If it is the case that the USCF can not put the rules online, how are rules changes disseminated to members? I was just wondering about this while reading the MonRoi threads. If the USCF wanted to change the rules to require moving at the board before writing it on the scoresheet would it have to wait until the next edition is published before enforcing this rule?
I agree that perhaps a “Rules Errata” document should be made and available on the TD/A site or members area for all the changes/corrections between publishings. This may already be available somewhere and I just can’t find it.
The only list of changes the rules since the publication of the current edition of the rulebook that I could find was in one of Tim Just’s column:
uschess.org/tds/tdcornerfeb04.php
Someone would have to check the minutes of the last few Delegates Meetings to see if any rules changes have been passed in them. Maybe Tim Just can do this for us?
I understand that the Rules Committee has recently made a recommendation on move recording devices that will be available on the website fairly soon, possibly later today, but this will probably be considered advisory until the Delegates have approved any changes.
Find things such as updates to the rules is one of the things that should be improved with the new website design.
The 4th edition rules changes were printed in the ratings supplements towards the end of that rulebook’s run. About the only place those changes seemed to appear now is in TD Corner or in the minutes of the Delegates meeting. I have been keeping track of changes since the 5th edition. It would be nice to have it on-line; however, more than one person would need to maintain it to make sure it stayed current.
Since the changes are not really part of the rulebook I am not sure if their publication can be considered part of the McKay contract until another edition comes out. Somewhere I remember that parts of books can be used in reviews, etc. Perhaps some sort of “fair usage” concept is in play here. The lawyers out there will have to help me out on that concept.
I actually have a draft manuscript that I wrote without quoting the rulebook but explaining it (Rulebook Tactics is the working title). My 5th edition co-editor Dan Burg, a lawyer by trade, seemed to think such a work did not violate the agreement with McKay. At any rate it is too short to get published as a book yet.
Tim
There was a Delegate mandate to publish an annual list of changes since the printing of the latest edition of the rulebook, it is probably still in effect.
While I’m not an attorney, I suspect this does fall within fair use. Textbook publishers put errata sheets online all the time, it’s cheaper than trying to insert errata sheets in the books.
I also don’t see this as violating the spirit of the publisher’s contract with the USCF. A correction/update site does not impact the publisher’s revenue stream.
I’m less sure about whether a companion book would be considered a derivative work, especially if Tim worked on it while working on the current edition of the rulebook.
I don’t see how the publisher could have a claim, unless he actually infringed on the copyright (which I assume he wouldn’t). I don’t see how the USCF’s agreement with the publisher could restrict what Tim Just writes on his own.
You do not appear to be familiar with the concept of a derivative work, especially as it was defined in publisher contracts 30 years ago. (Publisher contracts these days are IMHO a bit more narrowly defined.)
Essentially, a derivative work is something that is based on or flows from an earlier work, even if it is intended as a sequel or a companion, or is rendered in a different medium.
For example, The Godfather II was a sequel to The Godfather, so it was obviously a derivative work, even though it had a completely different plot. Godfather, the Video Game, would also be a derivative work.
If Tim prepared a second rulebook while he was under contract to produce the current rulebook, that could be considered a derivative work by our publisher, especially if the publication of that other work is likely to reduce sales of the rulebook. It’s something attorneys could wind up wrangling over, and McKay/Random House has a lot of attorneys on retainer.
No Mike, I was familiar with the concept. I understood that the USCF’s contract with the publisher was rather “broad” in what might be considered a derivative work.
I didn’t expect the contract with Tim Just to be equally broad, and I don’t see why he (as a private individual) should be constrained by the USCF’s contract with the publisher. Unless he infringed on the copyrights or violated HIS contract, there shouldn’t be problem. Likewise, the USCF shouldn’t be affected by any actions taken by Tim Just when he’s acting on his own behalf. Of course there are a bunch of assumptions here, including the assumption that Tim’s contract (with the USCF?) only covered the rule book and that he wasn’t tasked with producing any additional books, that the other book wouldn’t be an “official” USCF work, etc. Not knowing the exact wording of any of the contracts, these were just guesses.
BTW Tim, I hope you can get enough material together to finish your book (and that you can publish it). It sounds like the kind of book I’d buy.
It depends on the specifics of the contract Tim has, which I have not seen, though from some other aspects of it that I’ve heard about, I don’t think it was very well written from the USCF’s perspective. I did look briefly at the McKay contract about three years ago, it looked like a pretty standard 1970’s form to me. (Usual disclaimer about not being an attorney goes here.)
If Tim was contracted to prepare a ‘work for hire’ update of the USCF rulebook, then an attorney could make a pretty good argument that the USCF’s comtract with the publisher is binding on his work product, including any companion work. That might be enough to keep some other publisher from being willing to publish Tim’s book, at least not without a release from McKay/Random House.