The Public Domain blog takes issue with a recent off-hand comment from Bloc MP Thierry St-Cyr, who suggested that there is no copyright in comments made during Question Period debate. The reality is the opposite – the government asserts crown copyright in the House of Commons official record, Hansard.
Bloc MP St-Cyr and Crown Copyright
2 Comments
Recent Posts
The Age Verification Bill That Won’t Die: How Bill S-209 Complicates the Government’s Bill C-34 Online Safety Plan 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 280: A Fall Update on Where Things Stand on Canadian Digital Policy Reforms 
The Wrong Ban: The Heritage Committee Backed a Targeted Ad Ban for Kids and Stopped Short of a Social Media Ban, Yet the Government Chose the Reverse 
Regulator First, Rules Later: Bill C-34 Debate Shows the Government Wants a Digital Safety Commission Before It Figures Out What It Will Do 
Making the Case Against Its Own Bill: What the Government’s Bill C-34 Charter Statement Reveals About the Constitutional Vulnerability of the Social Media Ban
Actual crown copyright, yes, but
looking at the excerpt from Hansard in the article it appears to me that there is little to no impact to the average citizen… It appears that the crown claims effective copyright (in as much as they restrict what can be done with it) only for “for-profit” uses or for reproductions which claim to be official. What does this mean? It means that you can’t print copies, or sell online, copies of Hansard. There may be a couple others, but…
but what?
Why should there be copyright in such crown works at all?
Many other countries make do without similar provisions. In fact, liberalizing the use, even commercial use, of government produced works, unleashes private-sector activity; witness the multiple third-party publications of the Warren Commission and 9/11 reports in the US.
And, on the flipside, over restrictive government copyright impedes cultural activity and industry; just try clearing rights to crown documents in the UK or Canada.