Crown Copyright Strikes Again: Documents Revealed Under Freedom Of Information Act Can Infringe On Copyright?

from the crown-copyright dept

Fri, Jul 23rd 2010 6:26pm — Mike Masnick

Frankly, the concept of "Crown Copyright" has never made much sense at all. We've discussed it here a few times in the past, but it's the concept that some countries have for government documents being covered by copyright. Thankfully, this is one area where the US actually leads the way: it has no such thing. Documents produced by the federal government in the US are automatically considered public domain (state government documents aren't always public domain, but that's another discussion for another time). But in many other countries that's not true, and those documents are covered by "crown copyright." This makes little sense no matter how you think about it. If the purpose of copyright is to give incentives to create the content, it seems obvious that a government should not need copyright.

Instead, it seems to show how some now view copyright: as a tool to restrict information, rather than as an incentive to create information. For example, Glyn Moody points us to a rather depressing discussion of how information obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request in the UK might not be publishable because of copyright. Yes, you read that right. Even though the laws are there to free up government information, once that information is distributed to the requestor, it can be locked back up via copyright. So it's not really a "freedom of information" situation at all. It's just a "here's some information you can't share with anyone else."

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: crown copyright, freedom of information, uk

16 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Spyder (profile), 23 Jul 2010 @ 6:45pm

If that is the game they want to play, simply post the request in whatever form it needs to be in, post a summery of the content, and tell people the full text is available by sending in the form. 100,000+ requests later they will decide that just posting whatever it is works a lot better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hugh Mann (profile), 24 Jul 2010 @ 9:07am
  
  Re:
  Yes. I would note that, as much as I disagree with the concept of "crown copyright", its presentation here is somewhat overstated.
  
  It's not a restriction on the sharing of information. As you have suggested, you can still report to others the contents of the document you have obtained, and even show the document to others to let them read it for themselves. Certainly discussion of the document is not prohibited by this concept. Copyright doesn't protect ideas or "information". It protects particular expressions of ideas and information.
  
  Again, though, I agree that the concept of "crown copyright" doesn't really make sense, and it is a good thing that the US has rejected the concept.
  
  HM
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2010 @ 6:49pm

Just a cautionary note lest people be mislead into thinking that the USG can never hold a copyright. Ignoring the very few exceptions (e.g., USPS), or when a copyright is transferred to the USG by assignment, bequest or devise, the reason "US Government Works" are deemed to be in the public domain is because the Copyright Act says so. In other words, if Congress were to amend the act and remove this section there would be no impediment under the act for the USG to claim a copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fentex, 23 Jul 2010 @ 7:39pm

If the purpose of copyright is to give incentives to create the content

You should not be so ready to conflate U.S Constitutional provisions for copyright with other nations laws.

The U.S Constitution may make it clear the purpose of copyright in the U.S is to encourage the creation of useful arts, but as Crown Copyright does not exist in the U.S, neither does the U.S Constitution speak for other jurisdictions ambitions for copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2010 @ 9:43pm
  
  Re:
  way to climb mt. obvious
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2010 @ 9:33pm

In the U.K. copyright was never about encouraging anything.

It was always about control and money, which they never hide from anybody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 23 Jul 2010 @ 10:20pm

I really miss the trolls ...
L-CAC where are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2010 @ 9:55am
  
  Re: I really miss the trolls ...
  The trolls migrated to a warmer climate since the snow started here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 24 Jul 2010 @ 12:49am

As the article says the UK Central Government is about to release documents under a Creative Commons license so the fears of fees seem to be allayed, at least a bit.

In Canada the Crown Copyright lays with the Federal, Provincial and Territorial governments and the Queen's Printer in each jurisdiction.

AFAIK, no one has ever been hauled into court for redistributing all or part of an FOI request result in Canada, quoting from one or commenting directly on the content.

My understanding is that the Crown Copyright has historically been only for preservation, or at least that's been the excuse. I'm certainly not claiming that it hasn't been abused or never will be but if we follow the UK pattern it reduces the chances.

That said, copyright and patents are supposed to serve the same basic purposes they're supposed to serve in the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2010 @ 9:15am

Where have you been? Freedom? Just another word!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- martyburns (profile), 26 Jul 2010 @ 2:33am
  
  Re:
  ..for nothing left to lose?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2010 @ 9:40am

information you can't share with anyone else
I don't support crown copyright but a right to freedom of information is an individual right. Everyone has the right to request and receive the information even if they can't share it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Revelati, 24 Jul 2010 @ 12:36pm

So you just FOIA documents, take a few simple precautions, and post them anonymously. You see the documents, the public sees the documents, and the government gets angry but cant enforce its own law because it can't prove that you did anything.

Many people have been posting, uploading, and bit-torrenting things that are technically illegal for decades. Just wait untill some old crotchety MP (who thinks the internet is run on squirrel cages greased with unicorn tears) uses this copyright crap as an excuse to cover up some questionable fund allocations. The information will be revealed anyway, this ridiculous "crown copyright" will get pushed into the public spotlight, and anyone in government dumb enough to try and defend it will get slapped into next week by the Streisand effect.

If some government wants to make itself look incompetant by having these unenforceable laws on the books, then I feel like its our fault for paying them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PT (profile), 24 Jul 2010 @ 2:21pm

And it never expires
Some years ago I was researching my British ancestors at the Mormon Church database in Salt Lake City. I found the records quickly enough, on microfilm, but was not allowed to print copies because they were "Crown Copyright" and apparently still protected, though the original documents were well over a century old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CasterElvis, 25 Jul 2010 @ 8:41am

Origins
To me, it really comes down to whether or not you think a supposedly ORIGINAL idea really needs protection.

It would be truly nice if all of those original ideas were shared instead of monopolized by the individuals who created them.

But i guess thats just the basis of open-source... so i must be arguing for a penguin...

lol.... *
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2010 @ 12:14am

No, no, no!
The CORRECT way to deal with this is to maintain a website with an email system for exclusive use by that website. Submitting your name automatically files a FIA form for everything on record and everything to come. All forms are put in email/pdf/whatever format to your email for that site. Since it is exclusively for that site, you really only need to store one copy of each.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]