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 Lawful Access Two-Headed Surveillance Monster: How Bill C-22 Went Off the Rails 
How Much Further Will Lawful Access Go?: Police Chief Tells Bill C-22 Hearing That Three Years of Metadata Retention Would Be “Ideal” 
Bill C-22’s Groundhog Day: Why the Government’s Dismissal of Signal, Apple and the U.S. Congress Concerns Runs Back the Disastrous Online News Act Playbook 
Slick Videos Won’t Save Lawful Access: Why The Government’s Bill C-22 Defence Avoids the Charter, Privacy and Security Concerns Raised By Critics 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 268: Sara Grimes on the Moral Panic Behind Banning Kids from Social Media and AI Chatbots
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.