7 ms·

The main difference between this and other sports/events is the moves are facts. They wouldn't be able to broadcast a live video feed. But you can copyright fac

by ambirex 10y ago

The main difference between this and other sports/events is the moves are facts. They wouldn't be able to broadcast a live video feed. But you can copyright facts.

phonon 10y ago
You mean "can't"
logicallee 10y ago
I agree with your conclusion but not your reasoning. (you accidentally wrote "can" for "can't" at the end though, maybe you have time to correct it.) So this is why I don't agree with your reasoning: The fact is that Ambirex's comment at 11:22 PM Friday, November 11, 2016 UTC began with a capital T as his first move. Though he could have left it at that and left his opponents to reply, this was not his complete comment. The fact is, for the second letter of his comment he chose an 'h'. And the fact is, for the third letter, he chose an 'e'. The fact is, for the fourth character he had a space. The fact is, for the fifth character he had an 'm'. The fact is... And so forth. So while these are certainly facts -- still, they are quite creative facts. More creative than the work you put into beginning your comment with "the main difference". So while I actually happen to agree with you, this idea of the moves being "facts" versus acts of creative expression is dubious -- where is the hard line that separates that from my reproducing your comment (or any other copyrighted work) by reference to facts? They are facts, true, but they are also the creative output of two masters of the field. In general for cases like this judges try to look at the pragmatics. This is why the judge is quoted as saying "He said the public interest would be served by 'robust reporting,' and analysis of the event." The fact that for him this includes fully reproducing all the moves (which of course seriously impacts the market of the organizers - as well as reproducing the whole of the 'creative output', rather than just excerpts - both of which are important standards in copyright) is one that I can probably agree with. But if he felt that the actual interests in the matter were another way, you bet that he could extend copyright protection to the creative work of playing a game. After all, it is rare for any game between grandmasters today to match one from a database. When they do, it is similar to when similar melodies are created independently. In fact, a chess game likely has waaaaaaaay more entropy (I am making quite a technical argument) than very short melodies which are clearly protected by copyright and for which many "variations" are already owned by others. Why are the "facts" of the melody more protected? So I don't really agree with your interpretation. A fact would be like "white won" or "black won" -- rather than the creative output into the moves themselves. Though more creative than mere fact, I do agree with your conclusion -- for the same reasoning quoted in the article.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  Are you a copyright lawyer? I'm thinking not, because cases like Feist v. Rural Telephone make it pretty clear what "facts" mean in the context of things you can copyright. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....
  - slavik81 10y ago
    It's definitely not clear to me that playing chess is an uncreative task like compiling phone numbers. Though, perhaps I don't know enough about chess. This seems like an interesting case to me.
    - greglindahl 10y ago
      I'm not saying that playing chess is an uncreative task - it's very creative. Describing the chessboard position is an uncreative task. Evaluating the relative strength of the players' positions can be creative. But the position of the pieces? No.
      - kzrdude 10y ago
        Filming a football field is also uncreative, isn't it?
        greglindahl 10y ago
        That's a well-settled issue. Are you really claiming that writing down the positions of chess pieces is similar to operating a video camera looking at 3D objects? On the other hand, you might want to check out Corel v. Bridgeman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel....
        epmatsw 10y ago
njharman 10y ago
You can copyright a particular arrangement of facts (or other non-copyright protected content) where that arrangement required creative thought (even if "arrangement" is just layout as simple as page numbers/breaks). Notes are facts, but sheet music (and other representations) of sequence of notes, aka a song, are copyrightable. Why are a sequence of moves not the same? This ruling seems more about biases people have about art (music) and sport/game (chess) than about copyright law. So what is the difference between two people playing chess and two people jamming (musical improv)? Both have limited moves, rules, structure, the creative input from two people. The chess moves are not copyrightable but the song notes are? I actually think neither should be.
- mattkrause 10y ago
  No, you can't copy facts, period. You can copyright facts that have been 'fixed in a tangible medium of expression' as long as there's some minimal element of creativity. Sheet music is copyrightable because the notes have been "fixed" onto a piece of paper. A recording of a band is copyrightable because the music has been "fixed" in the record, tape, CD, or other file. You can copyright a specific description of a chess match, as I've fixed it here: "You could hear a pin drop as Kasparov proceeded with the Spanish Opening, a favorite for the Russian..." What you can't do is use copyright to prevent someone else from extracting the facts from this description (e4 e5, etc) and presenting them in some other way.
  - andromeduck 10y ago
    So I could still go to a concert and publish the notes, pitches and timings of the sounds I heard because those are just facts not fixed to a medium like the chess moves here?
    - icebraining 10y ago
      No, because there's a law specifically about live musical performances: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap11.html http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap11.html

by ambirex 10y ago

The main difference between this and other sports/events is the moves are facts. They wouldn't be able to broadcast a live video feed. But you can copyright facts.

phonon 10y ago

You mean "can't"

logicallee 10y ago

I agree with your conclusion but not your reasoning. (you accidentally wrote "can" for "can't" at the end though, maybe you have time to correct it.) So this is why I don't agree with your reasoning: The fact is that Ambirex's comment at 11:22 PM Friday, November 11, 2016 UTC began with a capital T as his first move. Though he could have left it at that and left his opponents to reply, this was not his complete comment. The fact is, for the second letter of his comment he chose an 'h'. And the fact is, for the third letter, he chose an 'e'. The fact is, for the fourth character he had a space. The fact is, for the fifth character he had an 'm'. The fact is... And so forth. So while these are certainly facts -- still, they are quite creative facts. More creative than the work you put into beginning your comment with "the main difference". So while I actually happen to agree with you, this idea of the moves being "facts" versus acts of creative expression is dubious -- where is the hard line that separates that from my reproducing your comment (or any other copyrighted work) by reference to facts? They are facts, true, but they are also the creative output of two masters of the field. In general for cases like this judges try to look at the pragmatics. This is why the judge is quoted as saying "He said the public interest would be served by 'robust reporting,' and analysis of the event." The fact that for him this includes fully reproducing all the moves (which of course seriously impacts the market of the organizers - as well as reproducing the whole of the 'creative output', rather than just excerpts - both of which are important standards in copyright) is one that I can probably agree with. But if he felt that the actual interests in the matter were another way, you bet that he could extend copyright protection to the creative work of playing a game. After all, it is rare for any game between grandmasters today to match one from a database. When they do, it is similar to when similar melodies are created independently. In fact, a chess game likely has waaaaaaaay more entropy (I am making quite a technical argument) than very short melodies which are clearly protected by copyright and for which many "variations" are already owned by others. Why are the "facts" of the melody more protected? So I don't really agree with your interpretation. A fact would be like "white won" or "black won" -- rather than the creative output into the moves themselves. Though more creative than mere fact, I do agree with your conclusion -- for the same reasoning quoted in the article.

greglindahl 10y ago
Are you a copyright lawyer? I'm thinking not, because cases like Feist v. Rural Telephone make it pretty clear what "facts" mean in the context of things you can copyright. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....
- slavik81 10y ago
  It's definitely not clear to me that playing chess is an uncreative task like compiling phone numbers. Though, perhaps I don't know enough about chess. This seems like an interesting case to me.
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    I'm not saying that playing chess is an uncreative task - it's very creative. Describing the chessboard position is an uncreative task. Evaluating the relative strength of the players' positions can be creative. But the position of the pieces? No.
    - kzrdude 10y ago
      Filming a football field is also uncreative, isn't it?
      - greglindahl 10y ago
        That's a well-settled issue. Are you really claiming that writing down the positions of chess pieces is similar to operating a video camera looking at 3D objects? On the other hand, you might want to check out Corel v. Bridgeman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel....
        epmatsw 10y ago

njharman 10y ago

You can copyright a particular arrangement of facts (or other non-copyright protected content) where that arrangement required creative thought (even if "arrangement" is just layout as simple as page numbers/breaks). Notes are facts, but sheet music (and other representations) of sequence of notes, aka a song, are copyrightable. Why are a sequence of moves not the same? This ruling seems more about biases people have about art (music) and sport/game (chess) than about copyright law. So what is the difference between two people playing chess and two people jamming (musical improv)? Both have limited moves, rules, structure, the creative input from two people. The chess moves are not copyrightable but the song notes are? I actually think neither should be.

mattkrause 10y ago
No, you can't copy facts, period. You can copyright facts that have been 'fixed in a tangible medium of expression' as long as there's some minimal element of creativity. Sheet music is copyrightable because the notes have been "fixed" onto a piece of paper. A recording of a band is copyrightable because the music has been "fixed" in the record, tape, CD, or other file. You can copyright a specific description of a chess match, as I've fixed it here: "You could hear a pin drop as Kasparov proceeded with the Spanish Opening, a favorite for the Russian..." What you can't do is use copyright to prevent someone else from extracting the facts from this description (e4 e5, etc) and presenting them in some other way.
- andromeduck 10y ago
  So I could still go to a concert and publish the notes, pitches and timings of the sounds I heard because those are just facts not fixed to a medium like the chess moves here?
  - icebraining 10y ago
    No, because there's a law specifically about live musical performances: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap11.html http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap11.html