Talk:Crown copyright
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
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)
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Canadian copyright & military insignia
Given that IANAL, does anyone here have a notion how Crown copyright in Canada would apply to displays of such insignia as rank/trade/branch/unit badges here on Wikipedia? Thanks. ¥ Jacky Tar 17:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Crown Copyright over the KJ Bible
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)
