Comments on: Freedom of information and copyright http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2008/08/freedom-of-information-and-copyright/ The inside track since 2003 Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:10:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: DaveK http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2008/08/freedom-of-information-and-copyright/comment-page-1/#comment-58262 DaveK Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:59:22 +0000 http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/?p=2459#comment-58262 Copyright? Medieval manuscripts? So the author only died within the past 70 years? Copyright? Medieval manuscripts? So the author only died within the past 70 years?

]]> By: Roger Pearse http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2008/08/freedom-of-information-and-copyright/comment-page-1/#comment-58228 Roger Pearse Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:11:11 +0000 http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/?p=2459#comment-58228 I'm a researcher interested in medieval manuscripts -- handwritten copies of ancient texts that are fundamental to our knowledge of those texts. Most researchers would like to see images of the pages online. Most of these manuscripts are in state-owned collections; few have ever been photographed, and almost none are online. I have found that state-owned collections of these, such as the British Library, routinely use "copyright" as an excuse to forbid images of the pages being placed online. Indeed they have created a little industry, whereby they charge exaggerated prices to snap a page, all under cover of 'copyright'. But surely, if these things belong to the public, they belong to the public?! Can we do something about this abuse of copyright by state bodies to deny access? It's widespread. It's one reason why all sorts of things are online in the US (where such things are unlawful), while nothing much is online here, and even less in the EU. I’m a researcher interested in medieval manuscripts — handwritten copies of ancient texts that are fundamental to our knowledge of those texts. Most researchers would like to see images of the pages online. Most of these manuscripts are in state-owned collections; few have ever been photographed, and almost none are online.

I have found that state-owned collections of these, such as the British Library, routinely use “copyright” as an excuse to forbid images of the pages being placed online. Indeed they have created a little industry, whereby they charge exaggerated prices to snap a page, all under cover of ‘copyright’. But surely, if these things belong to the public, they belong to the public?!

Can we do something about this abuse of copyright by state bodies to deny access? It’s widespread. It’s one reason why all sorts of things are online in the US (where such things are unlawful), while nothing much is online here, and even less in the EU.

]]> By: Gilbert Gosseyn http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2008/08/freedom-of-information-and-copyright/comment-page-1/#comment-58167 Gilbert Gosseyn Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:57:42 +0000 http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/?p=2459#comment-58167 Yet more crap-trap nonsense from the paper-pushing idiots who have forgotten who they're working for and who pays their wages. Copyright! Schmoppyrite. This information should not be subject to copyright. Its our parliament, its our information, its our ink, its our bits of paper: Its our copyright. Publish the information as requested by our people. Yet more crap-trap nonsense from the paper-pushing idiots who have forgotten who they’re working for and who pays their wages.

Copyright! Schmoppyrite. This information should not be subject to copyright. Its our parliament, its our information, its our ink, its our bits of paper: Its our copyright. Publish the information as requested by our people.

]]> By: Dave Bell http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2008/08/freedom-of-information-and-copyright/comment-page-1/#comment-58161 Dave Bell Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:42:11 +0000 http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/?p=2459#comment-58161 My guess is that a lot of people miss the distinction between the copyright, and the licenses copyright holders grant. Arguably, there's a grant of licence to copy implicit in the legislation. This might just be a lawyer getting silly, but I can imagine situations where this sort of automatic republication could be a real problem. And this is hardly a new problem. Haven't these guys ever typed "I want to f??k you" into the wrong telnet window? My guess is that a lot of people miss the distinction between the copyright, and the licenses copyright holders grant.

Arguably, there’s a grant of licence to copy implicit in the legislation.

This might just be a lawyer getting silly, but I can imagine situations where this sort of automatic republication could be a real problem.

And this is hardly a new problem. Haven’t these guys ever typed “I want to f??k you” into the wrong telnet window?

]]> By: secretgeek http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2008/08/freedom-of-information-and-copyright/comment-page-1/#comment-56751 secretgeek Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:54:11 +0000 http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/?p=2459#comment-56751 My feeling is that the issue here is not that they don't want to release the information, but that by sending it to an address that they know will automatically publish the document it is the sender of the information that would be responsible for the breach of copyright and NOT the website or the requester. Would you break the law just to satisfy someone else's demands? I wouldn't. I really don't think the House is helping itself though by not explaining this to Mr Irving. It probably was told this by a lawyer and feels that it's subject to LPP. :-/ My feeling is that the issue here is not that they don’t want to release the information, but that by sending it to an address that they know will automatically publish the document it is the sender of the information that would be responsible for the breach of copyright and NOT the website or the requester.

Would you break the law just to satisfy someone else’s demands? I wouldn’t.

I really don’t think the House is helping itself though by not explaining this to Mr Irving. It probably was told this by a lawyer and feels that it’s subject to LPP. :-/

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2008/08/freedom-of-information-and-copyright/comment-page-1/#comment-56745 Anonymous Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:18:50 +0000 http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/?p=2459#comment-56745 Everyone who has been involved in this decision should be sent to prison, and those that passed it on should be summarily dismissed. There is a clear duty to either fulfil the request or provide reasons for rejecting it. As those lovely folk in Rother found out, you can't shirk off responsibility by simply stalling in the middle ground until the requester goes away. Everyone who has been involved in this decision should be sent to prison, and those that passed it on should be summarily dismissed. There is a clear duty to either fulfil the request or provide reasons for rejecting it. As those lovely folk in Rother found out, you can’t shirk off responsibility by simply stalling in the middle ground until the requester goes away.

]]> By: Parliament, copyright and the FOIA « UK Liberty http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2008/08/freedom-of-information-and-copyright/comment-page-1/#comment-55599 Parliament, copyright and the FOIA « UK Liberty Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:08:17 +0000 http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/?p=2459#comment-55599 [...] of Cabinet Office IT minister Tom Watson (himself an FOI requester when a backbench MP), who comments ‘Oh good grief’. Is it safe to assume that it is the stance of the Commons which is the [...] [...] of Cabinet Office IT minister Tom Watson (himself an FOI requester when a backbench MP), who comments ‘Oh good grief’. Is it safe to assume that it is the stance of the Commons which is the [...]

]]> By: Tom http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2008/08/freedom-of-information-and-copyright/comment-page-1/#comment-55412 Tom Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:04:21 +0000 http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/?p=2459#comment-55412 I'm trying to get my head around this Crown Copyright stuff, though it's not in the brief for the day job. I’m trying to get my head around this Crown Copyright stuff, though it’s not in the brief for the day job.

]]> By: KateM http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2008/08/freedom-of-information-and-copyright/comment-page-1/#comment-55376 KateM Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:00:01 +0000 http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/?p=2459#comment-55376 it's scary to see just how many requests are over due, waiting for some overdue requests from my own council it's worrying that the government isn't being accountable for the simple things let alone anything they may actually fear the public getting their eyes on!! freedom of information? Pfft! The information commission isnt much better, launch a complaint, get an apology...but still don't get the info you requested. After all the posted requests, phonecalls, waiting, meetings and still not getting the requested info you realise it certainly isn't free!!! it’s scary to see just how many requests are over due, waiting for some overdue requests from my own council it’s worrying that the government isn’t being accountable for the simple things let alone anything they may actually fear the public getting their eyes on!!

freedom of information? Pfft! The information commission isnt much better, launch a complaint, get an apology…but still don’t get the info you requested.

After all the posted requests, phonecalls, waiting, meetings and still not getting the requested info you realise it certainly isn’t free!!!

]]> By: Matt Ashby http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2008/08/freedom-of-information-and-copyright/comment-page-1/#comment-55113 Matt Ashby Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:29:08 +0000 http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/?p=2459#comment-55113 Tom, Do you think it would be better if documents which were produced by government were (with a few exceptions to prevent misrepresentation) automatically in the public domain, as is the case with - for example - US federal government documents? Tom,

Do you think it would be better if documents which were produced by government were (with a few exceptions to prevent misrepresentation) automatically in the public domain, as is the case with – for example – US federal government documents?

]]>