Reusing planning drawings without permission

[epsilonGreedy]

1 hour ago, AnonymousBosch said:

Storm. Tea cup.

Is sounding like  sufficient evidence to ask the planner to do something? 

 

 

So you agree with me?

 

I think an inexperienced planning officer has made a small error and will get a minor rebuke from the head of the department if the OP pursues the matter.

 

If the OP starts shouting "copyright" at the planning office he will undermine his own case by diverting focus away from the central issue which is personal reputational damage.

[ToughButterCup]

9 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

It is highly likely that when submitting a planning application the applicant grants a licence to the planning office to publish the contents of the application. Since we are talking about a branch of government utter incompetence is always a credible theory [...]

 

FGS  @epsilonGreedy, there's nowt like getting your teeth into fresh air , holding on to it, and growling loudly is there?

[epsilonGreedy]

1 hour ago, AnonymousBosch said:

FGS  @epsilonGreedy, there's nowt like getting your teeth into fresh air , holding on to it, and growling loudly is there?

 

 

I am the only contributor to this thread who corrected interpreted events which the OP then confirmed.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2019 by PeterW
Irrelevant point deleted

[dpmiller]

Libel is a defamatory unjust statement? Can't see that here. How is anyone's reputation hurt? [shrugs]

[Jeremy Harris]

1 hour ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

I am the only contributor to this thread who corrected interpreted events which the OP then confirmed.

 

 

 

The issue really is one of what laws, if any, have been breached. 

 

There's a possible misuse of copyright material, in that the copyright holder hasn't given consent for publication of their material for a purpose other than that for which they granted a limited licence to the LA.  This needs to be checked, as it may well be that the publication licence implicitly granted to the LA when submitting plans is broader than just publication relating to the copyright holders specific application (this should be buried in the small print somewhere, either in the Planning Portal or the LA terms and conditions).

 

It's well worth reading the law regarding libel, as there is a specific public interest clause that allows information to be published that may, possibly, otherwise be considered libellous if it is in the public interest to do so.  There would seem to be a very strong argument here that the LA considered that including this information to give context to another application was in the public interest. 

 

The key point is whether or not it was appropriate to include the signature box, identifying the author.  It could be argued that this part should have been redacted, but equally it could be argued that the LA are required to identify the copyright holder, as they are using material under the terms of the licence granted by that copyright holder, which may require them to include the attribution.

 

1 hour ago, epsilonGreedy said:

[Irrelevant Content Deleted] Mods

 

That seems a wholly unreasonable comment, as it implies that a group of people are acting in concert, when I know beyond any doubt whatsoever that this is not the case.  Of course, it may be that those to whom you have falsely referred in this statement consider that comment to be defamation of their good character, simply because the comment is demonstrably false and harmful to their reputation.  That is indeed libel...

[epsilonGreedy]

36 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

The issue really is one of what laws, if any, have been breached. 

 

 

Indeed and in order to establish that, it is first necessary to understand actual preceding events. I provided the most significant clarity on those events which were then confirmed by the OP.

 

36 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

There's a possible misuse of copyright material, in that the copyright holder hasn't given consent for publication of their material for a purpose other than that for which they granted a limited licence to the LA.

 

 

So you agree with me there is probably a licence granted to the LA when a planning application is submitted. You could at-least acknowledge that I was the first to raise this concept in the thread.

 

36 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

It's well worth reading the law regarding libel, as there is a specific public interest clause that allows information to be published that may, possibly, otherwise be considered libellous if it is in the public interest to do so.  There would seem to be a very strong argument here that the LA considered that including this information to give context to another application was in the public interest. 

 

 

This is a comical extrapolation of the concept "in the public interest" which pertains to the principal of freedom of expression and its application in journalism.

 

36 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

The key point is whether or not it was appropriate to include the signature box, identifying the author.  It could be argued that this part should have been redacted, but equally it could be argued that the LA are required to identify the copyright holder, as they are using material under the terms of the licence granted by that copyright holder, which may require them to include the attribution.

 

 

I am pleased that you now agree with on what the central issue is.

 

My key point is has the LA created a false impression that the OP is a co-sponsor of the neighbour's application, if this a credible complaint then demonstrating that personal damages have occurred is a simple by-product.

 

In practice the threadbare legal department at the LA will not welcome having to spend even 5 minutes considering a dispute caused by the planning office tripping over its own shoe laces. The head of the planning departments knows this and will resolve the matter in 10 minutes, dealing with bruised forum egos here will take much longer. 

Edited October 22, 2019 by epsilonGreedy

[Jeremy Harris]

7 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

So agree with me there is probably a licence granted to the LA when a planning application is submitted. You could at-least acknowledge that I was the first to raise this concept in the thread.

 

Is there a requirement for everyone posting in a  thread to formally acknowledge contributions from others when replying?  If so, then it doesn't seem to be in the terms and conditions of using this forum, neither does it seem to be common or accepted practice.

 

 

7 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

This is a comical extrapolation of the concept "in the public interest" which pertains to the principal of freedom of expression and its application in journalism.

 

Actually, it's a direct interpretation of defamation law, as it currently stands.  The Defamation Act 2013 is quite clear about this:

 

Quote

4  Publication on matter of public interest

(1)It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that—

(a)the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest; and

(b)the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest.

(2)Subject to subsections (3) and (4), in determining whether the defendant has shown the matters mentioned in subsection (1), the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case.

(3)If the statement complained of was, or formed part of, an accurate and impartial account of a dispute to which the claimant was a party, the court must in determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement was in the public interest disregard any omission of the defendant to take steps to verify the truth of the imputation conveyed by it.

(4)In determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest, the court must make such allowance for editorial judgement as it considers appropriate.

(5)For the avoidance of doubt, the defence under this section may be relied upon irrespective of whether the statement complained of is a statement of fact or a statement of opinion.

(6)The common law defence known as the Reynolds defence is abolished.

 

[epsilonGreedy]

19 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

Is there a requirement for everyone posting in a  thread to formally acknowledge contributions from others when replying?  If so, then it doesn't seem to be in the terms and conditions of using this forum, neither does it seem to be common or accepted practice.

 

 

No but when you directly dismiss another forum member's comment by posting:

 

2 hours ago, JSHarris said:

Just to be clear, the only legal issue here is possible breach of copyright, nothing else.  It's entirely up to the copyright holders as to whether they feel that it's worth taking action over, and my experience is that such action can be a lot of effort for no gain.

 

 

and then you proceed to execute a debating u-turn by subsequently agreeing that a licence undermines the copyright argument and then agree that the inclusion of the signature box which associates the OP with the application is probably central to the issue, then you could acknowledge the basis for that u-turn.

 

It would be possible to prove libel regardless of copyright ownership of elements in the published material.

 

If there was an axe murder in your local village and a prowling paparazzi snapped a shot of you swinging an axe at a tree stump in your garden and that photo was licenced by a national newspaper for an article on the hunt for the axe murderer, who would you sue?

 

Edited October 22, 2019 by epsilonGreedy

[epsilonGreedy]

16 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

Actually, it's a direct interpretation of defamation law, as it currently stands.  The Defamation Act 2013 is quite clear about this:

 

 

The Defamation Act was not created to provide a universal excuse for elementary acts of maladministration in HM Government.

[Stones]

Calm please folks.

[willbish]

The LPA have now recatagorised these documents as sensitive, this means they can no longer been seen publicly through my neighbours application.

 

I incorrectly assumed they had been uploaded by my neighbour to assist his appeal when in fact the planners had used the documents to determine the outcome of the application.

 

I'm not certain whether the LPA made an administrative scanning error and that is why they appeared online. Or whether this is usual practice.

 

Either way Im content they have now been removed and I am no longer associated with this application. I doubt any lasting damage has been done to my impeccable reputation!!

 

[Randomiser]

Glad to hear it has been resolved.

[Temp]

It's amazing what goes on on the planning portal sometimes. A few years ago an application for a wind farm went in a few miles from us. Many people wrote to object but we were surprised to see that one of the land owners that had and would benefit financially by having turbines on his land had written to object.

 

His letter was online for a week or so before the energy co spotted it an wrote to him to remind him that he had been given an initial sweetner of £50-£60k and signed a contract to say he wouldn't object to the application on his land.

 

He then had to try and get his objection removed which he did by writing to the planners and those letters also got posted online for awhile. Eventually his letter and the follow ups somehow got removed but not before the "action group" had made copies.