UK Gov't Frees Up Gov't Works Under 'Open' License
from the good-to-see dept
While about the only good change to copyright law we've seen in the past century or so was the US's decision to make all federally created documents go straight into the public domain, rather than be covered by copyright, many other governments have not been nearly so enlightened. It's common -- especially in countries formerly in the British empire -- to have the concept of "crown copyright," covering government documents. Of course, this makes very little sense, since the purpose of copyright is supposed to be to offer incentives for the creation of the content, and most of the content governments produce will have other, external, incentives.So it's nice to see (via Glyn Moody) that the UK government has taken a big step forward in declaring that government information should be released under an "open" license. In this case, it's set up the UK Open Government Licence (OGL), which isn't quite the same as the public domain, but it does seem pretty open. They're pretty clear when it comes to government data:
It is UK Government policy to support the re-use of its information by making it available for re-use under simple licensing terms. As part of this policy most public sector information should be made available for re-use at the marginal cost of production. In effect, this means at zero cost for the re-user, especially where the information is published online. This maximises the social and economic value of the information. The Open Government Licence should be the default licence adopted where information is made available for re-use free of charge.It's nice to see them recognize that free and open data maximizes both social and economic value for the information. That's been shown over and over again -- particularly when it comes to government data (pdf) that freeing it up leads to greater economic value across the board. Hopefully other governments will start to move away from economically devaluing positions, such as by focusing on concepts like "crown copyright."
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: copyright, crown copyright, open license, public domain, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
One of the major problems is that it covers stuff first published by a government not just government documents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's only explicitly so of the U.S due to language in the U.S Constitution and is not neccesarily true of other jurisdictions.
In the case of once British Empire nations you'll have to go look at the copyright legislation itself to see if any purpose is mentioned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
US copyright law is descended from UK law. The wording in the US constitution reflects political and legal arguments that were current in the UK at the time. Therefore it is fair to say that UK is based on the same principles as US law (in fact historically the sequence is the other way around).
This is pretty much clear from the content of this site.
The same would not however apply to continental europe.
Crown copyright is a historical hangover from before the 1709 statute of Anne (at one time it was the ONLY copyright) and should really have been abolished at that time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your snowflake will be registered on the database of dissenters from lobbyist doctrine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't follow that logic, it would seem to imply that no U.S law differs from British when clearly much does.
Especially those elements in the U.S Constitution which explicitly (unlike much of Britsh implicit constitution) express a rationale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's only explicitly so of the U.S due to language in the U.S Constitution and is not neccesarily true of other jurisdictions.
In the case of once British Empire nations you'll have to go look at the copyright legislation itself to see if any purpose is mentioned."
Read the full title of the Statute of Anne, which is widely regarded as the start of modern copyright:
"An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies, During the Times therein mentioned, 1710, 8 Anne, c.19"
That is a British statute and you don't have to read past the title to see the premise of 'encouragement of learning'. It was mainly France that pushed the alternative premise of author's rights. I don't think anyone else really took them seriously until the Berne Convention. To say that the economic premise originated from the US Constitution is wrong and shows a lack of care for anything that happened outside the US, even when it is the basis for US history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UK Gov't Frees Up Gov't Works Under 'Open' License
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has same limitations as the Freedom of Information Acts
"All unpublished information which is not accessible under the Freedom of Information Acts or the Environmental Information Regulations, such as personal data or confidential information, will be exempt from the UKGLF and the Open Government Licence"
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/uk-government-licensing-framework.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just a bit of joined up government please
Of course in order to tell anyone (Bank etc), they need sight of the Death Certificate, and the law requires they can prove they have seen the death certificate by.......taking a copy!
Wonder if all these Banks realise that by complying with the law they are breaking the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: just a bit of joined up government please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"for re-use under simple licensing terms"
The US-UK relation merely confuses matters. England is almost unfathomable to Americans because it *looks* and sounds so much alike. But in fact, the majority of British inhabitants are still serfs who don't have even a written Bill of RIghts. They must ask hereditary tyrants for permission to form a gov't. That gov't serves only at pleasure of the tyrant, and when it gets out of line, can be dispersed with a word. -- That such power is rarely exercised seems to confuse most observers. Nonetheless, it's true power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "for re-use under simple licensing terms"
As for asking to form a government the reality is that those wishing to form the government must demonstrate they have the support of the majority in the House of Commons or can get it. The monarch doesn't enter into that one little bit.
You do, I take it, understand that that the monarch can't have so much as a dime if the Commons says it can't. As in, it's the Commons that controls the purse strings.
And yes, the monarch can dissolve Parliament but only to follow that with an election.
As for a Bill of Rights in England that's taken care of by a body of law going back to Runnymede and beyond which as removed most direct powers of the monarch.
It's far more likely that a republic will fall into actual tyranny, if history is guide at all, than the English constitutional monarchy will.
Idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "for re-use under simple licensing terms"
And I suppose you know that large areas of England are held directly by "royalty"; I forget the figure, but something like a third of the island. Besides that, they own a large portion of the economy through City of London. I assure you that "the monarch" has income beyond what "the Commons" allows. -- Being immersed in it, you completely miss the significance that giving *a* dime to a monarch is total surrender. No one deserves income merely by heredity.
As you've *always* been under a tyranny; don't see your point there. Unfortunately, you seem to love your tyrants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "for re-use under simple licensing terms"
However the last one who tried to exercise that power had his head chopped off...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other countries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]