Wikipedia

Talk:Crown copyright/Archive 1

< Talk:Crown copyright
Latest comment: 4 months ago by SMcCandlish in topic Two books
Archive 1

Comment

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)

Beyond Canada?

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Resolved

What about other countries other than Canada? Enochlau 11:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article is now broader.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic/misunderstandings/conspiracy theories

Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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)

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)

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)

More to the point, the US doesn't recognize a copyright claim as valid on any work that old. The US will actually accept copyright claims asserted by monarchs as long as the claims otherwise comply with what is copyrightable under US law; whether the claimant is a monarch or a 6th-grade schoolchild or a nonprofit/NGO or a comedian or a corporation or a gigolo or a professor is really irrelevant. However, the King James Bible is not actually a copyright matter at all; it is protected by a completely different legal regime, that of royal prerogative, which pre-dates the existence of copyright law. Particular editions produced in the UK under that royal prerogative in modern times by particular printers, with particular typefaces and other layout decisions, may independently be copyrightable works, but only as to the novel aspects of their particular publications, not the underlying text, which is too old for any form of copyright anywhere. I.e., if you just run off copies of the current Oxford University Press edition of the KJB, you're probably a copyright infringer even under US law; but if you produce your own unique printing using a text-rip of the KJB's content, that's not a copyright problem anywhere. And it isn't any kind of other problem anywhere except in the UK and any other British Crown jurisdiction that still recognizes that royal prerogative. That might include Australia, NZ, Canada, and various other places, though this would need to be researched, as various of these jurisidictions have exercised constitutional-republic principles and sovereignty rights against British dominion more and more over time, e.g. in rejecting or changing the British heraldry system they interited from the UK, and in various other matters tied to royal-prerogative notions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Former commonwealth countries

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

As in all legal matters, it will vary by jurisdiction. There's no "magically binding forever" principle that would mandatorily follow a nation-state that had been a Commonwealth member at one point but was not today. But various former Commonwealth jurisdictions have often retained (and often still do retain) British laws by default unless and until they are explicitly replaced or voided, so just making assumptions would be unwise. Particular countries' relationships to the British crown also vary widely; just being "in the Commonwealth" doesn't make them all legally equivalent for every matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't believe it!

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – There is no such problem exant in the article any longer.

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)

Marking this resolved, since nothing in the article today is confusing UK/Commonwealth crown copyright with copyrights asserted byh other monarchies (though some kind of disambiguation page might be wise, since someone could be looking for information on the general notion, beyond the British-crown-tied specific sense covered here. This is an article on [this form of] crown copyright in partiuclar, not on general notions of state/national copyright, so it would not be appropriate to WP:COATRACK those into this article. Finally, whether the respondent above likes or uses the term "Commonwealth realm" or not is irrelevant; we have an entire article on it, it is well sourced, and it covers the notion of "Commonwealth of Nations member states" that is intended at this article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

This article is nonsense and should be deleted

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – None of the problems alleged below are extant in the current version of the article

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 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC) --Lubiesque (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Marking this also resolved. In future, if you have a generalized complain to make, please make it once, not twice in a row. If you have really specific complaints to make, they might be better as separate topics for discrete resolution. But basically venting that the article is junk and you hate it in two separate threads is a waste of everyone's time.

Here, the article does not contain the phrase "copyright claim". The article does not confuse the laws of one Commonwealth country with another, and is clear that they are distinct, including with regard to this particular notion or power of the British monarch. "There is no more linkage/relationshiop between the copyright laws of ... Canada, Australia and New Zealand than there is between [those] of Bolivia and Senegal" is actually completely wrong, since those of the former three all descend from and retain elements of British law on the subject. But there is no extant problem in the article to resolve about this. No "commonality" is implied, and the article's lead is quite clear that the legal systems differ in their approach to this. Finally, your "Royal Mail" bit is a false analogy, since in the three jurisdictions of your example, they refer to different monarchs and even different systems of royality, while the subject of this article is royal prerogative of a single monarch that various jurisdictions afford some (but differing) level obeissance to.

Anyway, whatever issues this page had in 2013, they are no longer pertinent in 2024.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Two books

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by John of Dunstable (talk • contribs) 16:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wikipedia does not provide legal or other advice. It seems likely that the copyright in question pertains to the text and the layout of the book in general, as a work, not to individual Victorian-era photographs. However, I have encountered gov.uk websites asserting crown copyright claims over various records/documents that cannot possibly be subject to crown or any other form of copyright due to their age. So, it's entirely possible that the ministry responsible for the work in question intends you to understand they are claiming a copyright over everything including the photos, whether or not it is actually something they would be able to enforce, even within the UK. These days, many of the sorts of images you have in mind probably already exist at Commons:.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crown_copyright/Archive_1&oldid=1228146277"