Evgeny Ellinovich Sveshnikov

Evgeny Ellinovich Sveshnikov
As a chess Theorist I'm saddened at his passing, very thankful for his contributions.

@gambrel said
Evgeny Ellinovich Sveshnikov
As a chess Theorist I'm saddened at his passing, very thankful for his contributions.

Interesting idea he had that scoresheets should be treated as intellectual property, and not be freely given away to chess publications to be used for profit without some royalty payments to the players that worked to generate them. Clearly a pretty smart guy.

@mchill said
Interesting idea he had that scoresheets should be treated as intellectual property, and not be freely given away to chess publications to be used for profit without some royalty payments to the players that worked to generate them. Clearly a pretty smart guy.

And yet, where would us patzers be without those scores?

I'm all for players being paid for their work, but not at the price of keeping the game in the dark for the rest of us. Pay them - but the moves must be public.

Not that anything can be done about it now, but It is a an justice.

Sometimes all a player has to show for playing a great instructive game is one point
on the scoreboard. Meanwhile hacks (me included) can use the game in an article or
book and get paid for it without legally having to give the player(s) a penny.

And what about the players names that are attached to these games. They are
being used to sell a book/article. Legally you should have permission and be
prepared to pay for use of their name.

It is also ludicrous (to me anyway) that the moves are not copyright but the notes
within the game are.

And how about 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 etc - not copyright.

But if I write; 'The first move was pawn to e4, Black replied, pawn to e5, White played the Knight on g1 to the square f3....' that protected by copyright.

@greenpawn34 said
Not that anything can be done about it now, but It is a an justice.

Sometimes all a player has to show for playing a great instructive game is one point
on the scoreboard. Meanwhile hacks (me included) can use the game in an article or
book and get paid for it without legally having to give the player(s) a penny.

And what about the players names that are atta ...[text shortened]... plied, pawn to e5, White played the Knight on g1 to the square f3....' that protected by copyright.

Actually, I don't agree. The game happens in public and the players are eligible for prizes, may be sponsored or in receipt of appearance fees. Once the game's been played then to be paid a second time for it the player really ought to annotate the game and the annotations are covered by copyright law.

Also it's unmanageable, if the game is protected by copyright then whatever novelty they produce would be as well, so any player who plays that novelty in future games would have to give some of their earnings to the originator.

Hi DeepThought

Agree it would be unmanageable to copyright games but you are using the players
name to sell a book. You and me could cobble together Carlsen's best games and
he would not be entitled to a penny and we do not need his permission, nor do
we need permission to use his picture on the cover (but we do and may have to pay
the person who happened to spend 5 seconds taking the picture.)

If we put in the same games but not his name and picture on the cover it would
be a non-starter. Try attaching a famous person's name to sell something apart
from a book and you could find yourself facing a lawsuit.

It just seems wrong. IMO the player(s) are not being rewarded in full for their
creativity and the enjoyment it gives to others which often took hours to create.

I've seen this discussed on another forum and read that the games are 'probably'
the property of the organisers of the tournament and none have ever sought
copyright though Staunton raised the possibility in 1851 but gave up after meeting
opposition and again realising it was impossible.