Plandemic

[Taunton Blue Genie]

You've had an absolute nightmare here, I'm afraid.

As Heisenberg has already pointed out, the Gov.UK website clearly states that this particular document was first issued in December 2013, updated in April 2015 and further updated (to include Covid-19) in March 2020. What Public Health England haven't done yet is renew the copyright from the 2015 version, although maybe they won't have to - I'm not an expert in copyright, so I can't be sure. If they do have to, it's sure to take a little time under the current circumstances.

The Gov.UK website can be a nightmare for the people who have to upload documents to it or amend any documents that it already holds. How do I know this? Because I'm one of those people. Indeed, two documents that relate directly to my particular area of work have had to have minor amendments twice during the last week alone as a result of the Covid-19 situation - firstly by someone at our HQ who didn't really know what they were doing, and secondly by me correcting their mistakes.

One of the documents concerned was first published in April 2014. It has since been amended in November 2017, December 2017, January 2018, May 2018 (twice), November 2018 and April 2020 (twice). However, the publication date reads: 17 April 2014.

That's the way the website works. The first publication date is quoted. The amendments dates are noted (but not always accurately and sometimes amendment dates are missed), and the latest version of the document is always the one that should be available for download (although that's not always the case either if errors are made).

Some government departments assert copyright for 50 years and by the time that period expires most information is of little or no value. A edited work can trigger a new Copyright date if there have been substantial amendments. Copyright doesn't have to be registered and/or renewed per se and the (C) symbol is not required to protect a work. Just sayin'

[cyril evans awaydays]

If only Morg had listened to Nels......sorry HeathBlues's 5 year rule!

[The Lone Gunman]

Some government departments assert copyright for 50 years and by the time that period expires most information is of little or no value. A edited work can trigger a new Copyright date if there have been substantial amendments. Copyright doesn't have to be registered and/or renewed per se and the (C) symbol is not required to protect a work. Just sayin'

I'd guess the addition of one new disease to a long list wouldn't constitute a substantial amendment.

I was wondering about the copyright rules a few months ago when I noticed one of the documents we issue to shipping companies has a copyright date. The problem is that the date in the small text is some time back in the Eighties (probably 1988), while the regulations have been amended several times since then, as has the content of the document.

To be honest, that's the only document of ours that I can ever recall seeing a copyright on and it makes no material difference as we give copies away free of charge to the shipping companies. My guess is that it was copyrighted with new regulations in 1988 and that has been forgotten about since or ignored when new versions have been proof-read.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

I'd guess the addition of one new disease to a long list wouldn't constitute a substantial amendment.

I was wondering about the copyright rules a few months ago when I noticed one of the documents we issue to shipping companies has a copyright date. The problem is that the date in the small text is some time back in the Eighties (probably 1988), while the regulations have been amended several times since then, as has the content of the document.

To be honest, that's the only document of ours that I can ever recall seeing a copyright on and it makes no material difference as we give copies away free of charge to the shipping companies. My guess is that it was copyrighted with new regulations in 1988 and that has been forgotten about since or ignored when new versions have been proof-read.

A few points in response:
I think that parties could spend a lot of money arguing over whether any amendment of a work constitutes a new copyright date.
The copyright symbol and accompanying dare added to any work constitutes a flag to other parties that reproduction of it (without permission) is not permitted.

A work is covered by copyright merely by being published, whether it is in a publication or even scrawled on a toilet door and whether anyone arbitrarily adds the copyright symbol or not.

Any action by a copyright owner to cease unauthorised reproduction of their work would have be accompanied with some date-related evidence.

Works are covered by copyright whether they are given away free or not.

You can own a work without owning the copyright of it. Sounds sensible if you think of music you have on vinyl or CD, doesn't it?
What about if you send someone a friend a typewritten or hand-written letter? The law interprets the recipient of a letter as the owner of it: sheet of paper,ink and envelope. However, you, as the creator of the content in that letter, own the copyright - and in such case of individuals the copyright lasts 75 years after the creator's demise.

Exceptions to copyright can be made for a number of reasons, however e.g. for review/criticism of work, news reporting and a few other things.

Licensing any work to other parties (even if the Licence is issued is free of charge) does not erode any copyright.

Works, whether they be electronic databases, a phone book or even paper maps can also be classified as databases and 'Database Rights' is another branch of IP Law which may or may not be an additional form of protection for a work. A phone book has little creative content and may not necessarily be covered by copyright but would be covered by Database Rights - as some effort has been made in collecting and presenting the data. A paper map* could be considered both a database and a work covered by copyright (if sufficient intellectual creativity was involved in creating it). Database rights cover the owner of a work for a mere 15 years though.

*I fell into the world of IP after many years of being a pure cartographer: I was assigned the role of protecting my employer's cartographic material and I was involved in a couple of groundbreaking legal cases against copyright infringers based in two different EU states.

[Rjk]

A few points in response:
I think that parties could spend a lot of money arguing over whether any amendment of a work constitutes a new copyright date.
The copyright symbol and accompanying dare added to any work constitutes a flag to other parties that reproduction of it (without permission) is not permitted.

A work is covered by copyright merely by being published, whether it is in a publication or even scrawled on a toilet door and whether anyone arbitrarily adds the copyright symbol or not.

Any action by a copyright owner to cease unauthorised reproduction of their work would have be accompanied with some date-related evidence.

Works are covered by copyright whether they are given away free or not.

You can own a work without owning the copyright of it. Sounds sensible if you think of music you have on vinyl or CD, doesn't it?
What about if you send someone a friend a typewritten or hand-written letter? The law interprets the recipient of a letter as the owner of it: sheet of paper,ink and envelope. However, you, as the creator of the content in that letter, own the copyright - and in such case of individuals the copyright lasts 75 years after the creator's demise.

Exceptions to copyright can be made for a number of reasons, however e.g. for review/criticism of work, news reporting and a few other things.

Licensing any work to other parties (even if the Licence is issued is free of charge) does not erode any copyright.

Works, whether they be electronic databases, a phone book or even paper maps can also be classified as databases and 'Database Rights' is another branch of IP Law which may or may not be an additional form of protection for a work. A phone book has little creative content and may not necessarily be covered by copyright but would be covered by Database Rights - as some effort has been made in collecting and presenting the data. A paper map* could be considered both a database and a work covered by copyright (if sufficient intellectual creativity was involved in creating it). Database rights cover the owner of a work for a mere 15 years though.

*I fell into the world of IP after many years of being a pure cartographer: I was assigned the role of protecting my employer's cartographic material and I was involved in a couple of groundbreaking legal cases against copyright infringers based in two different EU states.

I was just reading about trap streets the other day