Joseph Lux vs A Soltis, 1981

Except <fredthebear>'s and my comments. But we will endure forever.

Victory!

Victory!

Old axes long grounded down to the handle.

Here's <Messiah> about to lead the revolution:

https://youtu.be/4dXHhCos6_c?t=4049

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, <Messiah>, it tolls for thee!

.>

With great pride in our hearts, we will prevail. The land of the CG will learn what willpower is.

Victory!

-- CG Liberation Front --
>

For instance, when you look at a list of games, say a list of all the Nepo vs Ding encounters, I don't know of a way to easily see which are classical, rapid or blitz. Even when you go into an individual game I don't see an easy way of seeing the time control.

<This game is type: CLASSICAL.>

The game type is also included in the header when it's not classical (which is treated as the default).

For example:

<Magnus Carlsen vs Hikaru Nakamura Norway Chess (Blitz) (2015) (blitz), Hidle NOR, rd 7, Jun-15>

Carlsen vs Nakamura, 2015

Can you really not have noticed this in all your time here?

It suggests one of two things - your eyes are going, or your brain.

Usually one posts a reply in the same forum they made their comment in, quoting them to make it clear you're replying to their post (or some excerpt of it).

I usually cut-and-paste the relevant section and anlgle-bracket ( < ... > ) to show it's a quote.

You might want to add the date if you're replying to a post from long ago. There's no standard format for doing that, common sense applies.

on Enrique Reed Valenzuela

Please see https://www.chesshistory.com/winter..., and more criticism of CG.

I was reading the Winter article, and saw that it was recently update to March, 2023 - so <stonehenge> is very topical here. (Is he <Mr. Winter> in disguise - not likely, unless Winter moved out of Suisse).

* * * * *

I'm not a copyright lawyer, so consider the following informed, but not "legal advice".

Copyright, under US law, respects the act of creation - not the act of replication.

So, one can't take a PD image and mechanically reproduce it (i.e. scan it), and claim copyright over the reproduction.

I think that this protects Gillam from Winter's claim of copyright infringement for the image of Gunsberg (? - pretty sure that's the guy).

Even if Mr. Winter spent a lot of money on buying his source material - it was in PD, and he has no creative claim to it. By publishing the material in public, Winter cannot assert control of a PD image.

We don't need to credit any such material, though it would be common courtesy to do so, in general.

I have the impression that Mr. Winter has played a bit loose with copyright and sourcing for much of the graphic content he's hosted on his website over the years - ( ~"this photograph was sent to us courtesy of ...", and the lack of attribution).

On my zanchess blog I try to research the graphic content as thoroughly as I do the chess content. It's part of the job, imo.

And I think I was the first to try to get the attributions put in a caption for periodical portraits I sent to Daniel, who was totally onboard and accommodating about it (when he was about it, he often neglected the job of adding photos).

We should try to bypass Winter's site as a source as much as possible, in order to find the primary sources.

Finally, as to when material is in PD - well, that depends on where you live, and where the material was created, and when it was created. It gets complicated, though I've left links to good sites which provide understandable guidance often (e.g. the Cornell site, etc).

.

For the US, the rule of thumb at the moment is if the work is older than 95 years it's in PD.

Then, if you post material that you think in good faith is in PD, you should be good to go.

Be aware, that you might get a letter from a lawyer calling to your attention that you are violating copyright of so-and-so.

In that case, the safest option is to take the material down, which is basically what the letter will be asking you to do.

However, you might disagree, and a sort of dance will follow. E.g. an exchange of letters, which might ultimately result in the other party threatening legal action.

If you are convinced that you are in the right, you should engage a lawyer with copyright experience at that point and follow their advice.

Be aware that some parties, despite knowing the material is in PD, will try to bully you, and if you call their bluff, never take you to court. Which would mean you spent a good lump on unnecessary legal fees.