Commentary on An Enquiry into the Nature and Origin of Literary Property (1762)

One of a number of published commentaries contributing to the mid-eighteenth century debate concerning the nature of literary property. The author of An Enquiry sought to repudiate the concept of a natural authorial property right existing at common law. In so doing, he specifically engaged with various aspects of William Warburton's earlier commentary (see: uk_1747), as well as presenting arguments that drew upon the nature of property in general, the differences between the right claimed by proponents of the common law right and other acknowledged incorporeal properties, the similarities between patents and copyright, the history of literary property, the experience of other jurisdictions (drawing upon Venice in particular), and the consequences that would follow from conceding the existence of a perpetual right both for authors in particular and society in general. This commentary, in turn, drew its own response in the guise of A Vindication of the Exclusive Rights of Authors, to their own work (1762).

Commentary on Millar v. Taylor (1769)

Decision of the Court of King's Bench providing that, regardless of the provisions of the Statute of Anne 1710 (uk_1710), an author enjoyed the exclusive right of publishing his work in perpetuity.
Lord Mansfield, leading a majority decision of the court, provides a robust and influential justification as to the existence of an author's rights in literary property at common law. Yates, J., focussing upon the potential detriment to the public that would flow from the existence of a perpetual right, provides the dissenting opinion. The commentary explores the background to the litigation, in particular the nature of the threat which the Scottish reprint industry posed to the London book trade, relevant case-law leading up to the decision, as well as the substance of the judicial opinions.

Commentary on Hinton v. Donaldson (1773)

The Scottish Court of Session, drawing upon principles of the civil law tradition, as well as arguments concerning broader national, social and cultural interests, reject the concept of copyright at common law - a decision that is in direct conflict with that of Millar v. Taylor (1769). Lord Monboddo provides the dissenting opinion, drawing upon the labour theory of property rights, and argues for a unified approach to the issue in relation to the common law of both England and Scotland.
Drawing upon Scottish Records Office archives the commentary explores the background to, and substance of, the decision. It suggests that, given the nature of the economic threat which the Scottish reprint industry posed to the London book trade, particularly in relation to an increasingly lucrative export market, Hinton undermined much of the value of the decision in Millar. The conflict between Millar and Hinton made it almost inevitable that the question of literary property would soon reach the House of Lords.

Commentary on Beckford v. Hood (1798)

Case in which the King's Bench decided that a plaintiff could recover damages at common law for copyright infringement even though his work had not been registered with the Stationers' Company in accordance with the formalities set out in the Statute of Anne 1710 (uk_1710).
The case provides the first occasion on which the judiciary revisited and reconsidered the meaning of the House of Lords' decision in Donaldson v. Becket (uk_1774). The commentary explores the substance and significance of the decision and, in particular, the influence it had upon the manner in which the decision in Donaldson was subsequently understood throughout the early nineteenth century. The commentary also details the impact the decision had upon the extent to which publishers would adhere to the library deposit provision within the copyright legislation.

Commentary on Maugham's Treatise on the Laws of Literary Property (1828)

The first British legal treatise dedicated specifically to the law of copyright written by a strong advocate of the common law rights of the author. Maugham, in addition to providing a commentary upon the law of copyright, also used his work to lobby for both an extension to the copyright term (ideally resulting in a perpetual right) and a reduction in the library deposit requirements (arguing that authors should only be required to deposit one copy of their work for the British Museum). In proselytising the need for a change to the law in both areas he drew frequent comparisons with the law of other jurisdictions (in particular France and Germany). The work became a standard point of reference for many British and American authors who followed.

Commentary on Jeffreys v. Boosey (1854)

The second decision of the House of Lords to consider the nature of copyright law. As was the case in Donaldson v. Becket (1774) (uk_1774) the law lords were in disagreement with the majority of common law judges invited to speak to the issue for the consideration of the House. In the course of their opinions, two of the law lords (Lord Brougham and Lord St Leonards) explicitly reject the concept of copyright at common law. Rather than a natural authorial property right, they present copyright as a purely statutory phenomenon specifically grounded in public interest concerns. Ultimately, the Lords decided that a foreign national, resident abroad, but first publishing in Britain, enjoys no protection in his work under British copyright law.

Women Lawyers and the Struggle for Change in Conflict and Transition

This article examines the particular experiences of female ‘cause lawyers’ in conflicted and transitional societies. Drawn from an ongoing comparative project which involved fieldwork in Cambodia, Chile, Israel, Palestine, Tunisia and South Africa, the paper looks at opportunities, obstacles and the obduracy required from such lawyers to ‘make a difference’ in these challenging contexts. Drawing upon the theoretical literature on the sociology of the legal profession, cause-lawyers, gender and transitional justice, and the structure/agency nexus, the article considers in turn the conflict\cause-lawyering intersection and the work of cause-lawyers in transitional contexts. It concludes by arguing that the case-study of cause-lawyers offers a rebuttal to the charge that transitional justice is just like ‘ordinary justice’. It also contends that, notwithstanding the durability of patriarchal power in transitional contexts, law remains a site of struggle, not acquiescence, and many of these cause-lawyers have and continue to exercise both agency and responsibility in ‘taking on’ that power.

What is the Point of Copyright History?

Copyright history has long been a subject of intense and contested enquiry, and has once again become the subject of critical scrutiny with the publication of "Copyright at Common Law in 1774" by Prof Tomas Gomez-Arostegui in the Connecticut Law Review ((2014) 47 Conn. L. Rev. 1).
This online resource documents two events organised to explore the impact of "Copyright at Common Law in 1774". It incorporates a public lecture by Prof Gomez-Arostegui, and the full record of a one-day symposium of international experts debating the implications of Gomez-Arostegui's scholarship in this domain.

Beyond the ‘Tomlinson Trap’: Analysing the Effectiveness of Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006

One of the intentions underpinning section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 was to provide reassurance to individual volunteers, and voluntary organisations, involved in what the provision called ‘desirable activities’ and including sport. The perception was that such volunteers, motivated by an apprehension about their increased vulnerability to negligence liability, and as driven by a fear of a wider societal compensation culture, were engaging excessively in risk-averse behaviour to the detriment of such socially desirable activities. Academic commentary on section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 has largely regarded the provision as unnecessary and doing little more than restating existing common law practice. This article argues otherwise and, on critically reviewing the emerging jurisprudence, posits the alternative view that section 1, in practice, affords an enhanced level of protection and safeguarding for individuals undertaking functions in connection with a desirable activity. Nonetheless, the occasionally idiosyncratic judicial interpretation given to term ‘desirable activity’, potentially compounded by recent enactment of the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015, remains problematic. Two points of interest will be used to inform this debate. First, an analysis of the then House of Lords’ decision in Tomlinson and its celebrated ‘balancing exercise’ when assessing reasonableness in the context of negligence liability. Second, a fuller analysis of the application of section 1 in the specific context of negligence actions relating to the coaching of sport where it is argued that the, albeit limited, jurisprudence might support the practical utility of a heightened evidential threshold of gross negligence.

Common Mistake in Contract Law

English law has long struggled to understand the effect of a fundamental common mistake in contract formation. Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd [1932] AC 161 recognises that a common mistake which totally undermines a contract renders it void. Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 recognises a doctrine of 'mistake in equity' under which a serious common mistake in contract formation falling short of totally undermining the contract could give an adversely affected party the right to rescind the contract. This article accepts that the enormous difficulty in differentiating these two kinds of mistake justifies the insistence by the Court of Appeal in The Great Peace [2003] QB 679 that there can be only one doctrine of common mistake. However, the article proceeds to argue that where the risk of the commonly mistaken matter is not allocated by the contract itself a better doctrine would be that the contract is voidable.

Shared Pseudomonas aeruginosa genotypes are common in Australian cystic fibrosis centres

Recent molecular-typing studies suggest cross-infection as one of the potential acquisition pathways for Pseudomonas aeruginosa in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). In Australia, there is only limited evidence of unrelated patients sharing indistinguishable P. aeruginosa strains. We therefore examined the point-prevalence, distribution, diversity and clinical impact of P. aeruginosa strains in Australian CF patients nationally. 983 patients attending 18 Australian CF centres provided 2887 sputum P. aeruginosa isolates for genotyping by enterobacterial repetitive intergenic consensus-PCR assays with confirmation by multilocus sequence typing. Demographic and clinical details were recorded for each participant. Overall, 610 (62%) patients harboured at least one of 38 shared genotypes. Most shared strains were in small patient clusters from a limited number of centres. However, the two predominant genotypes, AUST-01 and AUST-02, were widely dispersed, being detected in 220 (22%) and 173 (18%) patients attending 17 and 16 centres, respectively. AUST-01 was associated with significantly greater treatment requirements than unique P. aeruginosa strains. Multiple clusters of shared P. aeruginosa strains are common in Australian CF centres. At least one of the predominant and widespread genotypes is associated with increased healthcare utilisation. Longitudinal studies are now needed to determine the infection control implications of these findings.