NO2ID

I've done a 'compacted' version of Schedule 1 (an eyebrow-raiser in its own right) which fits on one side of A4 when printed 2-up but I'm a little wary of what issues might arise from handing this to people, specifically in relation to crown copyright.

Am I right in thinking that as long as the quoted text is correct (fonts and layout barely changed) and crown copyright is acknowledged, this should be OK as an information handout? (i.e. separate and not part of a larger handout) This certainly *seems* to be the case but I'd rather not take any chances...

Any advice/suggestions etc...

I *think* you're right, but I'm not a copyright / trademarks specialist and it's a complicated area. I'll see if I can find anyone who knows...

Much appreciated

It all *looks* very simple...

The OPSI crown copyright statement is *very* short, but I'd rather not just *assume*...

I think the fact that it's a complete and unedited (as in textual content) copy helps somewhat, i.e. there's no misleading or intent to mislead, and the source URL is printed just above "crown copyright acknowledged" at the end.

Edit : now that I've re-read http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/crown-cop ... lation.htm which seems to be the one that applies, I'm thinking that proceeding with this might fall foul of 12(d) 'promoting particular personal interests or views', and I'd have to change the acknowledgement in any case as under 13(a)...
But then we get to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/crown-cop ... tracts.htm and the situation potentially changes yet again!

"Promoting" particular personal interests or views is not the same as expressing opinions or seeking to persuade.

If the crown wants to stop people who criticise legislation from quoting it (accurately), then it might have to shut down every law faculty and lobbyist in the country. Yours is not the sort of infringement it is worrying about.

Any progress on this one? A single-sided Schedule 1 could be v. handy - especially should I ever bump into Siobhan McDonagh on the airwaves or in the flesh again...

P

Email on its way with details - even if it turns out that it can't just be given out to the general public, a convenient reference format for members/campaigners would of course be useful. So presumably it would count as 'educational reference material', and be exempt from taxes, qualify for all sorts of grants etc etc

Thanks, DW

It can be given out to the general public. As long as we don't quote passages in a misleading way, there is absolutely nothing the government could do, without throwing the whole of public discussion of the law into confusion.

Infringement of Crown Copyright is legally the same as infringement of private copyright. It is just term and circumstances of creation that are defined differently in statute.

However, the policy of enforcement is different. In effect there is a non-exclusive, royalty-free license in statutory material which is open to all on very simple terms (accurate attribution and acknowledgement of copyright). Denying a campaigning group the right to quote material accurately and publicise what the law is would be a huge step for government, much bigger than anything they've done to frustrate FOI. If the law is a state secret, or can only be quoted by state-approved entities in a state-approved context, then the whole rule of law is endangered.

I had a feeling this was *probably* the case...

Which is just as well since I now have a compacted version of the Act itself which fits on 20 pages rather than the original 40-odd, which is even legible when printed 2-up (and duplexed => 5 pages folded for A5 booklet) which is a bit more 'pocket friendly' for those of us who like to carry stuff to give to people if they are fool enough to ask