Decision of the Office of Public Sector Information July 2010
On the 5th July 2010 the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI), part of the National Archives (TNA) a report on its investigation of a complaint: Van Haren Publishing and the Office of Government Commerce (The parties)
The PSI Regulations 2005 set out a complaint procedure, which contains a number of key dates. The following dates provide an indication of how well the process has operated with respect to this complaint.
Dates provided by Van Haren Publishing (VHP)
4 November 2007: Issues raised in a meeting with OPSI and OGC 16 January 2008: Further meeting with OPSI regarding continuing issues 4 April 2008: VHP submit formal complaint sent to OPSI 26 June 2008: Mediation between VHP and OGC chaired by OPSI 21 November 2008: Following many delays OGC signs mediation agreement 3 February 2009: VHP formally tell OPSI that VHP believes OGC are in breach of the Mediation and that VHP wish to progress a formal complaint 18 June 2009: 2nd Mediation between VHP and OGC chaired by OPSI - no resolution 10 July 2009: VHPs submit second formal complaint 5 July 2010: OPSI publish report on The National Archives website
Total elapsed time Complaint 2
360 calendar days (based on 11 July 2009 to 5 July 2010)
Dates extracted from the OPSI Report
August 2009 – Van Haren Publishing lodged formal complaint with OPSI
July 2010 – OPSI published report
Total elapsed time taken on Complaint process
303+ calendar days (The OPSI report does not provide actual dates only months – time based on 1 September 2009 to 30 June 2010)
The report states that the parties opted to enter the OPSI facilitated mediation service prior to lodging the formal complaint.
Based on the dates provide by Van Haren Publishing the mediation process spanned 19 months.
In this case the private company Van Haren Publishing has raised the complaint under:
- The UK Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005 Statutory instrument 1515 (The UK transposition of the Re-use of PSI Directive) (Reference page 3 of report)
The complaints made by Van Haren Publishing and considered by OPSI relate to (Reference page 9 of report):
- The ability of the official publisher to use trade marks, design rights and its official status to its advantage
- Anti-competitive behaviour on the part of the official publisher.
- Overly complex licensing arrangements.
- A widely defined “Official Portfolio” which does not make a clear distinction between core material and non-core material.
- The official publisher having access to core material at an earlier stage than third parties and thereby having an advantage in the production of derivative materials
- The official publisher’s ability to retain copyright in some of the material that it produces would affect the PSB’s ability to re-tender the official publishing contract on a fair basis.
“30. Having carefully considered the documentation supplied to us, and, having met both parties, OPSI, part of The National Archives, partially upholds the complaint. The PSB should further align the basis on which third parties and its official publishing contractor can re-use PRINCE2 core publications.” (Reference page 9 of report)
The OPSI report makes five recommendations (Reference pages 16 & 17)
OPSI State that the recommendations should be acted upon within six months of publication of this report. (By January 2011)
Reactions to UK PSI Complaint Investigation
--
Office of Government Commerce (OGC)
OGC is aware that there has been concern expressed within the market concerning the publication of an OPSI report. Individuals have made their comments based on their interpretation of the OPSI report. Some of these interpretations demonstrate limited understanding of how UK Government rules around re-use of public sector information works. The attached Frequently Asked Questions (PDF, 166KB) are intended to provide clarification on the OPSI ruling from OGC’s perspective. “
OGC FAQ re OPSI complaint report ()
Case last updated: 21 December 2010
- 145 reads
