Dear Sir or Madam,

Will you confirm or deny that it is an offence for the Land
Registry to use the words Crown Copyright 1984 on a forged OS map
which does not correspond with the published 1984 Crown Copyrighted
OS map.

Yours faithfully,

fred robinson

Dear Mr Robinson

Thank you for your message.

Although individual government departments and agencies are the creators and publishers of Crown copyright material, responsibility for Crown copyright rests with the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office as part of the wider responsibilities of The National Archives in connection with government policy on information management.

In common with any other statement of copyright ownership, the use of the words 'Crown copyright' together with the year of publication are no more than an assertion of ownership of copyright by the Crown. That assertion would be open to challenge before the court if there were litigation: if challenged it would be for the Crown to produce evidence of ownership to the satisfaction of the court. As a result, if it were shown that a work to which the statement was affixed was not in fact Crown copyright the Crown would not have committed any offence unless, in a criminal trial, the prosecution were able to satisfy the court that the claim had been made dishonestly, with the intention of permanently depriving the rightful owner of his or her property.

Crown copyright applies to a work produced by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties. If the map in question was produced by such an officer or servant it is Crown copyright, irrespective of whether it differs from the published Ordnance Survey map. Its accuracy is a different question on which we are unable to comment.

Tim Padfield

show quoted sections

National Archives Disclaimer

This email message (and attachments) may contain information that is confidential to The National Archives. If you are not the intended recipient you cannot use, distribute or copy the message or attachments. In such a case, please notify the sender by return email immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business of The National Archives are neither given nor endorsed by it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear copyright,

When the words 'crown copyright dated xxxx' are applied to an
'official document' relating to a specific event on a specific date
(say an Act of Parliament) and someone significantly altered that
documents date (for any purpose) and presented it to the world as a
'crown copyright' document dated yyyy. Is that alteration per se,
an offence as it challenges the crowns assertion of the specific
copyright date, or can anybody alter 'crown copyright' dates for
any purpose they see fit.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Mr Robinson

Thank you for your message.

The format of the copyright statement on a published work is specified in the Universal Copyright Convention of 1952 (revised in 1971). It was required because the minimum duration of copyright under the Convention was 25 years from the date of publication of the work. There is no country in the world now which is a member of the UCC that is not also bound by the Berne Convention. The Berne Convention requires no copyright statement since duration is primarily based on the life of the author not the date of publication.

As you know, Crown copyright is a creature of the copyright regimes of the UK and some other Commonwealth countries. Duration of Crown copyright is primarily based on the date of publication. As a result, the UCC assertion is useful, since it gives information about the date of publication and thus assists the user to determine the duration of copyright. Thus the re-publication of a copyright work should be accompanied by a copyright statement that repeats the year of publication of the original rather than one that gives the re-publication date. It must be borne in mind though that if the new publication is of an amended text there is likely to be a new copyright. That being the case, the date of publication of the amended text is the date of first publication and so the copyright statement should give the later date.

As I said in my earlier message, the copyright statement is merely an assertion, which would have to be proved if challenged in court. The year of publication would be subject to proof just as much as the assertion of ownership.

The Controller would certainly not authorise the use of a copyright statement that gave false information about the year of first publication. If she were called upon to investigate an allegation that the year was given falsely, however, she would need to bear in mind the possibility that the work in question was a revised version of an earlier work, in which case, as outlined above, the later date would be correct. In the absence of a court judgment on the issue, any decision on whether a revised version was a new work or not could only be a matter of opinion; in that case the Controller would probably accept the conclusion of the originating department. In the example that you give, such false information would be obvious to see, since the year of first publication of an Act of Parliament is clearly the year in which it received Royal Assent.

Tim Padfield

show quoted sections

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about...
-------------------------------------------------------------------

show quoted sections

Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Archives Disclaimer

This email message (and attachments) may contain information that is confidential to The National Archives. If you are not the intended recipient you cannot use, distribute or copy the message or attachments. In such a case, please notify the sender by return email immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business of The National Archives are neither given nor endorsed by it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear copyright,

You appear to be saying that all crown copyright expires on forged
public documents after a certain time after it is forged, is this
true.

Clearly other works with private authors are not subject to 'crown
copyright' but just to 'copyright'.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Mr Robinson

If a work were forged by a civil servant in the course of his duties it would be Crown copyright. Crown copyright would expire 50 years after publication. If the work were not published before it was 75 years old Crown copyright would expire 125 years after creation.

If the work were forged by a private individual, or by a civil servant as a private activity, copyright would expire 70 years after the death of that person.

These periods apply to works created after the coming into force of the present statute; other periods might apply to older works.

Tim Padfield

show quoted sections

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about...
-------------------------------------------------------------------

show quoted sections

Dear copyright,

Can you clarify that a crown copyright document becomes a forgery,
not from the date that that it was originally copyrighted, but from
the date it becomes a forgery, as you appear to be saying that a
document, forged by a civil servant becomes ("would be") a crown
copyright document from the time it is forged by a civil servant,
thus overriding the true date of copyright.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Mr Robinson

The existence or otherwise of copyright has nothing to do with whether or not a work is a forgery. A work becomes Crown copyright as soon as it is created by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties. As I indicated in my last message, a forgery which is created not by creating a completely new work but by amending an existing one is still likely to be a new copyright work. That being the case then, yes, the copyright in the forged version will start at a later date than the copyright in the original version. Whether or not the forged version does qualify for copyright in its own right depends on its 'originality': the nature of the new material, and how much of the forged version is new and how much merely copied.

Tim Padfield

show quoted sections

National Archives Disclaimer

This email message (and attachments) may contain information that is confidential to The National Archives. If you are not the intended recipient you cannot use, distribute or copy the message or attachments. In such a case, please notify the sender by return email immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business of The National Archives are neither given nor endorsed by it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear copyright,

From what you say above it appears:

That the erasure of features from one crown copyright document of
one date and their replacement with other features from other crown
copyright documents of different dates, done by a civil servant
during the course of their duty to deliberately and knowingly
produce a third "new" and forged document that has partial
comparison to both of the original dated crown copyright documents
from which it is forged: may creates a new copyrighted legal
document, and

when that civil servant puts on a government computer that forged
document with a "new" crown copyright date on it and provided it to
a member of the the public as a genuine article on which they could
rely.

That is acceptable, so long as the components of the forgery do not
impinge on the "originality" of the source material, and on that
basis, that forged document may qualify for a "copyright" of its
own if no "new" material has been added to the forged document and
consequently, the "new" copyright date may be legal despite being a
forgery which has no basis in reality.

In simple terms, are you saying that if a person forged the face of
a five pound note onto the reverse of a ten pound note this would
not constitute forgery as both sides of the forged note would still
contain their "originality" and still be legal tender?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Mr Robinson

As I said at the beginning I cannot comment on the detailed forgery aspects of your enquiry. I am merely giving advice on copyright. Yes, it is possible for a forged document to be protected by copyright. I have not said and cannot say whether any particular work is or is not a forgery.

Tim Padfield

show quoted sections

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about...
-------------------------------------------------------------------

show quoted sections

Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Archives Disclaimer

This email message (and attachments) may contain information that is confidential to The National Archives. If you are not the intended recipient you cannot use, distribute or copy the message or attachments. In such a case, please notify the sender by return email immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business of The National Archives are neither given nor endorsed by it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear copyright,

With regard to your contention of the "possibility" of a document
that is forged by a civil servant in the course of their duties,
and which is clearly composed from other authentic crown copyright
documents, becoming a "new" crown copyright document showing
"identifiers" from those other authentic crown copyright documents.

Who will verify the "new" crown copyright and,

will the "new" copyright document override and replace the the
previously authentic documents it was forged from as its contents
and the date of creation will contradict the authentic versions as
to matters of fact.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Mr Robinson
I am sorry, but I cannot continue to answer questions on the status of forgeries. The court would decide whether a work was protected by copyright. Copyright has nothing to do with authenticity.
Tim Padfield

show quoted sections

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about...
-------------------------------------------------------------------

show quoted sections

Dear copyright,

For the absence of doubt, are you confirming it would be of no
concern to the National Archive that its documentation was forged
and that it would require a member of the public to have the matter
judged by a court, you do not mention which court would deal with
such a matter, will you please do so.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Mr Robinson
I am saying nothing of the sort. I am not commenting on forgery; I am advising on copyright. In England and Wales, copyright cases are heard in the Chancery Division of the High Court.
I regret that I shall not be able to respond to further enquiries on this subject. If you need legal advice on forgery you might like to consult a solicitor.
Tim Padfield

show quoted sections

National Archives Disclaimer

This email message (and attachments) may contain information that is confidential to The National Archives. If you are not the intended recipient you cannot use, distribute or copy the message or attachments. In such a case, please notify the sender by return email immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business of The National Archives are neither given nor endorsed by it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear copyright,

You already have commented on forgery by "civil servants" who in
the course of their duty committed forgery by bringing into
existence forged crown copyright documents that it may have been
"possible to copyright" with a "new" copyright date.

You now give a further comment, which I trust is accurate, as to
this matter being resolved in the high court.

Would the high court be resolving the matter of the authenticity of
forged maps copyrighted with a fallacious date with a view to
re-copyright them, or

with a view to initiate criminal proceedings against the civil
servant who forged the documents in the first instance, and

who's responsibility would it be to initiate the resolution of such
allegations, especially

in the light that this "possible forgery" had been reported to
yourselves, therefore is it for yourselves, a member of the public
or perhaps the Police to investigate and consider legal action.

Surely it is for you to take legal advice to clarify this before
advising me to do so as, i presume the Archive has access to such
specialist advice from more experienced people than the CAB or many
lawyers.

Neither do I see any scope within the Legal Aid system (which I, as
a recipient of benefit, would have to use to obtain the advice you
refer to) to clarify that I, as a member of the public could use to
pursue the question of whether or not a document forged by a civil
servant in the course of their duties was actionable by myself in
the high court, or to determine the validity of it with a view to
having it re-copyrighted.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Mr Robinson
I am sorry that I cannot be of more assistance to you. I have not advised on forgery, nor on whether any particular document has been forged. I have merely advised that it is possible for a forged document to attract copyright and the consequences of that in copyright law. I have not advised either on the court that would consider a case of forgery; again I have limited what I said to copyright. You have given no information about any specific alleged forgery so there is nothing on which this Office needs to, or indeed could, obtain legal advice.
Tim Padfield

show quoted sections

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about...
-------------------------------------------------------------------

show quoted sections

Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Archives Disclaimer

This email message (and attachments) may contain information that is confidential to The National Archives. If you are not the intended recipient you cannot use, distribute or copy the message or attachments. In such a case, please notify the sender by return email immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business of The National Archives are neither given nor endorsed by it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear copyright,

You say that a forged document can be crown copyrighted.

I say the Land Registry have forged maps and amended the words
"Crown Copyright 1984" onto a forged map consisting of maps dated
and copyrighted 1969 and 1978 or 1984 or 1985 or 1989.

I ask, is this an offence.

You say it is a matter for the court to decide.

Courts act on complaints from the authority who's rules have been
offended against, i.e. yourselves. why should a member of the
public have to seek legal advice about the matter to find out if an
offence has been committed against yourselves when a member of the
public has not been offended against.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Mr Robinson
This Office has the authority to pursue an infringement of Crown copyright, nothing else. Crown copyright has not been infringed. The pursuit of someone or a body for forgery is a different issue over which we have no authority. If you are unwilling to take the action yourself that you think necessary, perhaps you should be looking to some other authority such as the police.
Tim Padfield

show quoted sections

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about...
-------------------------------------------------------------------

show quoted sections

Dear copyright,

This matter, with support evidence, has been reported to the Police
and several government Ministers, the Lord Chancellor and the Prime
Minister and reported and filed at Liverpool county court.

To be clear are you confirming forged documents that are prepared
by a civil servant are not crown copyright and, that a criminal
offence has been committed by the civil servant who forged it as it
is an infringement of crown copyright and, as a forgery it falls
under section 1 of the Counterfeiting and Forgery Act 1981, which
Act provides that:

"A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with
the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to
accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not
to do some act to his own or any other persons prejudice."

I believe if this is the case, the matter needs to be reported by
yourselves to the DPP.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Mr Robinson

I am afraid that, as before, you are seeking to put words into my mouth. I have already said explicitly that if a forged document were prepared by a civil servant in the course of his duties it would be Crown copyright. There mere creation of a Crown copyright work, even a forged one, does not infringe Crown copyright. The copyright status of the work and its genuineness are entirely different issues. I am not saying and have not said anything about whether any particular work is or is not a forgery, nor am I saying whether or not any criminal offence has been committed. It is not for me to make any statements about forgery nor to make any references to anyone about forgery, and even if it were I should not be in a position to do so merely on the basis of your unsupported allegations about documents of which I know nothing.

I regret that I shall not be answering any more of your messages because I think that I have answered all those that I am competent to answer.

Tim Padfield

show quoted sections

National Archives Disclaimer

This email message (and attachments) may contain information that is confidential to The National Archives. If you are not the intended recipient you cannot use, distribute or copy the message or attachments. In such a case, please notify the sender by return email immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business of The National Archives are neither given nor endorsed by it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear copyright,

The question is, has an offence been committed by the forgery of
the document.

The undisputed fact is that the document has been forged and it was
you who mentioned the police.

Its not my documentation that has been forged.

Clearly if a forged document is to be regarded as genuine, it would
have to be capable of standing up to legal scrutiny if it were to
be relied on in law.

The acid test is can a forged document stand such scrutiny and
justify its authenticity as a crown copyrighted document, if not, I
presume it would be the concern of yourselves and the DPP.

The fact that a member of the public is effected in any way by the
forgery is immaterial to the offence as, no member of the public
intended the offence to occur, and no member of the public has the
ability to forge crown copyright documents and not commit an
offence punishable by law.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear TIM PADFIELD

WITH REGARD TO THE DUTIES OF CIVIL SERVANTS PLEASE REFER TO THE
FOLLOWING:

Annex 1 - Civil Service Values

1. The Civil Service is an integral and key part of the government
of the United Kingdom1. It supports the Government of the day in
developing and implementing its policies, and in delivering public
services. Civil servants are accountable to Ministers, who in turn
are accountable to Parliament2.

2. As a civil servant, you are appointed on merit on the basis of
fair and open competition and are expected to carry out your role
with dedication and a commitment to the Civil Service and its core
values: integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. In this
Code:

• ‘integrity’ is putting the obligations of public service above
your own personal interests;

• ‘honesty’ is being truthful and open;

• ‘objectivity’ is basing your advice and decisions on rigorous
analysis of the evidence; and

• ‘impartiality’ is acting solely according to the merits of the
case and serving equally well Governments of different political
persuasions.

3. These core values support good government and ensure the
achievement of the highest possible standards in all that the Civil
Service does. This in turn helps the Civil Service to gain and
retain the respect of Ministers, Parliament, the public and its
customers.

4. This Code3 sets out the standards of behaviour expected of you
and all other civil servants. These are based on the core values.
Individual departments may also have their own separate mission and
values statements based on the core values, including the standards
of behaviour expected of you when you deal with your colleagues.

Standards of behaviour

Integrity

5. You must:

• fulfil your duties and obligations responsibly;

• always act in a way that is professional4 and that deserves and
retains the confidence of all those with whom you have dealings;

• make sure public money and other resources are used properly and
efficiently;

• deal with the public and their affairs fairly, efficiently,
promptly, effectively and sensitively, to the best of your ability;

• handle information as openly as possible within the legal
framework; and

• comply with the law and uphold the administration of justice.

6. You must not:

• misuse your official position, for example by using information
acquired in the course of your official duties to further your
private interests or those of others;

• accept gifts or hospitality or receive other benefits from anyone
which might reasonably be seen to compromise your personal
judgement or integrity; or

• disclose official information without authority. This duty
continues to apply after you leave the Civil Service.

Honesty

7. You must:

• set out the facts and relevant issues truthfully, and correct any
errors as soon as possible; and

• use resources only for the authorised public purposes for which
they are provided.

8. You must not:

• deceive or knowingly mislead Ministers, Parliament or others; or

• be influenced by improper pressures from others or the prospect
of personal gain.

Objectivity

9. You must:

• provide information and advice, including advice to Ministers, on
the basis of the evidence, and accurately present the options and
facts;

• take decisions on the merits of the case; and

• take due account of expert and professional advice.

10. You must not:

• ignore inconvenient facts or relevant considerations when
providing advice or making decisions; or

• frustrate the implementation of policies once decisions are taken
by declining to take, or abstaining from, action which flows from
those decisions.

Impartiality

11. You must:

• carry out your responsibilities in a way that is fair, just and
equitable and reflects the Civil Service commitment to equality and
diversity.

12. You must not:

• act in a way that unjustifiably favours or discriminates against
particular individuals or interests.

Political Impartiality

13. You must:

• serve the Government, whatever its political persuasion, to the
best of your ability in a way which maintains political
impartiality and is in line with the requirements of this Code, no
matter what your own political beliefs are;

• act in a way which deserves and retains the confidence of
Ministers, while at the same time ensuring that you will be able to
establish the same relationship with those whom you may be required
to serve in some future Government; and

• comply with any restrictions that have been laid down on your
political activities.

14. You must not:

• act in a way that is determined by party political
considerations, or use official resources for party political
purposes; or

• allow your personal political views to determine any advice you
give or your actions.

Rights and responsibilities

15. Your department or agency has a duty to make you aware of this
Code and its values. If you believe that you are being required to
act in a way which conflicts with this Code, your department or
agency must consider your concern, and make sure that you are not
penalised for raising it.

16. If you have a concern, you should start by talking to your line
manager or someone else in your line management chain. If for any
reason you would find this difficult, you should raise the matter
with your department’s nominated officers who have been appointed
to advise staff on the Code.

17. If you become aware of actions by others which you believe
conflict with this Code you should report this to your line manager
or someone else in your line management chain; alternatively you
may wish to seek advice from your nominated officer. You should
report evidence of criminal or unlawful activity to the police or
other appropriate authorities.

18. If you have raised a matter covered in paragraphs 15 to 17, in
accordance with the relevant procedures5, and do not receive what
you consider to be a reasonable response, you may report the matter
to the Civil Service Commissioners6. The Commissioners will also
consider taking a complaint direct. Their address is:

3rd Floor, 35 Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BQ. Tel: 020 7276
2613 email: xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx

If the matter cannot be resolved using the procedures set out
above, and you feel you cannot carry out the instructions you have
been given, you will have to resign from the Civil Service.

19. This Code is part of the contractual relationship between you
and your employer. It sets out the high standards of behaviour
expected of you which follow from your position in public and
national life as a civil servant. You can take pride in living up
to these values.

June 2006

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson