Talk:Crown copyright

Comment

Does this really mean that the text of a law is copyright? Mark Richards 23:23, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Acts of Parliament are Crown Copyright, IIRC.

James F. (talk) 02:19, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

However, copyright on Acts of Parliament has been waived, so for most practical purposes, they can be treated as being reproduceable without restriction. David Newton 15:18, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What about other countries other than Canada? Enochlau 11:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scottish Parliament

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)

It's called amending the law. David Newton 20:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

In which case the relevant amending Act(s) should be cited as well. Hairy Dude 19:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Canada copyright in judicial decisions

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:

HUTCHEON J.A.:— I agree with Mr. Justice Macdonald that this appeal must be dismissed for the reasons given by him. The only thing that I would add is that there may be cases where the publication of material becomes part of the public domain either because of a statutory requirement to publish the material or because it is inherent in the circumstances that to recognize the claim to copyright would be contrary to public policy. A judge's reasons for judgment may be an example of the latter...

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)

UK white paper

"However, some documents have Crown Copyright waived by the government, subject to certain conditions. This was introduced in a white paper in 2000 in order to improve access to government publications."

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)

No, this is something quite separate from the FOIA. The waiver is a policy decision, not a formal change of law. The details of the waiver (including its exceptions) can be found on the website of the official Office of Public Sector Information website.

Off-topic/misunderstandings/conspiracy theories

How many people rely on this version of the Bible across the world? I wonder, that if a renowned, imperialistic and self serving institution such as the British Crown would grant itself monopoly copyright priviledges on something as sacred as the Bible, that people wouldn't question just how much its message has been tampered with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.40.3 (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Does not aply in the united states as we do not have a monarch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.180.148 (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Former commonwealth countries

Does this apply also to countries that were formerly in the British Commonwealth, or only the countries who are currently in the commonwealth? Like, say, Zimbabwe or Ireland? Also, what about the other countries in the Commonwealth? Do Mozambique and Rwanda have Crown copyright? Or the other fifty-some countries not mentioned explicitly in the article? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 13:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Canada update

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)

UK Crown copyright and GDFL

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)