On a day when Standard Chartered
shares are falling,
discord between the coalition parties increases and the UK's Olympic successes become set to
break records, this little bit of (slightly old)
news caught this Kat's eye while getting her daily dose of current affairs. Guidance published earlier last month by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) seeks to explain why the existence of IP rights does not restrict the disclosure of a public authority's own information and third party information protected by IP rights under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA): it 'sets out the Commissioner's approach to intellectual property rights and explains to public authorities that intellectual property rights do not restrict disclosures under FOIA'. As most readers will be aware, the ICO is an independent public body that upholds information rights 'in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals' in the UK, dealing with (among other things) the FOIA (but not in Scotland, where the
Scottish Information Commissioner leads the way in all things Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002).
The guidance limits itself to copyright and database rights which are most commonly attached to a request for information. Broadly summarised, such rights are not infringed by a response to a freedom of information request as such responses are acts authorised by Parliament and the information itself retains protection, as provided for under both the Copyright Design and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) and the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997. Specifically, section 50 CDPA operates to prevent copyright acting as a statutory bar for the purposes of section 44 FOIA. Further, although disclosure does not carry out any restrictions, restrictions imposed on further use of information by the CDPA still applies: the person who receives the information under FOIA is still obliged to respect the rights of the copyright owner and if they fail to do so, the copyright owner can seek damages or an injunction for infringement. Very usefully, the guidance provides case law and Commissioner decision notice summaries as examples of the applicable principles. At page 10 the Court of Appeal's judgment in
The Office of Communications v Information Commissioner [2009] EWCA Civ 90 is provided as an example of the application of the public interest test under the FOIA. At page 9 a
Commissioner's decision notice finding that the Ministry of Justice would have no problem policing its IP rights exemplifies circumstances where an IP rights holder can take steps to eliminate potential commercial prejudice arising from disclosure.
The guidance also sets out the most relevant fair dealing provisions which allow information to be used without infringing copyright set out in Chapter III of the CDPA, to which the ICO acknowledges that:
'at first it may appear that there is a conflict between copyright and the principle that disclosures under FOIA are free from conditions and are to the world at large. But it is important to recognise that no restrictions are placed on the use of the information in order to facilitate its disclosure under FOIA. The copyright restrictions already subsist in the information at the time of the request...the fair dealing provisions mean that the information disclosed under FOIA can feed any public debate. Furthermore, if a public authority releases information to one person, then anyone else will be able to obtain that information under FOIA. So, although copyright may place some restriction on the dissemination of the information by the original recipient, a disclosure under FOIA should still be regarded as being to the world at large'
( at [20]-[21])
Public authorities are advised to inform applicants and recipients of copyright-protected information that a release of information does not involve an implied licence to exploit the information commercially: the information remains protected and the recipient of such information is still bound by an obligation to respect any IP rights that already subsist it in. As such, the ICO recommends that public authorities consider using the
National Archive's Open Governmental License (OGL, not oggle) that allows the use and re-use of information available under the license freely with a few conditions, i.e. personal data and information subject to other IP rights, including patents, trademarks and design rights are exempt.
Importantly, it is not a reason to refuse a request for information if disclosure to websites results in the automatic publication of copyright material. However, if a public authority was able to demonstrate that such disclosure would prejudice its commercial interest and engage section 43 FOIA, the public authority would, subject to the public interest test, have grounds for withholding the information.
'The issue is not whether a disclosure to a particular address would engage an exemption, but whether a disclosure to anyone, at any address, would engage the exemption. The application of the exemption does not depend on the applicant or their address'( at [50]).
 |
| This cat's off to get some guidance |
The guidance does not yet contain information on the
Protection of Freedoms Act (PFA) which was passed in May this year. Section 103 of that Act contains amendments to sections 11 and 19 FOIA and adds rights and obligations to datasets. 'For the first time these provisions add rights of re-use under FOIA', with the provisions expected to be in force next year. Updated guidance will follow the changes.
Read all the guidance in PDF format
hereCheck out the Olympics
hereAnd out-dated cat politics
here
