As I understand it, chess games are not deemed original works since many of the moves (sometimes even all) have been played and/or analyzed in published analysis before. Consider, for example, F Rhine vs D Sprenkle, 1981. In that game, my 18th move was reckoned an important theoretical novelty by <Chess Informant>, the 8th-9th most important TN in Volume 32. But 1.e4 had been played since the dawn of modern chess, and the Sicilian Defense was analysed by Giulio Polerio in a 1594 manuscript. 2.Nf3 became popular because of Morphy's advocacy, and 2...Nf6 was played by Nimzowitsch and Rubinstein beginning in 1912. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... The 6...Nc6 line was introduced in Gligoric vs Larsen, 1959, and Gligoric improved on his 13.Kd3 in that game with 13.Kd1! in Gligoric vs A Matanovic, 1961. But I'm sure others had advocated it in analysis before he played it. Unzicker introduced 14.Ne4! in Unzicker vs O Sarapu, 1970. 18.Nxd6!, "my" TN, was stated by David Levy in his biography of Gligoric as being the move that Unzicker had intended. It was also recommended in Keene and Levy's book <Sicilian Defense 4: Unusual Second Moves for Black>. I had seen it recommended in both of those books before I played it. I didn't know it at the time, but the move had been played in a game that predated mine, Pritchett-Gonzalez, Buenos Aires Olympiad, 1978, which was published in <The New Chess Player>, Volume 4. http://www.365chess.com/game.php?gi... Gonzalez and Sprenkle both played 18...Qxd6, which Levy had not mentioned. AFAIK, Sprenkle was the first player ever to play 22...Nd8.

"copyright [kop-ee-rahyt]

"verb (used with object)
4. to secure a copyright on."

Then I guess you are not an IP lawyer.>

True.

<If you were, you would know that "copyright" is not a verb, only a nown [sic] describing a right which exists irrespective of any measure that might be taken by the owner to enforce it. (Bern Convention of 1886, principals [sic] since extended to all intellectual creations and inventions in WIPO).>

Silly me.

<cop·y·right/ˈkäpēˌrīt/

Noun:
The exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or...

There is no word in English that can't be verbed by Americans.

It's when you do not own something.>

More like the opposite of that:

<Definition of NOWN

archaic variant of own>>

- - -

Ungooglable is probably an oxymoron, but neverthelesserable i entered 'ungoogleables' in the box and it returned 3500 results:

But, if you have several things that cannot be copyrighted (like chess games), you could refer to them as "uncopyrightables" for one letter more.>

Many years ago I heard the same argument advanced on <The Dating Game>, of all places. According to Wiktionary, the word has indeed been used:

<uncopyrightables

English

Noun

uncopyrightables

(rare) Plural form of uncopyrightable.

 [quotations ▲]
1960 March, W. J. G., H. K. S., “‘Copyright’ Protection for Uncopyrightables: The Common-Law Doctrines”, in University of Pennsylvania Law Review, volume 108, number 5, pages 699–734.

1969 January, Paul Goldstein, “Federal System Ordering of the Copyright Interest”, in Columbia Law Review, volume 69, number 1, Columbia Law Review Association, Inc., page 71, Intrinsic state doctrines are further condemned by Sears and Compco’s second principle for their tendency to extend the equivalent of copyright protection to statutory uncopyrightables.

hehe, I will, in a minute ;)