Talk:Crown copyright

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Walshnic. Peer reviewers: Zara.palevani.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

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) I have two books one containing Victorian photos and the other containing railway prints. Crown copyright is claimed for these books despite the fact that many if not all of the illustrations were out of copyright before the books were published. Does this alleged copyright prevent me from using the illustrations or does the copyright only apply to the text? John Morris.

The books are Victorian India in focus by Ray Desmond & Early Railway Prints by Michael Darby

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)[reply]

Will be doing more edits using this source: Judge, E. F. (2011). Crown copyright and the reuse of government information: Access and limitations. In P. Garvin (Ed.), Government information management in the 21st century : International perspectives (pp. 211-222). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Pub --Walshnic (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Parliament[edit]

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)[reply]

It's called amending the law. David Newton 20:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In which case the relevant amending Act(s) should be cited as well. Hairy Dude 19:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada copyright in judicial decisions[edit]

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)[reply]

UK white paper[edit]

"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)[reply]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

The British Crown does not claim copyright over the Bible, just a particular version of it. There are hundreds of translations of the original Hebrew and Greek texts, so you can take your pick. The Authorized Version is the translation originally commissioned and approved for the purposes of the Church of England. There's a clue in the title.86.155.182.110 (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Former commonwealth countries[edit]

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)[reply]

Canada update[edit]

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)[reply]

UK Crown copyright and GDFL[edit]

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)[reply]

I can't believe it![edit]

Just stumbled here (I was having a closer look at Wikipedia's complex copyright policies) and I just can't believe it!

You know as well as I do that the use of the expression "Crown copyright" by some countries that happen to be monarchies -- Sweden, Canada, Malaysia, Kuwait, Belgium, etc -- , does not in the least imply any commonality of policy on copyright between those countries, even those belonging to the Commonwealth.

Countries that happen to be member of the Commonwealth, be they "Commonwealth realms" or Commonwealth republics", are fully sovereign countries and expressions such as "Crown copyright" or "State copyright" are just that: expressions.

While we are at it, why not an article grouping those republics of the Commonwealth that use the expression "National copyright"?

I suspect meaningless and misleading articles such as this one are written by individuals who have an obsession with monarchies, particularly the British monarchy, and "Commonwealth realms". I confess that as a relatively literate older Canadian, I had never read about or head of the expression "Commonwealth realm" until I came across it in the article titled "Commonwealth of Nations" a few months ago... --Lubiesque (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is nonsense and should be deleted[edit]

This article is ridiculous, misleading nonsense. It pretends that "Crown copyright is a form of copyright claim used by a number of Commonwealth realms", but that is hogwash. There is no more linkage/relationship between the copyright laws of Commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand than there is between the copyright laws of Bolivia and Senegal.

Canada, Australia and New Zealand have their own, fully distinct copyrigh laws, including copyright concerning government (Crown) copyright, and while they may possibly use the term "Crown copyright" (incidentally, the term does not appear once in the Copyright Act of Canada) it does not follow that there is a commonality between the copyright systems of the "realms" that may use that term.

It is possible that the UK, Thailand and Norway all use the term "Royal Mail". Are we to deduct that there is a linkage between the mail systems of those three "realms" because they happen to use that term?

This article is just one more example of proliferating useless Wiki articles that make only sense to their author(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubiesque (talkcontribs) 15:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC) --Lubiesque (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Crown copyright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crown copyright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, bib

Is the European Union section relevant in this article?[edit]

Apokrif (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]