Copyrights of chess games

Copyrights of chess games

Dear chess colleagues

By writing this short article I would like to open a discussion on a problem of protection of chess games. The problem, though not widely known, is quite important.

A typical situation in chess is that games being played during a tournament are broadcasted live in the Internet not only on the official website, but also on many other websites or in chess clubs. Later, a notation becomes available for downloading or the games can be viewed online or offline.

For the first 20 years of my career I had considered that situation "normal", as I had been strongly used to it. Well, till now I am a regular user of ChessAssistant, ChessBase, ICC, Playchess.

For the first time my eyes were opened in 2005 by GM Evgeny Sveshnikov. He told me that the copyright rules regarding chess games should be similar to those regarding painting. An artist works on a painting and thereafter owns all rights to it. Reproduction of a painting requires a special permission. A chess player works during a game, however thereafter has no rights. Everybody can freely publish his work, without any permission. GM Sveshnikov considered that situation strange and told me he had once decided to sue in far Siberia a Russian newspaper for publishing one of his game. He had demanded a symbolic amount of 1 rouble compensation and ... he had won!

GM Sveshnikov decided to follow his success and sued ChessAssistant in Moscow for selling notation of his games without a permission, but he lost that case. The court admitted that a chess game (a process of playing) should be intellectually protected, however contrary to a bare notation of it. The court stated that writing a move on a scoresheet is only a mechanical process.

GM Sveshnikov considered that verdict to be weird. Similarly, a court could have decided that paintings are not intellectually protected, as an operation of painting is just a mechanical operation. Intellectually protected should be only what was created in a head, but not what a hand drawn.

I wasn't sure how important that problem was. I thought not so many people were interested in chess, thus additional legal regulations could only make that situation worse. GM Sveshnikov asked me whether I would have bought for 1 dollar a notation of his 2000 games if I had not had it. I answered positively. I said at least 1000 people would have bought it, probably even more than 10000 around the world. GM Sveshnikov only smiled and asked: "So where are my 10000 dollars?".

Since that conversation I have lost my convenience how the situation should look like. During my work in the ACP Board (2004-2005 and 2006-2007) I had several discussions, however none of them brought fruitful results. Usually we tried to compare chess to other disciplines of sport. For broadcasting a football, basketball, tennis (etc.) match a TV channel has to pay money to an organiser of an event. The money partially go to players (higher fees, higher prizes). Broadcasts without a permission of an organiser are strictly prohibited. Similarly, we believed that broadcasting a chess game without a permission of a person / company to whom belong the rights should be legally prohibited.

During my conversation with GM Sveshnikov, he expressed the opinion that the copyrights should belong to players, similarly to the situation with an artist and paintings. He wasn't however sure to which of two opponents the copyrights should belong to (maybe to a winner - but what about draws?). There is only one painter, but two players! One of the possible problems is if one of the players should have the right to publish his game without a permission of his opponent. In the opinion of GM Sveshnikov, a permission of only one player is enough to broadcast a game online, however personally he never agrees to have his games broadcasted, unless an organiser provides him with "special conditions".

A month ago I heard about a new approach and that conversation stood behind my decision to write this article. Let's try to compare chess with ... music! Music has a very strong legal protection, at least in theory. It is not allowed to copy a song without a permission of a singer / composer or a company who has bought the rights. Additionally, even if you have bought an original CD, you are not allowed to play it in public places without paying some money (like radio stations do). It can be compared to relaying chess games by different chess clubs.

One may argue that in chess what is being copied is a notation of a game, not a game itself (see the verdict of a court in Moscow). It would correspond not to a music, but to a notation of it on the stave.

But can I print in a book or in an article a notation of some melodies without asking a permission of their composers? Can I just publish a book containing only (or mainly) a notation of different melodies? If the answer is not, it means that by analogy, companies like ChessAssistant or ChessBase should not be allowed to publish (sell) notation of chess games without a permission.

Also, in my opinion, broadcasting chess games is not only broadcasting their notation but due to the special software it should be compared to broadcasting melodies not only their notation. A chess software (for instance used by the ICC, ChessAssistant, ChessBase) plays simply a role of an encoder.

A melody can be decoded on the stave, but also let's say in the mp3 format. A chess game is decoded on a scoresheet. It is not allowed to copy a mp3 file, also it is not allowed to include a mp3 file to an article or a book without a permission. The same should apply for chess games.

Let's come back to a question to whom the rights for a chess game should belong to. To both players, to each of them separately, to organisers? Nobody has ever been able to answer me. But please note, that this problem has been solved in music. There is a composer of a melody, a singer, often much more people in a band, an organiser of a concert. The situation is even more difficult than in chess, but the copyright exists!

One more similarity can be seen here: One can say, that strong chess players, while looking on a scoresheet, can see a game. But exactly the same is in music. Good musicians, while looking on a stave with notes, can hear a melody. For the majority of people it is too difficult, so they use a chessboard to encode a game, similarly to people who try to encode the notation of a melody by playing a note by note on a piano. Sometimes people don't use an equipment (a board, a piano), but an encoder (pgn player, mp3 player).

One can say that there is nothing to fight for, because people will copy chess games anyway. I would argue with such an approach, because it is like with music. Many people copy songs, without a permission, however it is illegal (and at least some people care about it). Obviously, nobody will sue anyone for possessing, let's say, a game Tregubov - Macieja on his computer without our permission, however massive shares of games between people can be already of an interest of the police, moreover big companies (like ChessBase, ChessAssistant, ICC etc.) will never allow themselves to break the rules, as they will understand that they are an easy target, similarly to radio stations or TV channels in the case of music. They will lose also clients, because many people will not buy a product knowing that it is illegal, especially if a legal product is widely available.

One more thought in the end of this article - I think it is strange that newspapers, chess magazines etc. pay a fee to a person who even makes a few notes to a game, but not to both players, though for many readers a game itself is much more interesting than those few comments. Moreover, a person would not be able to write his article, if earlier that game was not played by both players!

Well, I think there is a big open field for the ACP ...

Best regards
Bartlomiej Macieja