrightable later then?

Helel wrote:A bit off topic but I hope you all realize from which which university faculty most books were stolen. Hint: It was the same faculty in which reference literature were systematically destroyed to hinder fellow students from getting better grades.

Yes of course it was the law faculty. Lawyers and law students are taught that there is no crime unless it can be proved in a court of law. As long as there is no evidence left behind anything goes. (This explanation was actually provided by faculty itself.)

Now why do I bring this up? Guess!

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.

Helel wrote:
Just because I think lawyers are immoral?
Your knowledge is appreciated.

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.

kokomi wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

kokomi wrote:Pro games are copyrightable?

Aren't they creative works?

To me, that's creative thought

Will joseki be copyrightable later then?

As far as I understand they are not creative works, but rather records of an event, in the same way that baseball box scores or records of an event. One might want to object for various reasons, but I'm pretty sure that's the way copyright law has always looked at such things.

If, however, a go game were a creative event - played on a stage in front of a paying audience - perhaps that might be different. But I think any sport/game is treated as a non-creative work.

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

I've never had a firm answer on this question. What I can't quite figure out is whether copyright is actually exists or it is observed as a courtesy by everyone in the go world.

It may be that the publishers of go material pay a royalty of sorts to the Nihon Ki-in et al. in order to remain on good terms--it's tough to imagine professional go players being willing to continue dealing with a publishers who threatens their livelihood by not paying royalties. It may also be that there is actually an enforceable copyright on the game records in Asia.

I don't know if we'll see an answer in our lifetimes. It may be that conflict won't occur until the Western go market becomes lucrative enough that the Asian publishers aren't willing to ignore the current small-scale copying that goes on.

Most of my dealing with copyright are from the world of art and creative expression. An "idea" is not copyrightable (at least in the US), a particular "expression" of the idea may be copyrighted. Works of expression that substantially derive from a particular (copyrighted) expression may be in infringement of copyright. Thus I can't release my own sequal to "Gone With the Wind" or colorize "Casablanca" and claim it is an original work.

With games it becomes complicated. I can copyright my own unique phrasing of the rules of Go. Doing so does not however give me any hold over the actual mechanisms of play that are expressed in the rules.

Copyright might be upheld for the first publisher of a particular problem as the conventional depiction of circles of black and white on a grid of lines. If someone were to re-write the problem using Cartesian co-ordinates to locate the stones, that would be a seperate expression of the "idea" of the problem, at least that is what I would argue.

I expect that ultimately the question of who, if anyone, "owns" Go problems will come down to the side with the deepest pockets to hire lawyers to argue thier case for them.

At present, I do not believe there is enough money at stake in the West for it to become an issue before the courts, except in cases of simple plageurism. In the East, where the game has a much longer history and greater financial stakes, the question may well have been decided in both law and custom a long time ago.

dave wrote:At present, I do not believe there is enough money at stake in the West for it to become an issue before the courts, except in cases of simple plageurism. In the East, where the game has a much longer history and greater financial stakes, the question may well have been decided in both law and custom a long time ago.

As far as I know there are many similar cases, dealing with chess, and with different sports. While not specific to go, they would certainly apply.

http://www.chessvibes.com/columns/copyr ... -the-wall/

kirkmc wrote:As far as I know there are many similar cases, dealing with chess, and with different sports. While not specific to go, they would certainly apply.

http://www.chessvibes.com/columns/copyr ... -the-wall/

Do you have a link to any of the many similar cases? I've never been able to find one, and the blog entry that you give comments the same: "From a legal point of view, I haven’t been able to find any laws or jurisprudence on the this matter, even though many commenters have said that there are certainly laws that deal with this question."

Even the case being commented about in the blog doesn't do much. The Bulgarian Chess Federation made a legal threat and it was never litigated because the defending side thought it wasn't worth the money.