Government agencies use public money to create web content and then prevent people from using it. Wouldn’t it make sense to put content created by public dollars in the public domain?
I find this on Local and Central government websites. Here’s an example from Tenancy Services:
Except where stated otherwise, this website and the information on it is protected by Crown copyright.
You may reproduce information on this site for personal or non-commercial use without formal permission or charge as long as you clearly indicate that the website of Tenancy Services is the source of the information, any disclaimers applying to the information are reproduced, and that the material is not sold or used in an inappropriate or misleading context having regard to the nature of the material.
Tenancy Services holds copyright or licence rights to all images and trademarks on this website, including the Tenancy Services logo. Images and trademarks on this site must not be used or reproduced for any purpose, including personal or educational use, unless the written permission of Tenancy Services has been obtained.
Because they don’t want people making fake versions of government sites. If someone accidentally thinks the fake site is real it can cause serious harm.
First thing I thought of as well
Isn’t that covered by other laws, though? “Impersonating the government” or the like? I feel like a warning about breaking that law would carry as much weight as a copyright notice.
I can’t think of what law would be broken by impersonating a government website (rather than a person). Maybe there is one, but if you released the content of government websites in the public domain then it would be much harder to prove you were impersonating and not just using your right to the website in the public domain.
Plus, it would be a lot easier to get a host to take down the website if you can follow an established DCMA type process instead of some law from NZ that the host isn’t really equipped to interpret.
Doesn’t it make sense that the government prevents others from using logos? You don’t want them being used by anyone in misleading ways.
Then it states you can use the information for whatever so long as you aren’t selling it.
I dunno, seems reasonable to me? What is it that concerns you about it?
Logos are usually trademarked, not copyrighted.
As for your point about “so long as you’re not selling it”, I feel like there must be a better mechanism than copyright… Government information should be owned by the population itself, and should have its own laws, separate from copyright, but I don’t know if any such examples.
Government information should be owned by the population itself
I don’t think we have a precedent for that with anything else govt owns as an entity though (buildings, revenue, rights, royalties).
The govt owns these things as an entity for the benefit of the population. And in this case they say the entire population can freely use the info as long as they say what it is. So that seems like full benefit to me.
The OP posted usage terms that included trademarks hence why I mentioned it.
In terms of special rules for government, I don’t think it’s necessary. Current rules for trademarks, copyright, and patents should cover IP. But what the government maybe should do it write a specific licence governing the use of government work.
NZ already has official information laws that require most government information to be provided on request, but the government still holds the copyright as like others have said you don’t want people copying your government sites looking official.
