London: October 2006

The Autumn 2006 edition (ISSN 1750-6883) of The Network of government and information specialists (NGLIS) Network Journal carried an article titled:

Crown copyright: guardian of authenticity or fetter on information access?

Written by Neil Waterhouse. The article appears on pages 13 to 18.

The introduction to the article states:

“The issue of Crown copyright and the re-use of public sector information has recently come under the spotlight in the mainstream press with a number of groups, organisations and individuals arguing that it is not only morally unfair but also economically damaging. The criticism has grown as more information is made available online and more people and bodies wish to access and re-use it.

Since 1996, the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI - formerly Her Majesty’s Stationery Office) has been responsible for administering Crown copyright. It defines what is covered by Crown copyright as follows:

“Copyright material which is produced by employees of the Crown in the course of their duties. Therefore, most material originated by ministers and civil servants is protected by Crown copyright.

Crown copyright therefore covers a huge range, variety and volume of information.”and concludes

“Conclusions

The current position of OPSI and the government is clear. There is a need to provide wider access to citizens and provide information to third parties whilst at the same time providing a revenue stream that can be exploited to ensure that access to the average citizen can be provided. If OPSI did not exploit its rights in this way, there would inevitably be an increased cost to the tax payer in order to provide better access, or access would possibly be reduced as funds would not be made available to disseminate the information. There is also a need for some quality control. The current status quo means government information is re-used in an authoritative way. A complete relaxation of Crown copyright could mean public information being used incorrectly or contrary to the public good.

This, however, is not the end of the debate and, rather like the campaign to establish a UK Freedom of Information regime, those who are religiously opposed to the principle of Crown copyright will continue to push for abolition. The OFT study may well add ammunition for those who want a freer regime but whatever its outcome it does appear that the arguments will continue well into the future.”