Fun fact about the first game : after 1.d4 Nf6, the World Champion played 2.Bg5, which is fairly rare at top level in classical time control, and pretty much unprecedented in world championships. Why is it fun? Because this opening is known as the Trompovsky, often nicknamed the "tromp". Magnus more or less admitted that it was a wink at the newly elected US president.
A lot of the comments here on copyright seem to be looking for answers to distinguish this from other copyright issues. Rather than summing up every copyright argument for or against, I thought I'd link to a fairly relevant case: Feist.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rurwal_Telephone_Service_Co" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R...</a>.<p>Feist is a case where a phone book company stole the data in a phone book, and began reselling it. It deals with publication of facts, and is a situation where there's a reasonable public policy argument for incentivising the private company's work collection of phone number data. It's a commonly taught fundamental Copyright claim that is a great starting point for those interested in researching further.
So consider this near-future scenario:<p>You have a soccer match in which a lot of fans show up with cameras. Either like a Go-Pro or just their phones, or like Google Glasses.<p>From the many fan cams, you can reconstruct the state of the match. From the FIFA video games, or from image analysis, you have all the player likenesses.<p>So then someone could "watch" the game from any vantage point, using just the "facts" of the game, without doing an actual re-broadcast of the game.<p>What then?
Apropos, to anyone who wants to watch the live moves, with expert commentary, they are here (this is the defendant from the Reuters story):<p><a href="https://chess24.com/en/read/news/chess24-win-moscow-case-announce-new-york-line-up" rel="nofollow">https://chess24.com/en/read/news/chess24-win-moscow-case-ann...</a><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkTCNuQ2mGfW6-SpHpaze_g" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkTCNuQ2mGfW6-SpHpaze_g</a> (direct link to livestream)<p>If you're looking for live computer engine lines, Steinar Gunderson offers that here, with 38 cores running Stockfish:<p><a href="http://analysis.sesse.net/" rel="nofollow">http://analysis.sesse.net/</a><p>As well as PGN files (live-updated):<p><a href="http://pgn.sesse.net/" rel="nofollow">http://pgn.sesse.net/</a>
Anybody have a link to the complaint/application for a TRO? A lot of the comments here are talking about copyright law, but most protection or attempted protection of data is done with licensing agreements. I would guess FIDE could require the people viewing in person and on the FIDE website to agree to not disseminate accounts of the game as a condition of being allowed to watch. I'd be interested to learn if FIDE has actually attempted to limit it this way, or if the debate is truly over copyright issues. And also if they did ask for the TRO on licensing grounds, was it because their licensing scheme was invalid, or just because the type of harm they were likely to suffer didn't rise to the level needed to qualify for injunctive relief.
In broadcast and print media, there are "facts" which are routinely <i>embargoed</i> (they cannot be released before a certain date/time). Financial results from publicly-traded companies are similarly embargoed, even though they be simple facts. Why can't this mechanism be employed as a condition of being permitted to attend the event?
The main difference between this and other sports/events is the moves are facts. They wouldn't be able to broadcast a live video feed. But you can copyright facts.
There is a glaring inconsistency in this ruling when compared to the status quo for other sports.
In baseball, football the Olympics etc the sponsors hold the broadcast rights and do with it as they deem fit. Why is this same right denied to the organizers of the World Chess Championship?
From a viewers perspective this is great. For past World Chess Championships you could watch ex pros/ high level players commentate on Youtube and Twitch.
fascinating.<p>stats.com charges like $80k per season per sport or something like that for access to their live game data api.<p>world chess should take this all the way, airing the moves for free is undercutting their business model. seems like it shouldn't be legal considering chess is a sport.