copyright

[martin_sole]

That is an entirely different scenario - equivalent to my downloading a war diary from the National Archives and then claiming the file I downloaded is my copyright and selling copies on the internet (get your cut price war diaries here!

Transcription involves effort and creates a new work - to which the transcriber has copyright. However, the transcriber only has copyright to their transcription, not the original or the file they downloaded or anyone else's transcription. In essence they do not own the words but they could sue someone who publishes a copy of their transcription without permission. At least one FHS I know of introduces false data into their parish register transcripts in order to mark them as their copyrighted work.

War diaries are classified as 'Public Records' which means they come under the terms of the Open Government License. TNA give straightforward guidance on what you can do:

'You are free to transcribe, translate, index and quote from published or unpublished Crown copyright material among the records as extensively as you wish and you may publish the results in any format and any medium: in accordance with the terms of the Open Government Licence.'

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/use-of-tna-materials.pdf

The terms of the License are pretty lax - http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/

Please note that this does not apply to everything - check that the record is marked as a Public Record in the TNA catalogue! And don't go away thinking you can type out the next J K Rowling blockbuster and sell it as a cut price e-book - she does own the words!

Effort or not, a transcription does NOT create a new work. if it did, then with enough effort, you'd be able to transcribe every diary at Kew and sell them as you wished, after which you could indeed transcribe the text of Harry Potter and make it a new work. You seem to understand that both are Verboten so your take on what copyright is (or isn't) is contradictory.

Don't mistake a public record with being in the public domain. All Crown Copyright documents are public records but they are not in the public domain. You've spotted that their use falls under the open governent license, which means you are licensed to use the material. That's very different from having copyright on it.

[martin_sole]

I have many transcriptions of documents from TNA on one of my websites, including all 4,000 pages of a single war diary. As required I give the TNA reference at the top of each page - as far as it goes, as each reference covers approximately 1,000 pages.

Over time many people have used those pages for their own books and the vast majority have given in their footnotes both the TNA reference and also credited me/my website as the source of their information.

There are one or two who have used my website and quoted extensively from my transcription of the diary but while crediting TNA and giving the reference, have failed to mention how and where they accessed the information. There's nothing to be done about it as if challenged they simply say 'I accessed the original at TNA.' And jolly clever of them to find, among 4,000 handwritten pages, some very obscure little bit of information which fits the point they're trying to make.

So yes, I have some copyright over the content of my website, but nothing I can do if they choose to use my transcriptions of TNA documents. Except file the incident away to use against them at some time in the future

Sue

It's polite for those people to credit you, but they certainly don't have to. The material you have both used doesn't belong to you, even if it was you who found it buried away in the archives. it still belongs to the National Archives.

[Sue Light]

It's polite for those people to credit you, but they certainly don't have to. The material you have both used doesn't belong to you, even if it was you who found it buried away in the archives. it still belongs to the National Archives.

Which is exactly what I said in my final sentence.

I have some copyright over the content of my website, but nothing I can do if they choose to use my transcriptions of TNA documents.

I may be old, female and fond of knitting, but I'm not totally stupid.

Sue

[SiegeGunner]

Martin G has declared his interest as the owner of a company that transcribes archive records, and I think it would be useful to be told the basis of Martin S's interest and apparent expertise in this field.

As a professional military history translator, I regularly have to spend many hours deciphering and transcribing GW-era German archive documents (from poor quality manuscript originals/copies) into coherent text in modern typescript before commencing my translation. Unless the handwriting is extremely clear (and a physically distinct image does not necessarily mean that the text is readily legible), it's much quicker and 'easier' to transcribe and translate than to attempt to translate straight from the manuscript original (you can't take in whole sentences and paragraphs at a glance and you keep losing your place on the page, plus, of course, the problem of deciphering innumerable words that are unclear). Apart from being enormously time-consuming, this kind of transcription requires knowledge, skills, expertise and experience that very few people possess (and that not many of that small number of people would willingly undertake on a regular basis). There is no doubt that I own the copyright in my translations, and I believe that my transcriptions are likewise 'new works' and that I own the copyright in them. In many cases the transcription takes considerably more time and effort than the eventual translation.

Mick

[Guest]

1. The flow chart is useful for working out whether you need copyright clearance for works other than CC material. it pertains to the idea of copyright in general, and if you take another look at the OP's initial post, which asked about "diaries" rather than regimental war diaries, it may or may not have been useful to him. it's not supposed to be the "GOTCHA" you seem to think it is.

2. A transcription is a copy, although not all copies are transcriptions. Neither will assign copyright to the transcriber/copier.

3. Yes, a transcription has its own copyright, but it's still the Crown's. You previously wrote that "transcriptions" become the copyright of the transcriber". That's flat out, 100% wrong

4. Not if it violates copyright of an existing work. Don't take my word for it though, go ahead and take your own photos of a few Cecil Beaton or Don McCullen prints - try and sell them on Amazon with the claim that you have copyright on them. Come back and show us the solicitor's letters you'll get.

5. I'm not confusing the two at all. You seem to be, though

6. Who did you speak to who gave you the advice that you have copyright over your transcriptions? Please do PM me their name and company and I'll speak to them myself.

I'd be happy to reccommend a corporate (my words) lawyer for you to have a chat (my words) with..

Martin

I disagree with just about everything you have written.

Many years ago I set out to transcribe war diaries and put them on a website. I met with TNA's head of commercial and head of licensing to discuss the rules, regulations and the copyright laws relating to Crown Copyright materials. Subsequently I had two more meetings to discuss the finer details and have a great deal of correspondence. This included me sending TNA a Brigade's worth of transcribed material so that their tech development people could have a look at it. TNA told me that the transcriptions are my copyright and I could transcribe and sell access to diaries as long as I acknowledged the source. We discussed the matter in very fine detail. They also told me that if I used an image of a diary on my website I would need to pay a fee. I have an image of one page of an original diary from TNA that fades in and out of the transcription as an example of what the website content does. The company owns copyright of one and not the other. The aims are simply to make the diaries more accessible, easier to read and most importantly to make them searchable documents.

TNA was extremely helpful over many months of developing the project and was crystal clear on who owned copyright of the transcriptions: Me, or technically speaking the Company. At risk of labouring the point, the reasons the copyright of the transcriptions are owned by the company is because they are unique creations that involve thousands of hours of labour, and unique decisions on how to transcribe certain aspects. Anyone who has done large scale transcription work will know immediately what I am talking about. They are not copies. The company could not for example use a photocopy or a photo of the same diary. The act of transcribing makes them a creation of the transcriber. As an example a diary might say '34 Brig' but my company will always transcribe it as 34th INF BDE. There are about a dozen ways one could transcribe this name of this unit. Because we choose to transcribe every unit in a standardised way (to optimise the search capture), it means that there are tens of thousands of transcribed words that are slightly different from the original. Because of this, and a thousand other reasons such as correcting place names, surnames, etc this becomes a unique document, and, importantly, the creation of the transcriber with the associated copy-right, despite the fact that the original material was crown copyright. Note this does not apply to non Crown-copyright material. To put it more bluntly, the Crown can not claim copyright over the words 34th INF BDE in the transcription simply because the didn't exist in the original in that form. The Rifles' Museum transcription of the 5th Bn WIltshire Regt war diary is slightly different from mine. The copyright of the two transcriptions is not owned by the Crown.

In the first year of the project I had a productive MoU with TNA to explore ways of working together. They have used some my transcriptions as part of a larger meta-tagging project. To date the company has transcribed every front line unit war diary for 1914 (roughly 2 million words) as well as the Gallipoli diaries (another million words) and is well into 1915 diaries. All on the website which people can access for a very small fee. TNA is fully aware of the project. My views on copyright are based on advice from lawyers, including advice from TNA. For obvious reasons I need to know exactly what the law is, and I believe I have been given the right advice.

I doubt we will ever agree, so lets agree to disagree. MG

[martin_sole]

Martin G has declared his interest as the owner of a company that transcribes archive records, and I think it would be useful to be told the basis of Martin S's interest and apparent expertise in this field.

As a professional military history translator, I regularly have to spend many hours deciphering and transcribing GW-era German archive documents (from poor quality manuscript originals/copies) into coherent text in modern typescript before commencing my translation. Unless the handwriting is extremely clear (and a physically distinct image does not necessarily mean that the text is readily legible), it's much quicker and 'easier' to transcribe and translate than to attempt to translate straight from the manuscript original (you can't take in whole sentences and paragraphs at a glance and you keep losing your place on the page, plus, of course, the problem of deciphering innumerable words that are unclear). Apart from being enormously time-consuming, this kind of transcription requires knowledge, skills, expertise and experience that very few people possess (and that not many of that small number of people would willingly undertake on a regular basis). There is no doubt that I own the copyright in my translations, and I believe that my transcriptions are likewise 'new works' and that I own the copyright in them. In many cases the transcription takes considerably more time and effort than the eventual translation.

Mick

Mick, the only thing to consider is what the law says, not the credentials of people arguing otherwise. Martin G may well own a transcription service, but he is dead wrong with some of his ideas on what constitutes copyright.

It's all here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/use-of-tna-materials.pdf

It's true that there have been some amendments to thia Act last year, but they are only to do with extending the limit of Fair Dealing - so you can now legally copy and use certain copyright works where before you couldn't (or at least you weren't supposed to). Relaxing a work's terms of use does not change the nature of who has copyright on it.

If you are dealing with documents whose origins are German, then that falls outside of UK law and Germany's ideas of copyright may well be different. However just because you have spent a lot of time and translated something, doesn't automatically assign you copyright on those works. Translation is a defined as a "derivative work" and although there is a case for translators to have copyright on their translations, it is usually pre-agreed with the copyright holder of the original work.

Copyright is essentially ownership. I don't get to own your memoirs simply because I've copied them, even if your writing was awful, deciphering it took me ages and the whole thing required a lot of expertise on my part. Ownership of your memoirs is yours, not mine.

[SiegeGunner]

As I said, please state how you come to be an authority on this subject.

[martin_sole]

Martin

I disagree with just about everything you have written.

Many years ago I set out to transcribe war diaries and put them on a website. I met with TNA's head of legal and head of licensing to discuss the rules, regulations and the copyright laws relating to Crown Copyright materials. Subsequently I had two more meetings to discuss the finer details and have a great deal of correspondence. This included me sending TNA a Brigade's worth of transcribed material so that their tech development people could have a look at it. TNA's told me that the transcriptions are my copyright and I could transcribe and sell diaries as long as I acknowledged the source. We discussed the matter in very fine detail. They also told me that if I used an image of a diary on my website I would need to pay a fee. I have an image of one page of an original diary from TNA that fades in and out of the transcription as an example of what the website content does. The company owns copyright of one and not the other. The aims are simply to make the diaries more accessible, easier to read and most importantly to make them searchable documents.

TNA was extremely helpful over many months of developing the project and was crystal clear on who owned copyright of the transcriptions: Me. I have an MoU with TNA and they have used some my transcriptions as part of a larger meta-tagging project. To date I have transcribed every front line unit war diary for 1914 (roughly 2 million words) as well as the Gallipoli diaries (another million words) and am well into 1915 diaries. All on my website which people can access for a very small fee. TNA is fully aware of the project. My views on copyright are based on advice from lawyers, including advice from TNA. For obvious reasons I need to know exactly what the law is, and I believe I have been given the right advice.

I doubt we will ever agree, so lets agree to disagree.

We do disagree.

Yes you can transcribe NA material.

Yes you can sell access to your transcriptions via your website.

Your license to do so is automatic.

You do not, however, own copyright of CC material you have transcribed. However crystal clear you believe it to be. everything you have written on the subject of copyright is contrary to what the NA website says:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/re-using-public-sector-information/copyright-and-re-use/copyright-guidance/

what the law on Crown Copyright says:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/crown-copyright/crown-copyright-in-the-information-age.pdf

and what Judy Nokes, the Information Policy Advisor at the NA has told me today.

In her words:

"If you are making a direct copy of text contained in a War Diary, the copyright of your transcription is the same as the copyright of the original - the National Archive's"

You can speak to Judy on 0208 876 3444 if you choose to. One of you has got it very wrong - but I don't think it's Judy.

I'm still waiting for your PM on who provided you with the legal advice that has formed your views on copyright.

[martin_sole]

As I said, please state how you come to be an authority on this subject.

I'm not attempting an "Argument from Authority" and neither should you. It's a logical fallacy.

If you, or Martin or anyone else wants to put forward the idea that, whatever the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act says, copying an existing work creates a new copyright, than you need to prove it.

EDIT: A cursory look at Germany's copyright law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Germany

suggests that under German law, a document's copyright lies with its author just as it does here:

It does, however appear to protect translations (Übersetzungen) and other adaptations (andere Bearbeitungen), as well as other types of elaborations such as dramatizations, orchestrations, and new versions of works with their own copyrights.

[Guest]

I had a rather interesting conversation with the Information and Copyright Adviser at TNA.

According to the nice lady, if a transcriber makes a facsimile copy "as is", TNA would claim copyright because the the transcriber has not added any value and it would simply be seen as a copy. However, if a transcriber has enhanced the content in any way such as making corrections, adding information etc they would regards its as "re-use of information" and the copyright would be with the creator of that work. We discussed this at length (31 minutes according to my iPhone). The tipping point is when the transcription deviates from the original or value is added in other ways.

One way this can be done is to put a diary quote into a book, which adds contextural information and analysis - which I assume might explain Gareth's question an may help the OP. We discussed this too.

We discussed the one critical difference between the originals and transcribed documents: the fact that the latter is searchable. In her opinion, the fact that a diary becomes a searchable document creates "a substantial change from the original". I asked a very specific question: If a transcriber made a perfect facsimile transcription of a diary, but it could be searched what would TNA's position be? i.e there was no added value in the transctription (errors left uncorrected etc). Her view was that the act of making it a searchable document and making it available to the public was a material change from the original and "copyright would be yours" because although the transcription is the same value has been added in other ways. We also discussed the fact that act of transcribing makes documents easier to read and might also be regarded as added value.

To be fair, it is a grey area and we also discussed this aspect too. To be clear: The extent to which a transcription diverges from the original is difficult to measure and would be a subjective debate in a courtroom.

Having done a reasonable amount of transcribing, I can safely say that over a substantial amount of transcription work it is nearly impossible to make a facsimile copy. My company does not set out to create facsimiles, and few transcribers do - there are a number of unit diaries online where the transcribers have added some form of value. When I compare my Wiltshire Regt diaries to the Museum's versions, they are different simply because we took different approaches We also differ in dozens of examples of single words where their transcribers saw something different to my transcribers. Mine are searchable, theirs are not. My aim is to enhance the end-user' experience and de-clutter the military jargon and abbreviations. Consequently they are all materially different, from the originals although the meaning of the narrative is the same. To quote the nice lady at TNA, 'in this case it is very clear....copyright is yours ..... without a doubt'.

I hope this helps clarify the situation. MG

Note: The source of the dairies and Crown Copyright of the original material has to be acknowledged in all the examples above.

[John_Hartley]

Martins

I seems to this lay person that you both appear to be right and the matter hinges on whether there has been "enhancement" - whether that be standardisation of spellings, the text being seachable or whatever.

[Gareth Davies]

I had a rather interesting conversation with the Information and Copyright Adviser at TNA.

According to the nice lady, if a transcriber makes a facsimile copy "as is", TNA would claim copyright because the the transcriber has not added any value and it would simply be seen as a copy. However, if a transcriber has enhanced the content in any way such as making corrections, adding information etc they would regards its as "re-use of information" and the copyright would be with the creator of that work. We discussed this at length (31 minutes according to my iPhone). The tipping point is when the transcription deviates from the original or value is added in other ways.

One way this can be done is to put a diary quote into a book, which adds contextural information and analysis - which I assume might explain Gareth's question an may help the OP. We discussed this too.

We discussed the one critical difference between the originals and transcribed documents: the fact that the latter is searchable. In her opinion, the fact that a diary becomes a searchable document creates "a substantial change from the original". I asked a very specific question: If a transcriber made a perfect facsimile transcription of a diary, but it could be searched what would TNA's position be? i.e there was no added value in the transctription (errors left uncorrected etc). Her view was that the act of making it a searchable document and making it available to the public was a material change from the original and "copyright would be yours" because although the transcription is the same value has been added in other ways. We also discussed the fact that act of transcribing makes documents easier to read and might also be regarded as added value.

To be fair, it is a grey area and we also discussed this aspect too. To be clear: The extent to which a transcription diverges from the original is difficult to measure and would be a subjective debate in a courtroom.

Having done a reasonable amount of transcribing, I can safely say that over a substantial amount of transcription work it is nearly impossible to make a facsimile copy. My company does not set out to create facsimiles, and few transcribers do - there are a number of unit diaries online where the transcribers have added some form of value. When I compare my Wiltshire Regt diaries to the Museum's versions, they are different simply because we took different approaches We also differ in dozens of examples of single words where their transcribers saw something different to my transcribers. Mine are searchable, theirs are not. My aim is to enhance the end-user' experience and de-clutter the military jargon and abbreviations. Consequently they are all materially different, from the originals although the meaning of the narrative is the same. To quote the nice lady at TNA, 'in this case it is very clear....copyright is yours ..... without a doubt'.

I hope this helps clarify the situation. MG

Note: The source of the dairies and Crown Copyright of the original material has to be acknowledged in all the examples above.

At the risk of repeating myself, that's extremely clear and helpful, and in my case very timely. Thank you.

[Guest]

Martins

I seems to this lay person that you both appear to be right and the matter hinges on whether there has been "enhancement" - whether that be standardisation of spellings, the text being seachable or whatever.

Or simply transcribing it which occasionally makes the nearly illegible, legible. .....Have a go at the page below;

There are some diaries and a lot more Crown Copyright material that one can only access by travelling to TNA. One might reasonably argue that by transcribing it and putting it online, even in facsilie form, makes it accessible to a substantial number of people. This enhancement is probably one of the strongest arguments.

[martin_sole]

Martin, you appear to only hear what you want to hear. I'm going to overlook the fact that a 30 min chat with the NA has provided you with information that is contrary to your "months of discussion" and legal advice because at last you seem to concede that making a transcription, in itself, does not assign copyright to the transcriber. Your advice to the OP was therefore wrong. Took some time but we got there in the end.

I also suspect that you've cherrypicked the details of the rest of your chat to suit your agenda:

We discussed the one critical difference between the originals and transcribed documents: the fact that the latter is searchable. In her opinion, the fact that a diary becomes a searchable document creates "a substantial change from the original". I asked a very specific question: If a transcriber made a perfect facsimile transcription of a diary, but it could be searched what would TNA's position be? i.e there was no added value in the transctription (errors left uncorrected etc). Her view was that the act of making it a searchable document and making it available to the public was a material change from the original and "copyright would be yours" because although the transcription is the same value has been added in other ways. We also discussed the fact that act of transcribing makes documents easier to read and might also be regarded as added value.

Simply making a document searchable does not change it in any way - substantial or otherwise. Adding metadata to an electronic document, thereby making it searchable, linkable and relevant to all manner of other online material could well be considered to be a material change. Is that what you've done?

Nor does the concept of "adding value" have any bearing on copyright law. That's just baloney and I think you know it - hence your "grey area" addendum. It may well have an effect on how much the NA wants to co-operate with you on your project, but the law is still the law and unless you can point me to a specific clause or cite a case which supports your claim, the law remains as written and as interpreted by pretty much everyone except you.

[martin_sole]

Martins

I seems to this lay person that you both appear to be right and the matter hinges on whether there has been "enhancement" - whether that be standardisation of spellings, the text being seachable or whatever.

No, it doesn't hinge on "enhancement". It hinges on whether or not you own a work that you have copied - not used as a source, but straight-out copied verbatim.

The special pleading that Martin G has now put forward is not to be found anywhere in the Act, or the Amendments to the Act or in any of the documentation explaining the Do's and Don'ts of copyright law. At least not anywhere that I've seen.

The NA is very accommodating on how you can use its material, so the whole issue is much of a muchness in practical terms. Start applying these same muddled ideas to the work of a litigious copyright owner and it would be a very different matter.

[martin_sole]

Or simply transcribing it which occasionally makes the nearly illegible, legible. .....Have a go at the page below:

So even thought you've put "Crown Copyright", you've just ignored the NA's specific requirements to not use actual images of War Diaries.

I think I'll leave you to it...

[Guest]

Martin, you appear to only hear what you want to hear. I'm going to overlook the fact that a 30 min chat with the NA has provided you with information that is contrary to your "months of discussion" and legal advice because at last you seem to concede that making a transcription, in itself, does not assign copyright to the transcriber. Your advice to the OP was therefore wrong. Took some time but we got there in the end.

I also suspect that you've cherrypicked the details of the rest of your chat to suit your agenda:

Simply making a document searchable does not change it in any way - substantial or otherwise. Adding metadata to an electronic document, thereby making it searchable, linkable and relevant to all manner of other online material could well be considered to be a material change. Is that what you've done?

Nor does the concept of "adding value" have any bearing on copyright law. That's just baloney and I think you know it - hence your "grey area" addendum. It may well have an effect on how much the NA wants to co-operate with you on your project, but the law is still the law and unless you can point me to a specific clause or cite a case which supports your claim, the law remains as written and as interpreted by pretty much everyone except you.

Martin

I have made all the points I need to make. If TNA tells me I have copyright over my transcriptions, I tend to take that as good enough authority for my purposes. I don't really have much interest in debating with someone who essentially is accusing me of being selective in reporting what I was told. I am simply telling others what my experience has been, what advice I was given and what TNA have told me. Don't believe it. Frankly, I don't care whether you agree or disagree. Others will make their own choices. I will leave you to it. MG

[Guest]

So even thought you've put "Crown Copyright", you've just ignored the NA's specific requirements to not use actual images of War Diaries.

I think I'll leave you to it...

Er no. I have in writing permission to use this image. It was part of the original agreement made some years ago. I have permission to use a number of images. Similarly I have given TNA permission to use some of my transcriptions for which they were particularly grateful.

[Sue Light]

So even thought you've put "Crown Copyright", you've just ignored the NA's specific requirements to not use actual images of War Diaries.

I think I'll leave you to it...

I think that Martin has pointed out in a previous post that he has paid an image fee to the National Archives which gives permission to use images on the web as long as the source is credited - it's currently £40 for permission to use images from up to twenty separate documents at any one time.

[John_Hartley]

No, it doesn't hinge on "enhancement".

Oh, OK, I'm wrong then. Think I'll leave y'all to carry on without me. Bit too much going round in circles going on for me.

I'll just carry on quoting war diaries in my books and on my website and wait for someone to sue.

[martin_sole]

Martin

I have made all the points I need to make. If TNA tells me I have copyright over my transcriptions, I tend to take that as good enough authority for my purposes. I don't really have much interest in debating with someone who essentially is accusing me of being selective in reporting what I was told. I am simply telling others what my experience has been, what advice I was given and what TNA have told me. Don't believe it. Frankly, I don't care whether you agree or disagree. Others will make their own choices. I will leave you to it. MG

But they haven't told you that you have copyright over your transcriptions - in fact they've told you the exact opposite. Re-read the first bit of your post about the nice lady.

They've suggested (or more likely you have inferred) that amending or electronically adding information to a diary MIGHT be seen as creating a new work and therefore MIGHT have its own copyright. That "might" is what you're now clinging to and it certainly has no bearing on the bogus advice you gave the OP.

I have massive doubts that any court would consider simply making an existing document "searchable" as constituting a new work , but if that's what you want to think, that's up to you.

[keithmroberts]

dare I suggest that this thread has reached a natural end. I suspect that interested members have learned quite a great deal, and the points of contention show also that little is simple.

Keith Roberts

[Gareth Davies]

You may well be right Keith but this mere mortal is still unsure of what the rules are. Both Martins make compelling arguments (it would be perhaps easier if one of them changed their name to, say, Peter) and both argue from a position of some knowledge, knowledge that I don't have yet would love to get. Is there a way of parking the thread until a third party with similar levels of knowledge can come and help unpick what the two Martins (or is it now Martin and Peter) are saying?

[keithmroberts]

Gareth

The GWF can never be the source for definitive legal advice.

Members can read the debate above and form their own conclusions. Where Crown Copyright is concerned I am sure that the advice on the National Archives website has been vetted by their lawyers. They can be contacted with specific queries.

If we had say a QC's opinion on the differences that have been aired above, it would only be valid until some future decision in a higher court redefined the interpretation.

I really can't see a way in which without everyone quoting statute law, then cross referencing to such as the NA guidance we will settle the finer points here. We have two knowledgeable members, who I rather think, actually agree on most issues, but who have a couple of irreconcilable differences in their opinions and the advice that they have received. They are unlikely to resolve those points here, and that is no disrespect to either.

If one of those areas affects your plans, then you surely refer to the sources. For Crown Copyright, contact the NA. For private copyright, there is government guidance published via https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/intellectual-property-office

Keith

EDIT

I can "lock" a thread, but how would I or any other MOD know when to re-open it? I'm reluctant to lock it, and have followed the discussion with some interest although I have no publication plans. I just feel that is is not going to move much further now.

[Gareth Davies]

Ack.