[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]

StartingPoints
ReferenceSection
About


Referenced by
MessagesToPeopleC...
MetaDiscussion
SLCopyright
OldMetaDiscussion
DeepThoughts
TenCommandmentsOf...

 

SL Copyright Discussion
   

After the discussion below this line, SLCopyRight was updated in September 2002. Please add new items above this line.


Dieter: If Scartol and TheDullBlade have adapted existing articles about Go adding their own thoughts and diagrams, I see no reason why their content should be removed and not e.g. almost everything we have been writing about LifeAndDeath[1]. JamesDavies' book has been a great source of information. I have added many diagrams of my own and have been commenting other diagrams without looking at the book. However, I have also copied diagrams from the book for the simple reason that if you change one stone you one changes the issue or else the change would be a ridicilous attempt to avoid copyright issues.

Where we use the name RabbittySix[2] we give credit to Davies. However I don't think we ever asked Davies' permission and frankly I am not inclined to do so. The reason is that people who make their living by producing Go material are likely to be unsympathetic to the idea of any Go material be freely published on the net, let alone material related to what they are writing about. Maybe Davies will be an exception, he probably is a very nice guy, but what will we do if he has a look at SL and decides that several pages are "plagiat" (please correct this non-English).

(If need be it could always go back to Flowery Six,the Japanese name for it.--TimBrent).

AAMOF, it happened when we negociated with RichardHunter about CountingLiberties. I'm dying to throw his ideas on SL but we asked him and he kindly refused because he is going to present the material in a new book coming out soon. Personally I think this is unfair: although he is the one who was so lucid to make that particular analysis of liberties and running fights, I consider it to be a marvelous discovery rather than an invention. We should be entitled to present these ideas on SL because they are as valid as the bulky five.[3]

Besides, Morten, I think the relevance of any article to the nature of game is key to the copyright discussion, so not wanting to argue about it is pointless.

Morten: Sorry, you lost me here...?

Dieter


Aha! So you were the one blocking my attempt to save... Well, here's my parallel thoughts anyway. Good thing too we seem to disagree for a change!

Stefan: If material exists elsewhere, in whatever form, it shouldn't be copied here. The library does not need to function as a repository only - it can serve its purpose through referencing as well. The motivated student will learn from the connections between various parts and concepts in the library, and can follow the reference (order the book, contact an author,...) if she wants to dig deeper. (NB: Can someone, ANYONE, get me a copy of "Enclosure Joseki", PLEASE? I'm willing to pay for it if it's in a decent state.)

Dieter already mentioned Counting Liberties. Richard didn't like the idea, hence the SL material is limited to a reference. I was disappointed too, but I'd rather Richard feels OK and keeps writing - in the mean time, motivated students know who to bug for their immediate fix.

I feel similarly about the material I get from Matthew Macfadyen in the context of his correspondence course. I obviously won't copy it (it explicitly carries a copyright), and in most cases I also won't rewrite his ideas with new text or diagrams. If Matthew thinks it belongs here, he'll add it himself one day (or ask somebody to do it for him, as John Fairbairn has done on occasion).

This is a fine line, and I think we should draw it a bit further than the strictly legal one. The lithmus test is, as MortArno mentioned, to make sure that Richard and Matthew feel good about this site. We want them to keep writing stuff, after all. :-) The few good non-oriental go writers will not be motivated if the fruits of their labor appear on SL 24 hours after they hit the press, their website or whatever.

As a practical guideline, we may suggest that contributions are OK if they are:

  • novel and original - Taking a diagram out of a book for further discussion is OK. Taking a chapter out is not.
  • OR
  • in the public domain - The taisha is in the public domain. "Counting liberties" is not [4]. The classification of standard life and death shapes is handled by different authors, so it has a place here. It supersedes Davies' book alone. Reproduction of his text is still not OK though.

Over time more and more ideas will be "commoditized" into the public domain. At that point it will be possible to expand their section here without disrupting peaceful co-existence with other sources of English language go material.

And as a final thought - would there be merit in organising a deliberate effort to contact the well known names, ask them whether they want to make something available here and offer them a hand? Some of them already do publish for no other reward than promoting the game, right?


[4] To put it naughtily: if SL publishes the methods of counting liberties, it will belong to the public domain and as such SL is entitled to publish it. This is self-fulfilling. I know that patents expire but for Go I'd stick to Arno's statement that methods aren't copyrightable. --Dieter

It's not self-fulfilling. Your logic is flawed: it's like stating that you haven't murdered a person, because he was dead after the act. My criterion above applies to items that are in the public domain, not items that will be.

Poor analogy, sorry. Killing a dead person is quite meaningless. What I mean is: when does a subject belong to the public domain according to you ? If people start talking aboout it and use it on SL, RGG and the likes, it will become public. But we can't because it doesn't belong to the public domain ! That's why I call it self-fulfilling.

Quite meaningless indeed - that's why it's a good analogy. There is a difference between *being* in the public domain and *getting/evolving* in the public domain, which you don't seem to be willing to make. I partially see where you're coming from - I realise that somebody somewhere will have to act against my proposed code of conduct for the evolution to happen. But I propose this code of conduct for SL alone, not for "RGG and the likes". So the solution to the apparent paradox (which isn't one) is: SL doesn't participate in the act (thus avoiding cheesing off anybody). RGG and the others take care of themselves - the pros and cons of posting a PDF of "Life and Death" on RGG falls outside of this debate, as it won't get Morten and Arno in trouble.

To your question when I consider an item to be in the public domain: when there are multiple sources of the core ideas. In the case of Counting Liberties, I only know of Hunter. If I knew multiple sources, I would have written about it here already. Nobody could 'claim' the idea, in that event, and be cheesed off about it. In the case of joseki, L&D,... I know of various sources, so they are not claimable by one party. I do realise that caring about this 'claimability' is a SL goodwill issue, not a legal/copyright issue. In that respect, I don't disagree with the view that methods aren't copyrightable. I propose to keep them off to keep Richard happy. Or to return the question: if we all agree it's not illegal, why don't you write about CL?

From a pragmatic point of view, you could choose to start a worldwide promotion campaign of Counting Liberties on RGG, your personal website, ... and thus help create the treasured multiple sources that I need. "Pragmatic but silly", you may reply. "Fair point", I'll concede.

Morten: I should think that it is the idea or concept which becomes 'public property' and not the original text (As metnioned by Doug below). This is similar to being inspired by an idea and doing something original with it. There is nothing to stop us from writing what we think about e.g. CountingLiberties or even explaining, in our own words, how we do it.
On the same note, e.g. TenCommandmentsOfHandicapGo could have been (still can be) made into an original page if someone had just taken e.g. the headings (or essence thereof) and written the text for the sections based on their own interpretation/understanding.
Dieters comment above regarding adding their own thoughts and diagrams hits the nail on the head in that respect.

I know this begins to feel like pulling wings of flies, but I hope this clarifies. It's pretty much a given that we won't put copyrightable material on SL - that would be a criminal act. The question to me is: do we or do we not post material that is free from a legal point of view, but in danger of hurting some people's view of SL?

Morten: Yes, this is the point we are trying to make. Apart from whether or not you (think you) are legally entitled to behave a certain way does not mean that you always should.
As it happens, I am also of the opinion that we do not have this legal right in these cases, but that is really not the main issue, as far as I am concerned.

ArnoHollosi:

[1]: If you have a look at the TenCommandmentsOfHandicapGo you will see that it was a 1:1 copy of Terry's article. Not ok, by any standards. About DeepThoughts: quotes from TV series are ok. However, I suspect that the quotes are a 1:1 copy of a DeepThought? book (which has quotes from the TV series). And that is not ok.

[2]: RabbitySix is not a trademark, so I think it is fair to use the term. About board positions in general: I don't think that any diagram (just the diagram alone) is copyrightable. However, the text/analysis/comments etc. are copyrightable.

[3]: I don't know enough to judge the issue regarding CountingLiberties, however I agree with you on this one. Methods (such as counting liberties to see who wins a fight) are not (should not be?) copyrightrightable. OTOH, we don't want to upset Richard, and if he has put the material for everyone to read up on the web we can lnk to it. Good enough for me. (But he has not --Dieter)

Why are we (Morten and I) insisting on this? With pages like TenCommandmentsOfHandicapGo and DeepThoughts we are distributing content that (most likely) violates copyright law. About the Hikaru anime: we link to content which quite possibily violates law, but we don't redistribute it. My stance is that linking cannot be illegal (courts have a different opinion on this matter). However, our host has serious concerns. And in France (where our host resides) copyright violation is not to be taken lightly. They shut down a whole ISP due to cp violation.

I hope you understand our concerns.


Following on from DeepThoughts:

Morten: Without wanting to argue with you regarding the relevance of Secret Art of Go? ;^), I am afraid that this page seems to be a straight copy (some might say 'rip-off') of copyrighted material. This would not be according to the intentions stated on SLCopyRight. I would therefore ask you to either change the contents of this page so that the contents are original (although they may well be inspired by someone) or obtain permission from the copyrightholder, or remove the copyrighted material. Sorry to be a spoilsport.

TheDullBlade: Hmm... I have been operating under the assumption that this was fair use. Look at it this way: we are using short quotations from SNL episodes for the purpose of humorously illustrating go gameplay principles and cultural items, in a non-commercial, educational resource, and in a way that is more likely to increase demand for the original copyrighted works than to decrease it. It's your call, but are you sure you want to treat it as copyright violation?

Morten (Without wanting to go into a deep discussion of copyright issues, which I don't think any of us is qualified to do) what you say sounds 'fair' however, things are not always 'fair' :-) In general,

  • A 'good intent' does not mean that the law doesn't apply.
  • A small breach (short quotations) is still as much a breach as a large one (50 small quotations)
  • It is not anyones call in particular. The law applies to all.

Yes, sometimes educational or non-commercial organsiations may be granted the (free) use of copyrighted material, but this is not as a matter of course but after asking for it. Which is why we ask contributors to do so.

Also, and I would like to stress this, we depend on goodwill to keep this site running. Apart from not wanting to piss of other contributors in the Go-world, various people upon whom we depend may judge us differently from the way you (or I) would do.

To avoid all this potential mess, there are two easy options:

  1. Be inspired by copyrighted material but present it in an original way, OR
  2. Ask the copyrightholder

TheDullBlade: Erm... have you honestly never heard of fair use? It is a very basic feature of copyright law. In this context, "fair use" means a use exempt from copyright protection: reference by quotation, illustrative sampling, parody, reproduction for personal use, limited reproduction for educational purposes, etc.

Legalities aside: the guy writes one-liners. He expects and wants people to repeat them [5]. It spreads his fame. What he doesn't want is a million nobodies trying to contact him for permission every time they want to quote him on some obscure website. Incidentally, I doubt he knows go from pente.

Technically, this case is debatable. I think the non-commercial nature puts it firmly under fair use, but I can see how other experts on copyright would disagree, and it would perhaps make an interesting court case. However, as a practical matter, I would stake my life on the claim that no legal repercussions would ever result, because this "copyright violation" is both commonplace and benefits the author.[6]

Anyway, I've written my last edit on this site. You worry about offending contributors with your copyright policy? That cuts both ways. It's not so much the fact that you chose to delete my carefully selected and arranged work, but your patronizing and arrogant dismissal from an apparent position of utter ignorance.

Stefan: For what it's worth to you, I didn't consider their position to be 'patronizing' or 'arrogant'. I can follow you on the 'ignorance' thing, but then again that's probably why they invited this discussion in the first place, no?

Some links:

Oh, one more thing. The fully aware, considered, and intentional act of posting (or allowing) links to copyrighted material (the Hikaru No Go stuff) with the intent of facilitating violation of that copyright makes you liable for it. It's called "contributory copyright enfringement." When (informed) people say, "Linking is not copyright violation." they are generally talking about 'deep-linking': linking to specific pages when the site-owner would prefer that people only link to an "entrance page."[7]

Saying essentially, "We expect to get away with it because it's not actually on our servers." is not exactly going to help you if it ever goes to court. Relying on technicalities you don't actually understand is not a good idea. Admitting intent to do so is an even worse idea.

Stefan: This is useful perspective to the debate. This could lead us to a position where we'll start writing our own Counting Liberties pages soon, remove links to Hikaru-related downloads, and reinstate your pages provided they fall under fair use. Not everybody seems to share your opinion that they do, however.

ArnoHollosi: Dullblade, I'm sorry that you feel the way you do. We did not mean to offend you. If you can assure me that you really hand-picked the quotes yourself (i.e. not copying them from a book) I'm happy to revive the page (btw, it is still in the archive). About fair use: quotation from copyrighted works has its limits. E.g. I cannot quote two pages of a three page article claiming fair use. The number of quotes you made, may have crossed the line.

[5]: Can you point me to a authorative source where the author publically stated so?

[6]: The non-commercial nature of SL is irrelevant for questions about copyright violation. Otherwise we could start redistributing e.g. all english Go books. And only because the copyright violation is commonplace and benefits the author it still remains a copyright violation.

TheDullBlade: Commercial vs. non-commercial is usually a major factor of determining the validity of fair use. That an alleged copyright infringement is non-commercial and benefits the author is a fairly strong indication that it's not actual infringement (most counter-examples are pretty contrived). After all, that's the whole point of fair use.

[7]: "Contributory copyright infringement" is currently only known in the USA under the DMCA. Not in Europe. Question is: are the anime files violating copright (if they are from a DVD the answer is most likely "yes", if they are recordings from a TV show the answer may be "no"). I resent the idea that linking is illegal. Actually we don't even link to megablip.com, we just mention its name. However, if our host feels that it is too dangerous we will remove the HikarunogoArchive page.

TheDullBlade: You are thinking of contributory copyright infringement by creation or distribution of a tool for such purposes in general (novel, though not restricted solely to the USA). However, that someone who knowingly and willingly suggests, encourages, and assists in copyright infringement of specific works is held responsible is as natural and common a part of copyright law as holding a person responsible for loading a gun, handing it to another man, and telling him to kill someone is a part of homicide law. I don't claim to know the laws in detail in every European country, but I would be as surprised to learn that a country had copyright but no concept of contributory infringement as I would to learn that murder was a crime but hiring assassins was legal (admittedly, that analogy suits vicarious infringement better). I don't want the Hikaru No Go links to go down any more than the next fan, but the inconsistancy just struck me.

Again: I reckon that you are feeling angry that we removed your work. But I hope you understand that we feel strongly about providing a service for Go fans. If this means that we have to delete e.g. 1% of the contributions, we will bite the bullet and offend 1% of the contributors. In the words of Miguel de Icaza: "You can now flame me, I am full of love."

TheDullBlade: That is not why I'm annoyed. If you want to play it that safe, that's your business. Similarly, if you thought it was weak humor, offensive, or off topic, fine. But if both of you are full of misconceptions about copyright, yet are so quick to jump to conclusions and smugly "correct" people, I can hardly see this as either an isolated incident or a rational policy. Besides, all this living by the letter and violating the spirit ("We are the Guardians of Copyright and Decency. Sure, you can steal his work, just rephrase it!") leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Live straight, or live crooked, but don't live slimy. Something like this would just happen again, and life is too short to waste butting heads.
I imagine that Dullblade feels angry that we have declared that (s)he is wrong (if not criminal) for putting up the pages that (s)he did. And probably offended/embarassed that this is the first time that SL maintainers have drawn that particular line. I wrote "we" above because as a reasonably steady contributor to SL over the last 1 1/2 years I feel that it is partly "my" site. At the same time I suddenly realize the very great extent to which I/we (you know who you are!) have left to Arno and Morten those minor little issues like paying for SL, dealing with the ISP, etc. There are a couple of points that I think we should consider out of what has been written above (and below for that matter):
  • Copyright and other IP issues are complex particularly as they apply to the internet todayl. No one has all the answers (or even all the questions yet).
  • SL is not a commercial site. It most likely can not afford lawyers, etc. authoritatively arbitrate this issue (Arno, Morten if you are independently wealthy speak up!). This means that the rule is probably, "When in doubt, rule it out (be conservative)!"
  • The suggestion above to contact the original author is an excellent one. Can anyone else in the SL community at large assist? Does anyone know the author of the original work or how to contact them? Who knows they may want to contribute something directly :-)
  • In the end there may be no choice but to shoot for 99%. But remember, as Sai taught Hikaru Hikaru Problem 6 Solution 99% may be good enough but not if you aim at greatness. And aren't we all united in the desire to make Sensei's Library the greatest Go site on the web? :-)
  • Personally I think that the discussion here should turn to how to heal the rift rather than escalate into more an more of a flame war. DaveSigaty

are there any differences between the GNU FDL (free document license) and the OCL?

the OCL appears to be shorter. i mean differences in 'spirit' :)

ArnoHollosi: yes, there are. The OCL is closer to the BSD license, i.e. if you'd take the stuff of SL and make a book out of it, you are not supposed to provide the book in electronic form (BSD license: make a binary out of a BSD source code without publishing the source). The GNU FDL requires a human readable electronic copy as well (GNU distinguishes between opaque copies (ones which can't be processed automatically by computers) and other copies).

I think this is the main difference. Both make sure, that if you take content and use it that the resulting work is open/free content as well.

There has been much debate about the different kinds of freedom by Tim O'Reilly, RMS, and ESR. Search the web for it.


Just a few legal notes: copyright protects the _expression_ of an idea, not the idea itself. Copying the text and diagrams of Richard Hunter's books or articles violates his copyright, but reexpressing those ideas is fine. If you want to protect the idea itself, you need to get a patent. Under the Geneva convention, no claiming or registration of copyright is necessary: the copyright is inherent in the act of expression. Not all expressions are copyrightable: for example, in the US, noncreative works such as font designs, and material facts such as game records and game positions are not protectable. Composed go problems and positions, on the other hand, are creative, protectable works. Copyright protects an individual expression of an idea. For example, if you and I each independently write a novel, and the novels turn out to be word-for-word identical, neither of us has an infringement claim against the other. Each of us owns our own copyright to our own novel. This is farfetched for a novel, and a judge might be persuaded that someone was lying, but this could quite easily happen for a go problem. Fair use allows limited copying of copyrighted work under a fairly complicated set of restrictions. IMO, the DeepThoughts page was somewhat too derivative to fall under fair use, but this is a judgement call, not at all black and white. Public domain refers to expressions which could be subject to copyright, but are not for some reason, e.g. copyright holder has assigned work to public domain, creator has been dead for 50 years, etc. It does not apply to ideas, which are not subject to copyright in any case. --DougRidgway?



This is a copy of the living page "SL Copyright Discussion" at Sensei's Library.
(C) the Authors, published under the OpenContent License V1.0.