Digital Pens

[kevin_bachler]

@jwiewel

@kbachler

@Tim Just

15G. Ownership of scoresheets.
The scoresheets of all games in a tournament are the property of the sponsoring organization(s). If the organizer requires that a copy of each game score be submitted by the players, duplicate scoresheets must be provided, and players who fail to submit scoresheets may be penalized.

I’ve never thought about it before, because this rule seemed obviously correct - but further thought shows that as worded, it’s not.

Clearly, the tournament organizer does not have sole ownership of the scoresheets of all games. If the organizer did, then it would be practically impossible to produce any written chess material on a tournament (or match?)without the organizer’s permission. Further, if the organizer has sole ownership, then the comments (rule) that duplicate scoresheets must be provided and that a COPY of the game score be submitted by the player would also not make sense.

It seems that the rule implicitly admits that the players (each) own a copy of the game score in addition to the organizer, by stating that duplicate scoresheets must be provided (this would be necessary only if the players have a right to a score sheet) and that the players must submit a copy (again indicating that they have a right to a copy.)

This rule needs better wording. (I’m surprised in hindsight that a rulebook author who I thought was an IP attorney didn’t comment on this.)

It probably just needs to say “The sponsoring organization has an ownership right to a copy of the scoresheet of each player in each game of a tournament.”

Does it state anywhere in the rulebook that by entering a US Chess tournament (paying the entry fee) that the players agree to play by the rules of the current version of the US Chess Rulebook, as possibly amended from time to time with such amendments available from US Chess and the US Chess website? In order to legally enforce the ownership right, something like that is probably necessary.

The rule is fine as written considering what it is often needed for. During a dispute it gives the organizer the right to have the TD review the scoresheets, even if in a scorebook, without having a player say that scoresheets are the players’ private property and thus the TD cannot look at that player’s scoresheet (I’ve had to refer to 15G on occasion when needing to verify something on a player’s scoresheet).

For those tournaments where the organizer plans to publish the games, the rule goes on to address the situation of an organizer requiring a copy of the scoresheet after the game by stating that such a requirements needs to have duplicate scoresheets (such as carbonless carbon copies) provided. The National Open is one such tournament and those games end up in an electronic format.

I thought that Tim was citing the rule to explicitly show that the organizers do NOT have sole ownership and trying to bring up a “sole ownership” argument was an irrelevant red herring.

Rule 1B says “USCF play shall be governed by these rules of chess and by all USCF procedures and policies”. …(…FIDE) rules shall not be used unless specifically announced in advance.

That states that players in a US Chess tournament are governed by those rules, though I’m sure that some people will find a tortuous way of parsing things to say that the rule really says the opposite of what it says.

Generally, rules should say what they mean, otherwise it leaves open the possibility of genuine disagreement. As worded, if people act reasonably, the rule may or may not be sufficiently clear. If people act unreasonably, it’s clearly not sufficiently clear. We routinely update the rules and rulebook, so updating a rule for additional clarity isn’t an onerous task - rather its kaizen. This rule is one that should be updated.

I appreciate the quote of 1B, but I’m not clear that addresses the point I was trying to make. Generally, US Chess rules may from time to time go above and beyond basis in law absent a contractual arrangement. Is there any legal reason an organizer owns a scoresheet outside of a contractual arrangement between the organizers and the players? Perhaps there is a a clearly implied contractual arrangement constructed between US Chess membership, and by-laws, and rulebook and tournament entry. Perhaps not. Perhaps it could vary by state. Simply taking a moment to ensure that a contractual arrangement exists since the player pays consideration when entering (or by becoming a US Chess member) may simply be a good practice to clarify the legal arrangement. There’s nothing wrong with following good practice, and it should be encouraged. Good fences make good neighbors.

I note that a few years ago some other national organizations changed there membership along the same lines to make the same sort of clarification. I don’t see why that should be considered a bad thing to do.