Castro, I'm not sure what you mean, but in any case, in my view the moves of a chess game are not the shadows on the wall - they are the Forms itself. And yes, I know the analogy doesn't work 100% - analogies never do, that's why they're called analogies, not equations :-)

@Castro The facts of the event (moves, move times, result) are facts, not copyrightable. Making random analogies about dogs and chairs isn't really relevant.

@Tarjei Yes, this is something that has been going on forever. Every year some organizer somewhere comes up with some random demands about game broadcasts. As an aside, this was something I remember us looking into at X3D for the Kasparov matches, and the lawyers we'd spoken to basically just laughed at the concept.

@Arne Moll
Sure, you're right about analogies. But if you insist in presenting something by an analogy which is very remote, because born out of distorting and/or forgeting essencial data, it is not an useful analogy (to say the least).

@John Fernandez
The analogy with the dogs and chairs sylogism makes sense, because it presents the same lack of sense of your "equalities".
The "Images of a chess match" can be considered "Images of a sporting event", but have 1/1000 of the public interess of images of almost all other sporting event. Somehow it is crucial here, but somehow you "forget" to consider it.
As for the "Gamescores of a chess match" being equal to "Statistics of a sporting event", well this one is far worse! Myself, MM (and maybe others) have already dealt with that. No offense, but it's a childish aproach. Dogs and chairs being equal (because both have something in common) come imediately to mind...

@Castro

Copyright doesn't make qualitative judgements. A Picasso painting has the same copyright protection as a scribble from a three year old. The approach isn't childish, your approach is simply wrong. The fact that there are multiple people arguing it doesn't make it any more correct. It's, simply put, embarrassingly wrong.

@John Fernandez

:-)
I'm not perfect, but surely I wouln't make the (also childish) mistake of calling the number of people with a certain opinion in order to legitimate that opinion. And so I DIDN'T! Try reading again. Again a try to distort facts, which maybe you should see doest't work a lot, from you to me ;-)
As for the Picasso thing, many things were said here that destroy that analogy, and you don't even imagine how much of your distorted related things I let pass. For instance: "Facts" not being copyrightable, one understands. But a move in a chess game is as much of a fact as a kick in a ball. Not "scores", of course.
Other: If I were to use your "logic weapons", I could easily ridiculise your importance to the laughs of the lawyers (we'll see who laughs last!).
Am I wrong? Who says? The actual presenter of the easiest refutable arguments here? Ok, I'll laugh too.

@Castro, the best analogies are often the most 'remote'. Try picking up a book by Douglas Hofstadter sometime, you'll be surprised. Not that mine was so great, of course, but .. oh well.

Hi Frank, I'm afraid your post has made my confusion even bigger, because I'm pretty sure most if not all chess professionals would by definition consider making (strong) chess moves very real 'work' indeed!
Of course I understand the moves of a game 'as such' cannot be copyrighted, but surely making these moves can? Or am I missing something here?

Among many other things one can say regarding this "new" perspective (and sayings), the "work" (or property) of those organizing and allowing (or not) some (crucial) information to get public (in this or that form) during the games must be taken into consideration too.
Imagine that you try to make some money on some kind of broadcast of an elite chess tournament.
If you try to sell video images of an elite chess tournament by which the moves are not visible, no one will buy them. They'd be 100% disapointing.
If you sell (or allow to be taken) video images where the moves are visible in real time, of course you can make big money, but because of the moves!
If then people know that, besides the video images, everybody could freely transmit the moves in many sites, the original video images loose almost all their value!
Doesn't it make yet another hint that there is "work" (or interest, or property) besides "making (strong) chess moves" or "journalistic effort-type", in the broadcasting of moves of a chess tournament in real time?

I'd like to see someone making any interesting money out of TV broadcasts of a chess tournament from which the public could only see the moves AFTER the tournament (or even after each round).

Calling it "broadcasting" or not, that's rights on that we should be talking about.
"Copyright on chess moves" surely not, in any of the scandalous/bombastic meanings it can have.
"14. Qxh7" is as uncopyrightable as (for exemple) the word "Morning", or the sentence "You sleep in the morning", that I could easily agree.

Long time ago I had some version of Football Manager. They used real names of players, but instead of one, there was only nr. 9. Other firm had copyright on name. Assuming that I still have right to use my name, I can ask from ChessBase to remove it from commercial program, for example Mega 2009. They can publish all my games, but without connection with my name.
Am I right or wrong ?

I am a lawyer in Los Angeles. Under American law i seriously doubt you could copyright chess moves. You can only copyright particular expressions of an idea-- you cannot copy the idea itself! In chess, the idea of a move is "merged" with the expression as XTRA astutely noted above (not sure if he is an attorney but he thinks like one!). In other words there is only one way to express the idea of queen takes h7, check, on move 14 in a certain position. Thus the "merger doctrine" would apply to wipe out any copyright protection for the expression/idea 14.Qxh7+. You can copyright the selection and arrangement of games/variations, and you can certainly copyright editorial expressions such as += , "With compensation", !?, ??, etc... The solution is to have contracts to secure exclusive broadcasting access, rather than some feeble attempted copyright protection that (in my opinion) judges would simply laugh at.

:-) Right! Even lazyness! (Because it's MY own copyrighted lazyness)

Isn't everything considered 'work' these days?

I'm sorry Castro, I hate to point it out to you, but you still seem to have missed the main point, despite various people trying to point it out to you. This doesn't prevent you from using friendly words like 'bombastic', ' ridiculous' and 'stupid' again and again. Perhaps if you could express yourself in proper English I would understand what you mean, or you would understand what I meant, but for now, I give up.

Imediately when begining to read those words of yours, I though "Maybe it's my bad English" :-)
Yes, words are "dangerous" and misleading. That you could have seen from the start (your start), and about that yes, you could do something other then giving up.

@The Closet Grandmaster

LOL That thread on that other forum is hilarious (artical and some posts)!
The moral lesson: It's always possible to do worse.

Sorry: *article :-)

Arne, passing here again, I read again your observation, and you're right complaining about my ugly expressions ('bombastic’, ‘ ridiculous’ and ’stupid'). My bad english doesn't allow being rude, and so, even if it wasn't my intention to be rude, I apologise, because maybe I could have found more friendly expressions.

This story has now been picked up here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090305/0158524003.shtml#comments. See especially comments no. 20 and 29.

- TCG

I just love discussions, for the sake of discussion! Feels like people speaking, only just because they like to hear themselves.

@Dragan
:-)
It's a different issue, but I'd say no, or at least very difficult, for instance because somehow it's understood that if you played those events, you were aware of the "common practice" of the games being published. That's the problem of "common practices".
But if you fight, maybe in some years your reason will be recognised. Try getting Kasparov on your fight ;-)

@Dragan,

Many sports leagues have organizations which protect the images and likenesses of professional athletes with licensing deals. Occasionally, superstar players will opt out of such agreements and create their own licensing.

Sadly, there's really no such market in Chess, so such an organization would make zero sense.

The notion of copyrighting an order of moves in a game of chess is ludicrous. Fortunately United States judges have already set this straight.

there are no copyright or broadcasting issues ...
It's just a reaction by the bulgarian chess federation to the bad treatment of topalov by chessbase in the topalov-kramnik match.

Chessvine

If you play the Catalan, of course not , you don t owe a royalty to Kasparov.

You owe a royalty to Xavier Tartakover.

Boxing matches are often relegated to a "pay-per-view" broadcast, but that doesn't stop you from throwing a jab without being arrested...