It appears that the German website has violated copyrights by broadcasting live game one
…it became clear that the German website has violated copyrights by broadcasting live game one of the match without explicit permission from the organizers.
“We will not hesitate to seek justice, if they keep on violating copyright laws,” Topalov’s manager Silvio Danailov said.
Source: http://paper.standartnews.com/en/article.php?d=2010-04-26&article=32900
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
A chess game is not intellectual property.
A chess game is not intellectual property. Live broadcast is. Chessbase can publish the chess game with delay but not live.
I think chessbase has a problem. They’re taking the live games from the organizer then charge money to show them. This is unfair to the organizer who spent 3 million euros to sponsor this match.
Danailov asking for Justice is like devil asking for a bible.
I’m not sure, but don’t live broadcasters have to pay for the rights to show a sports match? Especially if the live broadcaster is charging for the live feed?
Are they transmitting live or are the moves time delayed. Live would be a video of the players as they move the pieces. A listing of the moves is simply a listing of a chess game that is not copywriteable.
How much time delay is needed ???
They are not transmitting the audio or the video of what comes from the playing site. They only give a listing of the moves. Technically they might be OK. Also they can take the moves from someone else who transmits the moves. But this transmitter does not specify that they can not retransmit the moves.
If I were to get all the moves delayed by 15 minutes or more it would not matter to me. I would still enjoy the game. In fact I have assumed that the moves I get are time delayed.
Also the moves are NOT automatically retransmitted via electronic circuits. A human reads the moves from one site and the human transmits what he chooses. This is not really the same thing.
I am sure that Chessbase has consulted legal counsel.
I don’t know the copyright law but I feel that chessbase is in the wrong. They took something which Bulgaria paid 3 million Euros for and then charge for the right to watch it. This doesn’t sound right.
Again, this is personal animus and bullying on the part of Danailov. There are live broadcasts with commentary at chessgames.com, ICC, the Chess Bomb, chessdom.com, etc. Chessbase.com is doing nothing different from these other organizations, yet they are the ones being targeted.
Others either had to pay or received permission to broadcast. Chessbase didn’t. Simple as that. What gives chessbase the right to charge money for something they got for free?
Chessbase and Danailov have had an unhappy history since Chessbase’s reporting of the silly Toilet Scandel during the Kramnik vs Topalov 2006 Match.
Thankfully you cannot copyright a chess game or live broadcast of moves.
I should also mention Chessbase extra fees over and above membership fees on there live broadcast. If this was Danailov’s issue I would fully support him, haha!
chessbase is the only one of those websites charging money for this. it is clearly stealing and they know this so they should be punished as severely as possible.
But you can watch games for free (chessbase). Only GM commentary costs!
It appears actually nothing:
Paris Hilton is going to a club. She’s paying for the limo and the entrance ticked. You can’t tell anybody you saw her because she’s claiming copyright on the “event”.
Be careful what copyright you want. Bulgarian should do a better job so everybody would watch the transmission on their site regardless of who else is doing the same.
If you don’t agree, next time they’ll want to publish the moves after 3 months, you’ll like it? If they actually have copyright they can do it, no?
Susan should write a letter to Danailov, pointing out that chess is losing popularity. Further restrictions will deny more people to watch the games, who at least interested. How will this help future sponsors?
I don’t see what the problem is. Chessbase is charging money for a service other sites are providing for free. So what? If you don’t like paying money for no reason then go to one of the free sites. Chess games are not intellectual property, writing down a chess-game and showing it to people as it happens is not copyright infringement. On the other hand, this is no surprise coming from Danailov and the forces of evil.
This needs to stop:
Broadcasting Game 1 was a copyright violation.
Broadcasting Game 2 was a national insult.
I found this posted over at Mig’s site by someone posting on the blog.
“At least in the West, it has been pretty much established that the moves of the game are mere facts which constitute news, and which can be reported upon, or even retransmitted in real time.”
Chessbase should have complied with the organizer’s rule just as other companies and websites.
Interesting is that it is Danailov who is complaining. He is Topalov’s manager and therefore member of his team, so he shouldn’t be part of organizing commitee…
About transmitting moves – i think it is perfectly ok to transmit it. Of course, when some company wants to transmit football match, F1 race, etc. they have to pay for it to the organisers, but that ist for transmitting audio-video material. It is common that some web-site provides live commentary of footbal games and they don’t have to pay anything. Like somebody already wrote – chess moves have character of news, charging for it would be like charging someone for publishing real-time on a website that messi just scored a goal.
No. Chessbase does not charge for the games transmission, only for the commentary. And some other sites (e.g., ICC, chessgames.com) also charge for GM commentary. And why would charging be legally more offensive than providing free commentary? High-quality free commentary would do more to lure customers away from the original product than would commentary for a fee.
The real question is did Chessbase comply with the organizers’ rules? If they did then they’re OK. If they’re not then they’ll lose in court. Chessbase is obviously on Kramnik and Anand’s side.
It doesn’t matter what the organizer’s rules are. The “rules” not legally binding in this instance. The organizers should know better anyway, rules that cannot be enforced are arbitrary.
I think Bulgaria is in the right here. But I don’t know the international copyright law. But as a non-lawyer, I side with the organizer. It’s kind of sleazy to take something people spent a lot of money for without paying for it then benefit from it. Even for the free broadcast, don’t you have to be a member of playchess, even without the live commentary? You either have to pay for the membership or buy chessbase software.
Since when thinking is so difficult? Chessbase didn’t comply with the organizers’ conditions, so it is in the wrong – end of story. It’s simply amazing how some braindead people attack Danailov even when he is right. Tomorrow he will say: “The Sun rises from the East” – and the same people will be here denying it :))
That doesn’t make it illegal, it just means the Chessbase patrons might be getting ripped off. Whatever, go to one of the free sites and bask in the glory of the internet.
You cannot copyright a fact. Live game scores are facts and are not copyrightable. It really is as simple as that. Danailov has no case.
You can’t copyright the moves. But if the organizer imposed a 2 hour delay unless you pay or have permission, you better follow or else you’ll lose a bunch of euros. No court will be on Chessbase side when the Bulgarian goverment spent 3 million euros to organize this. You can’t steal it.
This comes up every time, and guess what, every time the organizer does not follow through with their threat because they have no legal standing for their complaint.