This OPCA concept is quite the assumption, yet one that is broadly perpetuated online. It was initially started by Kate of Gaia, (originally Keith Wilfred Thompson) who operates the “Lose The Name” website. The theory of a “Crown copyright” on a legal name is the basis of this assumption.
The theory claims government authority flows from its ownership of a person’s name, that since there exists a Crown copyright on the layout of birth certificates and other official documentation, that this copyright also applies to the use of a person’s name. For these reasons, they are instructed to refuse to give their name to police, as it doesn’t belong to them and they would be in breach of copyright law by doing so.
U.K. Barrister Carl Gardner: “It’s a kind of brew of pseudo-legal ideas. It’s the equivalent of thinking Harry Potter is science. It is nothing about law, and it is not harmless. Taking this daftness seriously can be legally dangerous. If people try to use such things to avoid their legal obligations they can end up with county court judgments or even criminal convictions. You may as well walk into court with a t-shirt saying ‘I am an idiot’.”
Facts are usually accompanied by substantiation, which if you note, (like most OPCA concepts) is glaringly absent here.
Firstly, if it was “illegal to use a legal name” surely one would be able to provide even one case of the prosecution of such an offense. Unfortunately none exists, because it is not illegal.
Secondly, if in fact the Crown did own my name, how is it possible that I can migrate to Russia or any other non-commonwealth nation and not only retain the use of my name, but that the Crown no longer has any part in that name on my behalf? Your legal personality and name is in fact your own intellectual property, and for these reasons you can transfer your property to any nation on earth, and do with it as you will. Only you are responsible for this name, and hold full liability to its actions.
Thirdly, as with all things copyrighted, a copyright is something that can easily be established by the copyright notice. So let’s look at those verifiable facts and put all assumptions aside.
“This guidance note sets out the arrangements for the reproduction of official birth, death, marriage and civil partnership certificates.” (’extracts’ in Scotland). Copyright in the layout of certificates is owned by the Crown.”
And then it goes on to make clear that the Crown DOES NOT assert any rights of ownership in the CONTENTS of the forms, (Eg. the names) only over the “layout and reproduction” of the documents…
“…the Crown does not assert any rights of ownership in the contents of the forms.”
In the U.S. copyright protection does not extend to titles, names, slogans or short phrases, the Copyright Office has made that much very clear. You can not copyright your name, the title of your post or any short phrase that you use to identify a work.
According to the The Australian Copyright Council, there have been a number of Australian cases in which courts have held that particular names, titles and slogans are not protected. As a result of these decisions, a name, title or slogan will not be protected by copyright. In these cases, the courts have generally arrived at their decisions because the name, title or slogan concerned is not an “original literary work” for copyright purposes. Factors that have influenced courts in reaching these decisions include: the word or phrase was not substantial enough to constitute a “work” for copyright purposes; or the phrase or sentence was commonplace, and therefore not original enough to be protected by copyright.