< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 234 OF 249 ·
|Jun-30-18|| ||chessgames.com: <do you have a reference for that assertion?> I'm just parroting what my attorney advised. Please note that I'm only referring to public domain works; e.g. if you scan a photograph of Abraham Lincoln from a book, you can't lay claim to a copyright even if you add value to the original, by (say) using Photoshop to remove blemishes apparent on the original. I never spoke to him specifically about colorization but assumed it's the same principle.|
I realize that the fact that we don't charge for the work does not automatically vindicate a free-use assertion, but it helps establish that our interests are academic and not motivated by profit.
As for "not knowing of other suitable substitutes", that's one of the messages that Wikipedia displays when it uses media that it asserts is fair-use. I have no idea if it has any legal grounds, but it's relevant in our decision-making process of selecting a photo to use. We wouldn't use a possibly copyrighted photo if other public domain photos were freely available.
|Jun-30-18|| ||zanzibar: <<chessgames.com> ... if you scan a photograph of Abraham Lincoln from a book, you can't lay claim to a copyright even if you add value to the original, by (say) using Photoshop to remove blemishes apparent on the original.>|
Yeah, this is definitely an area needing a lawyer's opinion. Be aware that not all lawyers agree on points of law though (obvious). I'm one who wants to trace back to the original sources, whenever possible, and will typically attempt to use Google Books (or the like), as my pixel source.
I do spend a lot of time fixing photos, having become moderately proficient (if I "do say so myself"), and freely offer all my fixed material freely.
But not everybody is so generous, and just because photoshop is involved, doesn't mean the derivative work isn't copyrightable. E.g. my "Fun with ..." series was done with Photoshop, and clearly are creative works which are original works, derivative though they may be:
Note though, that I've stuck my neck out with this tribute efforts, as I'm actually not sure of the copyright of the originals, even though I'm not asserting copyright of my efforts beyond allowing someone to claim copyright on them.
A famous example of a creative effort running into trouble due to the originals copyright is the famous Obama "Hope" poster, where Shepard Farley worked off an AP copyrighted photograph:
<As for "not knowing of other suitable substitutes", ... I have no idea if it has any legal grounds,>
I'm fairly certain it doesn't.
< but it's relevant in our decision-making process of selecting a photo to use.>
I'd suggest explicitly bringing this up with your attorney - and I'd be interested in the exchange.
<We wouldn't use a possibly copyrighted photo if other public domain photos were freely available.>
Well, of course.
|Jun-30-18|| ||zanzibar: OK, I freely admit I need an editor, freely.|
|Jul-01-18|| ||jessicafischerqueen: |
< zanzibar: OK, I freely admit I need an editor, freely.>
<z> We all need an editor. I suggest we contact <Daniel Freely> for further help.
|Jul-01-18|| ||perfidious: <jess....<z> We all need an editor. I suggest we contact <Daniel Freely> for further help.>|
Long as it isn't <Ace Frehley>. (laughs)
|Jul-01-18|| ||Alien Math: random info about <today is my 67th birthday> shares the same calendar as this year 2018 https://www.timeanddate.com/calenda... and happy birthday|
|Jul-01-18|| ||offramp: There is a link to a photo at the end of the intro to Euwe - Pirc (1949).|
Dead as vaudeville.
|Jul-01-18|| ||zanzibar: <offramp> is that dead link a link to a photograph, or to National Chess Library site at U. of Brighton, Hastings?|
|Jul-01-18|| ||offramp: <zanzibar>, it wasn't Brighton. But someone has "fixed" the link in the most prejudiced of all possible ways...A modern-day damnatio memoriae.|
|Jul-01-18|| ||zanzibar: < damnatio memoriae> more stuff to look up... alas and alack.|
|Jul-01-18|| ||chessgames.com: <damnatio memoriae> Not really, it's preserved for all eternity here ó†Edit History: Euwe - Pirc (1949)|
<z> I realize that derivate works can be very tricky, but I can't afford to call up my lawyer with hypotheticals to sate our curiosity.
|Jul-02-18|| ||Telemus: And another tweet by O.G. Urcan:
|Jul-02-18|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Telemus.
It refers to this game. A Nicifor vs E Kramer, 1921
I assume the date was recently changed from 1922 to 1921 though I cannot see any reference or request to change it.
The Edward Winter link has the full name of both players concerned. I've mention the name in both players pages and credited E.W.
E Kramer (kibitz #1)
A Nicifor (kibitz #1)
That is really all we can do and should suffice, a mention to where it came from and if possible a link.
We value Edward Winter's site above others by the method we have here of using a quick link to one of his notes. 'C.N. note number' takes you straight to the relevant Chess Note.
I don't know why this Urcan lad has got us in his sights but due to his pithy tweet we have managed to add to and update our database. Thank You.
|Jul-02-18|| ||MissScarlett: <Trashcan> is rattled. He's launched retaliatory fire against User: Stonehenge. Just a flesh wound, as far as I can see. #borderskirmish|
|Jul-02-18|| ||chessgames.com: Isn't that great? If we have incorrect data, it's proof that we're slapdash and lazy. If we have the correct data, it proves we're thieves.|
In any case, it's best policy add the link C.N. 10900 to the Editor Notes of that game. That way, if somebody in the future asks Sargon to change the date back to 1922 (citing Chernev etc.) he can see the reason why it was changed to 1921 in the first place and reject the correction request.
None of that that will stop Urcan's incessant bleating, as he doesn't know about the Editor Notes featureónor any of our correction methods, including this forum. Not that it matters: the goal here is to provide accurate chess data, not pacify Twitter personalities.
|Jul-03-18|| ||Stonehenge: Boring Winter Olimpics.|
|Jul-03-18|| ||offramp: User: Chessical, I am sure you remember those ~16 page booklets that Bob Wade and others brought out in the late 70's and 80's. They used to cost about 75p but they were full of info and had all the games of a tournament.|
The tournament pages you create are just as good, and technologically better, than those dear old booklets. Many thanks!
|Jul-07-18|| ||zanzibar: <Chessical> has almost single-handedly carried the Bistro for a long period of time, until fairly recently.|
And with a nice narrative flair (though other writers have their style which I also enjoy).
|Jul-10-18|| ||zanzibar: <<chessgames> Isn't that great? If we have incorrect data, it's proof that we're slapdash and lazy. If we have the correct data, it proves we're thieves. |
Oh, it gets even better if you read one of Urcan's comments:
<Olimpiu G. Urcan
@olimpiuurcan Jul 2
It's a @#$%ty (s-h-i-t-t-y) website where something ignorant and/or unethical happens on a daily basis, mostly by a bunch of anonymous clowns pretending to be scholars while importing heavily from other people's work and then call those people mean (or worse) when they protect their work.>
File under: tell us what you really think...
Olimpiu - you out there? I challenge you to post here and let's have a debate about this (clownish, unethical, mean, or worse (or not) - according to your wishes).
I think, given your insulting demeanor, you're ethically obligated to reply. But I'll try to be fair and constructive all the same.
(You can debate me on my blog - but I think here would be the most appropriate)
|Jul-10-18|| ||zanzibar: PS- what prompted Urcan's comment?
@jbossy56 Jul 2
Replying to @olimpiuurcan
I don't think there is much to be gained by making http://chessgames.com out to be some kind of villain.>
|Jul-10-18|| ||chessgames.com: Speaking of Urcanís tweets, I was wondering if one of you anonymous clowns could solve the riddle (identify the player) he posted here: https://twitter.com/olimpiuurcan/st...|
Itís humorous that he berates us for being so ignorant but finds home in a community where the #1 guess is Adolf Hitler.
|Jul-10-18|| ||chessgames.com: < PS- what prompted Urcan's comment? >|
I canít guess what Urcansís motives are to complain about such things (I really doubt heís endearing an audience, as that reply implied) but the events leading up to it are clear. Winter unearthed a minuscule piece of chess data, in that an obscure game presumed to be played in 1922 was actually played in 1921.
Because our volunteer editors frequently read C.N., one of them (Stonehenge) spotted the correction and promptly made the change.
That action apparently ruffled a lot of feathers.
|Jul-10-18|| ||Retireborn: The Olimpiu photo looks like Carl Ahues to me. Just a guess though.|
|Jul-11-18|| ||chessgames.com: I'm not very good at recognizing faces, but I don't think it's Carl Ahues. Carl parted his hair on the left side in all photos I can find of him, and this fellow parts on the right. (And we know it's not a photograph flipped right-to-left as the chessboard would then be set up incorrectly.)|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 234 OF 249 ·