![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | For New Zealand Crown copyright templates see Category:New Zealand copyright tags |
|
|
Added a citation to "exceptions" as well as "raw data" exception with citation, feel free to comment if I made any mistakes:) -- Walshnic ( talk) 23:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
When the Copyrights Designs and Patents Act 1988 (the 1988 Act) came into force the scope of the definition of Crown copyright was considerably reduced. Crown copyright was ... also defined as subsisting "in every Act of Parliament, Act of the Scottish Parliament, Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly or Measure of the General Synod of the Church of England".
Is this true? Bearing in mind that the Scottish Parliament didn't come into being until 1999, how can legislation pre-dating the creation of the parliament apply to it? Likewise with the Northern Ireland Assembly. 80.175.243.130 14:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the comment about how "Jockey v. Standen" gives Judicial authority that judgments can't be copyrighted. I read the case and I am doubtful that it does such a thing. The only comment on the subject is in a concurring opinion at the end in paragraph 12:
The concurring comment is speculative and is not very pursuasive let alone binding, so I think it's unreasonable to say that it gives judicial authority. - PullUpYourSocks 21:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Would this be the Freedom of Information Act 2000? If so, that is an enacted Act of Parliament which has now been in force for over a year, not just a White Paper. Hairy Dude 19:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Cleaned up commentary, and eliminated essay style, which was copied from another source. Exceptions to the general rule have been converted to a tabular format. Raellerby ( talk) 16:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I excised this sentence:
Websites are reproducible unless otherwise indicated, but
Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) has stated in correspondence that they do not consider material under Crown Copyright redistributable under such licenses as the
GFDL.
I excised it for two reasons: 1 - it seems to contradict what is stated here as regards public records (CAVEAT - I could be completely wrong in my interpretation, I'm no lawyer) and 2 - it makes reference to "correspondence" which is uncited.
By all means fix and reinstate. Manning ( talk) 04:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I found a paper on the politics of Crown copyright. We should incorporate the main points of this paper into the section on #Criticisms. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 19:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Apokrif ( talk) 18:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Our article presently says However, since 2001 the UK Government has developed a trend of automatically licensing all works published on gov.uk and The National Archives under the Open Government Licence.
First off, "has developed a trend of" is meaningless buzzword blather. What is this really trying to say?
Second, various sites under gov.uk are not following this. E.g., ScotlandsPeople.gov.uk not only charges money for almost every form of record it provides, it attaches usually bogus crown copyright claims to all of them.
An aside on why they are bogus: Copyright in the UK did not exist in any form until 1710, and crown copyright did not exist until 1911, but does not retroactively cover governmental works before that date; and while it was extended in 1958 to cover more types of works produced at governmental expense, its scope was contracted again in 1988. More importantly, in 2000, the UK government disavowed imposition of any licensing requirements for 10 classes of documents, including "forms, ... documents featured on official departmental Web sites, ... and unpublished public records", and the sort of material genealogists are after on UK government sites like this one (birth/marriage/death records, wills and their adjudication, other legal records) qualifies under all three of those categories. The bulk of it also pre-dates any crown copyright term that could potentially have existed at some time anyway. Furthermore, the majority of the records in the present or former UK that are of interest to genealogists created before civil registration was imposed 1837 in England and Wales, 1855 in Scotland, 1864 (1845 for non-Catholics) in Ireland, were not created with any government involvement at all, but were produced by parish churches. So, even if a parliament of competent jurisdiction unwisely created some kind of retroactive governmental copyright, it still would not include many of the documents genealogists are typically looking for at ScotlandsPeople and similar agency websites.
ScotlandsPeople supposedly is empowered by the Scottish Parliament to charge some "document" processing fees even when it's simply automatically popping PDFs out of a database and no human labour is involved. But let's see the actual statute and what it says. Where is it? This is pretty shady, since a freedom-of-information request, involving dead-trees paperwork and a bunch of real-human time on both ends, could compel that agency to divulge the same data.
And it is not the only one doing this. I ran into another a few days ago (not NationalArchives.gov.uk, at which documents are generally free, as long as you create a free account to which to attach them for download). I forgot to take note of which other UK agency was charging, but I recall that they made a specific claim that they were statutorily required to do so. Of course, they did not actually name the allenged statute, and this appears to be a false statement, unless there really is a strange and very particular piece of legislation requiring one very specific agency to charge the public for one very specific sort of information. So, where is it?
Whatever the situational particulars are for certain agency/department websites, our material at present is making too broad a claim about the UK's approach to public records access, and needs to be clearer that while there may be some kind of vague "administrative support or preference" high up in the government for releasing material under the OGL, various lower-level agencies are not playing along, and are [ab]using public-records access as a revenue stream. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | For New Zealand Crown copyright templates see Category:New Zealand copyright tags |
|
|
Added a citation to "exceptions" as well as "raw data" exception with citation, feel free to comment if I made any mistakes:) -- Walshnic ( talk) 23:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
When the Copyrights Designs and Patents Act 1988 (the 1988 Act) came into force the scope of the definition of Crown copyright was considerably reduced. Crown copyright was ... also defined as subsisting "in every Act of Parliament, Act of the Scottish Parliament, Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly or Measure of the General Synod of the Church of England".
Is this true? Bearing in mind that the Scottish Parliament didn't come into being until 1999, how can legislation pre-dating the creation of the parliament apply to it? Likewise with the Northern Ireland Assembly. 80.175.243.130 14:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the comment about how "Jockey v. Standen" gives Judicial authority that judgments can't be copyrighted. I read the case and I am doubtful that it does such a thing. The only comment on the subject is in a concurring opinion at the end in paragraph 12:
The concurring comment is speculative and is not very pursuasive let alone binding, so I think it's unreasonable to say that it gives judicial authority. - PullUpYourSocks 21:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Would this be the Freedom of Information Act 2000? If so, that is an enacted Act of Parliament which has now been in force for over a year, not just a White Paper. Hairy Dude 19:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Cleaned up commentary, and eliminated essay style, which was copied from another source. Exceptions to the general rule have been converted to a tabular format. Raellerby ( talk) 16:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I excised this sentence:
Websites are reproducible unless otherwise indicated, but
Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) has stated in correspondence that they do not consider material under Crown Copyright redistributable under such licenses as the
GFDL.
I excised it for two reasons: 1 - it seems to contradict what is stated here as regards public records (CAVEAT - I could be completely wrong in my interpretation, I'm no lawyer) and 2 - it makes reference to "correspondence" which is uncited.
By all means fix and reinstate. Manning ( talk) 04:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I found a paper on the politics of Crown copyright. We should incorporate the main points of this paper into the section on #Criticisms. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 19:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Apokrif ( talk) 18:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Our article presently says However, since 2001 the UK Government has developed a trend of automatically licensing all works published on gov.uk and The National Archives under the Open Government Licence.
First off, "has developed a trend of" is meaningless buzzword blather. What is this really trying to say?
Second, various sites under gov.uk are not following this. E.g., ScotlandsPeople.gov.uk not only charges money for almost every form of record it provides, it attaches usually bogus crown copyright claims to all of them.
An aside on why they are bogus: Copyright in the UK did not exist in any form until 1710, and crown copyright did not exist until 1911, but does not retroactively cover governmental works before that date; and while it was extended in 1958 to cover more types of works produced at governmental expense, its scope was contracted again in 1988. More importantly, in 2000, the UK government disavowed imposition of any licensing requirements for 10 classes of documents, including "forms, ... documents featured on official departmental Web sites, ... and unpublished public records", and the sort of material genealogists are after on UK government sites like this one (birth/marriage/death records, wills and their adjudication, other legal records) qualifies under all three of those categories. The bulk of it also pre-dates any crown copyright term that could potentially have existed at some time anyway. Furthermore, the majority of the records in the present or former UK that are of interest to genealogists created before civil registration was imposed 1837 in England and Wales, 1855 in Scotland, 1864 (1845 for non-Catholics) in Ireland, were not created with any government involvement at all, but were produced by parish churches. So, even if a parliament of competent jurisdiction unwisely created some kind of retroactive governmental copyright, it still would not include many of the documents genealogists are typically looking for at ScotlandsPeople and similar agency websites.
ScotlandsPeople supposedly is empowered by the Scottish Parliament to charge some "document" processing fees even when it's simply automatically popping PDFs out of a database and no human labour is involved. But let's see the actual statute and what it says. Where is it? This is pretty shady, since a freedom-of-information request, involving dead-trees paperwork and a bunch of real-human time on both ends, could compel that agency to divulge the same data.
And it is not the only one doing this. I ran into another a few days ago (not NationalArchives.gov.uk, at which documents are generally free, as long as you create a free account to which to attach them for download). I forgot to take note of which other UK agency was charging, but I recall that they made a specific claim that they were statutorily required to do so. Of course, they did not actually name the allenged statute, and this appears to be a false statement, unless there really is a strange and very particular piece of legislation requiring one very specific agency to charge the public for one very specific sort of information. So, where is it?
Whatever the situational particulars are for certain agency/department websites, our material at present is making too broad a claim about the UK's approach to public records access, and needs to be clearer that while there may be some kind of vague "administrative support or preference" high up in the government for releasing material under the OGL, various lower-level agencies are not playing along, and are [ab]using public-records access as a revenue stream. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)