English Chess Forum

I'm sure there are plenty of burglars in the vicinity of Mr McCready's home who also find property laws 'whimsical'. I hope that doesn't stop him locking his doors and windows.

It's irrelevant, most importantly would Diggle object to having his works made more accessible?

MJMcCready wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 20, 2023 11:36 am

It's irrelevant, most importantly would Diggle object to having his works made more accessible?

If Diggle has sold/given the rights to his work to someone else, that's also irrelevant.

Ian Thompson wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 20, 2023 12:01 pm

MJMcCready wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 20, 2023 11:36 am

It's irrelevant, most importantly would Diggle object to having his works made more accessible?

If Diggle has sold/given the rights to his work to someone else, that's also irrelevant.

You need to explain yourself, are you saying that Diggle has in fact sold his works? If so, what was the motive behind that?

I believe you can assign copyright to someone else, or renounce it. e.g. Tom Lehrer has said anyone can use his work. JM Barrie assigned the rights to Peter Pan to Great Ormond Street Hospital. Some musicians have sold their work to companies in return for an immense cash payment.

Presumably we don't know what Diggle did, if anything.

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 20, 2023 12:34 pm

Presumably we don't know what Diggle did, if anything.

Nevermind whether you think Diggle sold his works for profit. It's not important. What you should be asking yourself is 'Since Diggle became an established writer for decades, and in doing so became a very respectable figure in a literary genre which is as best described as decadent, don't you think the most important thing of all is that following generations should have easy access to his work and be able to enjoy and appreciate it. If you can explain how some law, most probably based on a whim, is more important than that, I am all ears. Given that whether I like it or not, I am a post-modern historian its off limits to present myself being correct. I am not trying to say I am. But most crucially of all, irrespective of how much you do or don't know about Diggle, since he both but a tremendous amount of effort into his writing and appeared in the top-selling circulations of his day, is it not safe to assume he would prefer to be read than not be read. And anyone facilitating that should receive a pat on the back...unless its better to discover great works of art and hide them away from everyone?

I like Diggle's writing. Nevertheless, if there is a copyright holder, they decide if the work is published and where and under what conditions. Anyone who publishes someone else's work without going through the correct channels is a thief.

Stealing other people's work seems to be popular in writing about chess and in rock and roll - a curious alliance which philosophers may wish to contemplate.

The question still is, "Who (if anyone) owns the copyright to Diggle's work?"

G.H. Diggle (the "Badmaster") and Edward Winter adhered to all the rules when they jointly produced the two volumes of Diggle's "Chess Characters", in 1984 and 1987. For a third party to scan 100 or so pages of that work and put all the material online without permission is obviously wrong, and any attempts to argue otherwise are self-serving and ridiculous.

Mr McCready thinks he should receive a pat on the back for "facilitating". In fact, all he has done is copy Mr Diggle and Mr Winter's work, which was the fruit of considerable efforts and which was protected by copyright.

I'm attempting to understand in what way MJM feels he is "facilitating" the work of GHD (and EGW).

An online search for "Badmaster Diggle" takes one immediately to

https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/diggle.html

with multiple references therein.

Is MJM making available content otherwise not available?

I've not compared MJMs Diggle content with EGWs: is it more of the same or something else?

That link to Edward Winter's fine and very extensive article on Diggle was given in this thread by Gerard Killoran on 18 November. It is, by the way, a link that Mr McCready's webpage does not give, despite his claims about wanting Diggle to be better known.

John Townsend wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 21, 2023 11:55 am

That link to Edward Winter's fine and very extensive article on Diggle was given in this thread by Gerard Killoran on 18 November. It is, by the way, a link that Mr McCready's webpage does not give, despite his claims about wanting Diggle to be better known.

How many of the ten or so posts on Diggle have you read on my site? It began with thanks to Mr. Winter. I assume Diggle is happy to be read, so is happy to do what I have done because its really in the spirit of celebration, and to me that can't be classified as a crime -not saying I am right there.

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 20, 2023 3:42 pm

The question still is, "Who (if anyone) owns the copyright to Diggle's work?"

I haven't been following this discussion in detail, but has this been answered?

Thanks to Mr Winter? I wonder how sincere that is, considering that you have copied the work of him and Mr Diggle without permission. A lot of effort went into those two volumes and you have simply copied the work and say you should have a "pat on the back".

Are you saying that you have given the link to Edward Winter's feature article? If so, where?

You said, "I assume Diggle is happy to be read".

No, he would not be happy to be read in the circumstances you have created. He would have wished and expected the copyright of the two volumes to be respected. I am surprised you don't appear to understand that.

I suggest you take down your Diggle scans and this matter need go no further.

John Townsend wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 21, 2023 2:31 pm

I suggest you take down your Diggle scans and this matter need go no further.

Sounds ominous, almost threatening.

Are you suggesting that this matter might go further (whatever that means) ?

I'd like to see that if only it was to encourage EGW to visit a Swiss courthouse, give evidence and break with his Howard Hughes style hermit like existence since leaving Brighton and the chess tutelage of JIP Simpole.

Would you be the one to "take it further" JT or would it be entrusted to the EGW team of legal Eagles?

On what basis would EGW have a cause of action. I can't imagine he owns the original literary work created by Diggle - that would more than likely reside with his heirs. The typographical copyright, in the 1984 & 87 works, would have been owned by Chess Notes but has long since expired (25 years from publication).