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.

MODERN SPORT COACHING AND THE LAW: IMPLICATIONS FOR COACH EDUCATION

Introduction
The intersection between the law of negligence and sport coaching in the UK is a developing area (Partington, 2014; Kevan, 2005). Crucially, since the law of negligence may be regarded as generally similar everywhere (Magnus, 2006), with the predominance of volunteer coaches in the UK reflective of the majority of countries in the world (Duffy et al., 2011), a detailed scrutiny of this relationship from the perspective of the coach uncovers important implications for coach education beyond this jurisdiction.  
Argumentation
Fulfilment of the legal duty of discharging reasonable care may be regarded as consistent with the ethical obligation not to expose athletes to unreasonable risks of injury (Mitten, 2013). More specifically, any ‘profession’ requiring ‘special skill or competence’ (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582), including the coaching of sport (e.g., Davenport v Farrow [2010] EWHC 550), requires a higher standard of care to be displayed than would be expected of the ordinary reasonable person (Lunney & Oliphant, 2013; Jones & Dugdale, 2010). For instance, volunteer coaches with no formal qualifications (e.g., Fowles v Bedfordshire County Council [1996] ELR 51) would be judged by this benchmark of professional liability (Powell & Stewart, 2012). Further, as the principles of coaching are constantly assessed and revised (Cassidy et al., 2009; Taylor & Garratt, 2010), so too is the legal standard of care required of coaches (Powell & Stewart, 2012). Problematically, ethical concerns may include coaches being unwilling to increase knowledge, abusive treatment of players and incompetence/inexperience (Haney et al., 1998). These factors accentuate coaches’ exposure to civil liability.
Implications
It is imperative that coaches have an awareness of this emerging intersection and develop a ‘proactive risk assessment lens’ (Hartley, 2010). In addition to supporting the professionalisation of sport coaching, coach education/CPD focused on the legal and ethical aspects of coaching (Duffy et al., 2011; Telfer, 2010; Haney et al., 1998) would enhance the safety and welfare of performers, safeguard coaches from litigation risk, and potentially improve all levels of coaching (Partington, 2014). Interestingly, there is evidence to suggest a demand from coaches for more training on health and safety issues, including risk management and (ir)responsible coaching (Stirling et al., 2012). Accordingly, critical examination of the issue of negligent coaching would inform coach education by: enabling the modelling and sharing of best practice; unpacking important ethical concerns; and, further informing the classification of coaching as a ‘profession’.

‘Article 16’ Provision, Commentary on the Law of the International Criminal Court

The Commentary on the Law of the International Criminal Court provides an online provision-by-provision analysis of the Rome Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court.