What is the Point of Copyright History?:Reflections on Copyright at Common law in 1774 by H. Tomás Gómez-Arostegui

Copyright history has long been a subject of intense and contested enquiry. Historical narratives about the early development of copyright were first prominently mobilised in eighteenth century British legal discourse, during the so-called Battle of the Booksellers between Scottish and London publishers. The two landmark copyright decisions of that time – Millar v. Taylor (1769) and Donaldson v. Becket (1774) – continue to provoke debate today. The orthodox reading of Millar and Donaldson presents copyright as a natural proprietary right at common law inherent in authors. Revisionist accounts dispute that traditional analysis. These conflicting perspectives have, once again, become the subject of critical scrutiny with the publication of Copyright at Common Law in 1774 by Prof Tomas Gomez-Arostegui in 2014, in the Connecticut Law Review ((2014) 47 Conn. L. Rev. 1) and as a CREATe Working Paper (No. 2014/16, 3 November 2014).

Taking Prof Gomez-Arostegui’s extraordinary work in this area as a point of departure, Dr Elena Cooper and Professor Ronan Deazley (then both academics at CREATe) organised an event, held at the University of Glasgow on 26th and 27th March 2015, to consider the interplay between copyright history and contemporary copyright policy. Is Donaldson still relevant, and, if so, why? What justificatory goals are served by historical investigation, and what might be learned from the history of the history of copyright? Does the study of copyright history still have any currency within an evidence-based policy context that is increasingly preoccupied with economic impact analysis?

This paper provides a lasting record of these discussions, including an editorial introduction, written comments by each of the panelists and Prof. Gomez-Arostegui and an edited transcript of the Symposium debate.

Session organiser/chair: The architecture of coal and other energies

Coal ignited the industrial revolution. An organic sedimentary rock that energized the globe, transforming cities, landscapes and societies for generations, the importance of ‘King Coal’ to the development and consolidation of modernity has been well-recognised. And yet, as a critical factor in the production of modern architecture, coal—as well as other forms of energy—has been mostly overlooked.

From Appalachia to Lanarkshire, from the pits of northern France, Belgium and the Ruhr valley, to the monumental opencast excavations of Russia, China, Africa and Australia, mining operations have altered the immediate social and physical landscapes of coal-rich areas. But in contrast to its own underground conditions of production, the winning of coal, especially in the twentieth-century, has produced conspicuously enlightened and humane approaches to architecture and urbanism. In the twentieth century, educational buildings, holiday camps, hospitals, swimming pools, convalescent homes and housing prevailed alongside model collieries in mining settlements and areas connected to them. In 1930s Britain, pit head baths—funded by a levy on each ton produced—were often built in the International Style. Many won praise for architectural merit, appearing in Nicholas Pevsner’s guides to the buildings of England alongside cathedrals, village manors and Masonic halls as testimonies to the public good.

The deep relationships between coal and modernity, and the expressions of architecture it has articulated, in the collieries from which it was hewn, the landscape and towns it shaped, and the power stations and other infrastructure where it was used, offer innumerable opportunities to explore how coal produced architectures which embodied and expressed both social and technological conditions. While proposals on coal are preferred, we also welcome papers that interrogate the complexity, heterogeneity and hybridity of other forms of energy production and how these have also interceded into architectural form at a range of scales.

Commentary on the Booksellers' Bill (1737)

This Bill marks the first occasion on which the British legislature proposed to confer upon authors a lifetime interest in their literary works (with an additional eleven year post-mortem term vesting in their estates), as well as limited rights of translation and abridgement. In addition the draft legislation proposed to render null and void any contract purporting to assign an author's rights to another for a period of longer than ten years.
The commentary describes the background to the Bill, and in particular the attempts of the London book trade to secure more extensive legislative protection in both 1735 and 1737. It argues that the 1737 Bill is significant precisely because it was never made into law, and because it did not suit the best interests of the metropolitan booksellers. Instead, the book trade increasingly turned to the courts to further secure their commercial interests, giving rise to what is commonly referred to as the ‘battle of the booksellers' throughout the next 40 years.