Talk:Crown copyright

message: 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)
replies: text: It's called amending the law. David Newton 20:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case the relevant amending Act(s) should be cited as well. Hairy Dude 19:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish Parliament 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Canada copyright in judicial decisions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Off-topic/misunderstandings/conspiracy theories 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Former commonwealth countries 

message: Cleaned up commentary, and eliminated essay style, which was copied from another source. Exceptions to the general rule have been converted to a tabular format.Raellerby (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada update

message: I excised this sentence: <BR>Websites are reproducible unless otherwise indicated, but  Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) has stated in correspondence that they do not consider material under Crown Copyright redistributable under such licenses as the GFDL. 
I excised it for two reasons: 1 - it seems to contradict what is stated here as regards public records (CAVEAT - I could be completely wrong in my interpretation, I'm no lawyer) and 2 - it makes reference to "correspondence" which is uncited. 
By all means fix and reinstate. Manning (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Crown copyright and GDFL 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I can't believe it! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article is nonsense and should be deleted 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Crown copyright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/conf/dac/en/vaver/vaver.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070714152723/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/crown-copyright/future-management-of-crown-copyright.pdf to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/crown-copyright/future-management-of-crown-copyright.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220215142/http://www.laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-7.html to http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-7.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141018025440/http://www.justice.gov.nu.ca:80/apps/authoring/dspPage.aspx?page=STATUTES+AND+REGULATIONS+PAGE to http://www.justice.gov.nu.ca/apps/authoring/dspPage.aspx?page=STATUTES+AND+REGULATIONS+PAGE
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Apokrif (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the European Union section relevant in this article?