Pay who? The owners of the paintings or the gallery, if different, or both? What if the gallery is showing the pictures for free?>

On art works (and please bear with my English):

What most people don't know is that there is a clear difference between so-called ideal rights and rights to use. Let's take them one at a time and use a painting by Henri Matisse (1869-1954) as an example.

Ideal rights. They always belong to the artist, in this case Matisse. Regardless of who owns the painting. If, let's say, it's a painting owned by MoMA, New York, they don't have the ideal rights. Every time they use the painting in their publications or on their website, MoMA has to pay a fee to The Matisse Foundation in Paris. The artist owns the ideal rights while he is alive, and afterwards his heirs own these rights for 70 years after the artist passed away. That means that all Matisse paintings are "protected" by ideal rights until 2024. After that year: no longer. In case of Matisse there is this foundation which manages his rights, but in most cases, countries have a institution which takes care of artists' rights on behalf of them and their heirs. In extremely rare cases, an artist makes a testament giving the rights to others than his/her heirs.

The using rights. They belong to the owners. They usually take a fee for professional use (publishers, newspapers etc.) and sometimes allow free use for amateurs (private use). This means that if you want to publish a book with a Matisse painting from MoMA, you have to pay both the Matisse heirs and MoMA.

While the ideal rights expire, the owners' rights evidently don't, as long as the ownership lasts.

It could be a Kafka-ish bureaucracy to seek for the rights of an artist, but as said, in most cases by far, the ideal rights are taken care of by international institutions. For instance: if I should seek the ideal rights for a painting by André Derain, I only had to contact the Danish institution for rights. They again would arrange the proper permissions. Thus, it becomes much lesser complicated and time consuming, but still ...

Just a thought for a potential game search strategy which might be nice to consider for the future:

In openings where a player name is giving their name e.g. the Mieses Opening with 1.d3 it seems Chessgames.com shows some pretty bad stats. E.g. Mieses right now only has his loss game with the innovative 1.d3 - one wonders perhaps why they are credited with that Opening for a game loss only. Or at least I do for some reason.

In fact he also drew this game as example:

[Event "Berlin m"]
[Site "Berlin"]
[Date "1910.??.??"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Mieses, Jacques"]
[Black "Teichmann, Richard"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C00"]
[PlyCount "67"]
[EventDate "1910.04.??"]
[EventType "match"]
[EventRounds "10"]
[EventCountry "GER"]
[SourceTitle "HCL"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1999.07.01"]
[SourceVersion "2"]
[SourceVersionDate "1999.07.01"]
[SourceQuality "1"]

1. d3 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nbd2 c5 4. e4 e6 5. g3 Nc6 6. Bg2 Be7 7. O-O O-O 8. b3 b6 9. Bb2 Bb7 10. Ne1 Qc7 11. f4 dxe4 12. dxe4 Rad8 13. Nd3 Nd4 14. Bxd4 Rxd4 15. Qe2 Rfd8 16. e5 Bxg2 17. Kxg2 Ne8 18. f5 exf5 19. Rxf5 b5 20. Nf3 Qc6 21. Kg1 Re4 22. Qg2 Qd7 23. Rf4 Rxf4 24. Nxf4 Nc7 25. Qe2 g5 26. Nh5 g4 27. Ne1 Qd4+ 28. Kf1 Qxa1 29. Qxg4+ Kf8 30. Qg7+ Ke8 31. Qh8+ Bf8 32. Nf6+ Ke7 33. Ng8+ Ke8 34. Nf6+ 1/2-1/2

The same might be said of the Lopez game or Macleod variation which is 1.e4 e5 2.c3

It seems from Chessgames stats he lost over 70% of games. I find it hard to believe he (MacLeod) played this system given that loss rate. There may be missing games for many of these kind of "Legacy Players who gave Opening names as their legacy" - and maybe a game search might try and help justify why they got their names associated with those openings in a more positive light where possible. Perhaps Macleod had used 1.e4 e5 2.c3 as a killer weapon of choice to win some of the Canadian tournaments as example. It would be great to somehow get those games.

I am currently creating an overview course on chess openings and thought I would share this observation. Hope you don't mind.

So essentially there are quite a few openings with players names after them - I am suggesting perhaps try and get a more complete picture of those player's games with that opening - just to make sure the stats are more "fair" where possible.

<Kingscrusher>

On loss ratios for player games named for their own opening systems-

<Chessgames.com> has nothing to do with this. They have no deliberate plan of any kind regarding the uploading of certain historical-era games in favor of other games. The only exception is that cg.com regularly uploads the pgns from major new tournaments that come up, and even then it's only the really big ones that get harvested.

<Cg.com> management does not choose and upload any historical games. Neither does any human admin monitor them or "keep track of stats." Only a robot tallies the stats, including win/loss ratios, notable games and such. No human is involved.

With regard to all the rest of pgn uploads at cg.com, members do all of that, and will obviously follow their own interests.

This is why your post is well placed here, in fact. I did not know about this "win-deficit" in openings named for the player?!

<MissScarlett> It pains me to see a girl as clever as you calling yourself a "dummy."

<Cg.com> The Chessgames Bookie chessforum game is one of the most popular and high profile features.

It would be an egregious mistake to just let it slide into oblivion. If <Sargon> is too busy to do coding and maintenance work these days, why not just hire someone else? In the real world, if employees don't work they get fired.

Here is the death knell call of the frustrated cg.com gambler:

Chessgames Bookie chessforum (kibitz #13093)

Forget about Sargon. He seems to be preoccupied with ...umm ....other interests. He is not really an employee. He was a contractor without a contract I wish he would do something for me, no for himself, so I could get him working again This is a public service announcement.

I have been locked out of the email for months. Sargon changed servers and <somehow > couldn’t get me back on. We spent hours together but nothing worked. Really?

Steve finally got me on yesterday
Through the back door.
I mean seriously?

I am posting this because I believe transparency is better than dark rumors.

<Susan Freeman> Thank you for your timely update!

I agree on the transparency issue as well. That's why I only wear clear plastic clothes.