Hey all,
The recent spat between the Bulgarian Chess Federation and Chessbase over the Chessbase broadcast of the Kamsky-Topalov match (see http://www.wccc2009.com/en/news&article_id=41.html) brings up an interesting question.
I thought the moves of a chess game are in the public domain and therefore not copyrightable. The annotation, etc is another matter entirely but the moves themselves are free and clear of legal restrictions.
Is that true?
If so, isn’t relaying those moves also free and clear reguardless of the source?
I don’t think it’s quite that simple. You can report the box scores of a baseball game, but you can’t record the game with a webcam and send it out live. There is also the question of which country’s laws apply. I doubt the BCF’s complaint would stand up in the U.S., but I have no idea what the situation is in the EU.
I hadn’t considered the EU copyright rules. I don’t know what they are.
But you can report the box scores of a game live and post them on the web can’t you? It’s similiar, if not exactly the same as, the recent lawsuits surrounding fantasy baseball and football. The sports leagues and players associations all lost. (Not sure if the CBS vs NFL is resolved yet).
Yes, but you can’t film/record a game from inside the stadium and distribute it. I’m not sure exactly where the Chessbase webcast would fall in this spectrum (I haven’t seen it). Considering the very limited monetary value of a live chess-game report, even an empty threat of litigation have been enough to dissuade Chessbase from continuing.
It is funny that this topic comes up every two years or so. Usually a different group tries to claim copyright over the live moves of a game. Didn’t the organizers in San Luis, Argentina make the claim? And also Linares one year? Even MonRoi made that claim and later got cold feet. I know that ICC has been through a few of these fights with several groups who threatened to sue, but as far as I know nobody has actually followed through. ICC is pretty confident in its prior research of the laws governing these broadcasts.
The moves of a chess game are never copyrightable. However, the broadcast, pictures, descriptions may be restricted.
The moves of a chess game can be copyrighted, but only if the games are played in private and the moves not disclosed publicly other than in a copyrighted media.
This was a sticking point in a potential Pillsbury-Janowsky match a century ago: Pillsbury wanted a private venue to enhance the revenue from subscriptions to the match book, but Janowsky loved the attention of the public.
Copyright law has evolved since then, but the principle remains. If the game is played in a public venue (and the BCF broadcasting the moves live for free on their own site qualifies), though, it becomes public domain. Chessbase, ICC, and others were simply reproducing that content AFTER it was made public (although within seconds of the live move).
Litigation and/or the threat thereof are often used to intimidate, as we have had opportunities in abundance to see.
This is not an issue of content, it’s an issue of transmission.
“Free” live transmission does not qualify as a public venue. ESPN broadcasts a baseball game, but you can be sure they will send a cease-and-desist letter if someone persists in streaming games on a separate website with minimal delay.
The BCF paid for the rights of transmission, and is entitled to protect those rights. It’s obvious that ChessBase had no agreement with the BCF on how soon they could post the moves, and they should be glad that BCF was professional enough to send a cease-and-desist as a warning.
One can only hope that there is a tenuous understanding over the appropriate amount of time before a secondary site can post moves. As Mr. Aigner points out, ICC is probably more aware of these issues than anyone as a for-profit chess site. Whether 20 seconds or 20 minutes delay, an understanding among federations and websites would help avoid these confrontations.
Which was OK in a day when radio/internet in Chicago didn’t extend beyond a few miles from Wrigley Field and the Cubs weren’t after broadcast royalties.
But who knows…maybe the transmission of the next major match play will be granted to ChessBase for a sponsorship fee?
That’s half correct. You can’t sit in the stadium and stream the game. But if you observe it from outside the stadium, that’s another matter. You are also free to, e.g., report the box scores on your cell phone. (There was a similar case involving the NBA in the early days fo the Internet.) Facts or events cannot be copyrighted. Period. Only “creative works” can be copyrighted. You can restrict access, and you can copyright a specific form of reporting, but, at least in the U.S., you cannot restrict the reporting of a fact or event – and a chess game, like a baseball game, is classified as a “fact,” not a “creative work.”
What do you mean by “broadcast”? You can’t use a webcam in the stadium, since it’s private property. If you can find some way to see it from a public place, yes, but why would anyone bother? You’re not going to see very much. You can’t pirate someone else’s transmission (even if you strip out the audio), since that’s a “creative work” protected by copyright. If you can get someone in the stadium to call and tell you what’s happening, you can go on line and repeat it, but again, why bother? Turn on the radio instead.
BTW, the case I referred to above was NBA v. Motorola and STATS, Inc., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10262.
“Motorola, in conjunction with STATS, Inc., developed a pager device which received real-time statistical updates of live NBA games. Motorola developed the delivery system, while STATS furnished the game data. Intending to market its own such device, the NBA sought an injunction against the duo for using the score data without authorization from the league. The New York district court held that while live game data is not copyrightable under the federal statute, it is nevertheless protected under state law. As a result, the court issued an injunction against Motorola, STATS, and AOL (which posted similar STATS data in an online format). On appeal, however, the Second Circuit reversed the lower court, lifting the injunction. The appellate court reasoned that because the federal copyright statute forbids ownership of purely factual data, then such protection could not be had from resort to the common law of the states (except for in a narrow set of circumstances which did not apply to the NBA dispute). The upshot of this decision is that content providers will enjoy greater freedom to use live game stats unburdened by the need to pay excessive licensing fees to the major leagues.” – legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dldecen/nba.html
Did ChessBase broadcast games without permission of the Bulgarian Chess Federation ? Did they stop after recieving a Cease and Desist order?
How much money did ChessBase put up for the match?