Agitation for parenting reform has become a prominent feature of family law policy debates in recent years. Many countries, such as England and Canada, have proceeded cautiously in response to such demands. Australia, on the other hand, opted for a bolder step and enacted a suite of shared parenting amendments in 2006, including a presumption of ‘equal shared parental responsibility'. The Shared Parental Responsibility Act was designed to facilitate substantial, if not equal, involvement by both parents in children's lives following separation, provided this is safe. While conversations about the implications of this move continue to take place, the first empirical evidence of its impact on post-separation parenting patterns has now been published. Its data suggest the reforms have been successful in producing an increase in ‘substantially shared care arrangements’ since the legislation came into force. At the same time, however, the research indicates that a significant number of these arrangements are characterised by intense parental conflict, and that shared care of children is a key variable affecting poor emotional outcomes for children.

The relationship between law and history has long been the subject of academic interest. Both disciplines have occasion to turn to the past, yet their purposes and methods for doing so often vary. Some commentators have noted the similarities between the two disciplines, describing them as ‘intellectual cousins’ who share a ‘natural affinity'. Yet, equally, commentators have noted the tensions between the two disciplines, depicting them not as allies but as strangers or enemies. These scholars have painted a picture of competing logics, suggesting that the clash between the law's ‘logic of authority’ and the historian's ‘logic of evidence’ creates an uneasy relationship.

Although capturing the attention of both judges and commentators, the intersection between law and history continues to elude precise definition.

Patents provide inventors and their assignees and licensees with a fixed period of market exclusivity, during which they can exclude others from use of their inventions and charge monopoly prices on the sale of their products. In return, inventors are required to disclose to the public the nature of their inventions and the best methods of performing them. This public bargain provides the underlying justification for the patent system: patents are good for society because they provide the incentive to innovate and innovation benefits society. If inventors can recover the costs put into research and development and earn rewards through product pricing and licence fees, they will be encouraged both to take their inventions through to commercial production, and to engage in further innovation. Full disclosure further encourages innovation by allowing others to use the invention once the patent has expired.

In Burge v Swarbrick, the High Court of Australia delivered an important decision on the most elusive of works protected by copyright: the work of artistic craftsmanship ('WAC’). Drawing on the history and reasons for that protection, and adopting the analysis of Lord Simon in George Hensher Ltd v Restawile Upholstery (Lancs) Ltd, the Court affirmed the orthodox view that such works have ‘special status’ in law on account of their ‘real artistic quality'. In its judgment, whether a work has that quality depends on whether it is a work of craftsmanship the artistic form of expression of which is sufficiently ‘unconstrained by functional considerations'.

In the discussion below I consider that view, and other aspects of the Court's decision. I suggest the requirement for artistic quality is simply a requirement for a WAC ‘not imaginary, unreal or apparent only'. Further, the properties of this type of work are better conceived in historical terms than the formal aesthetic terms of the Court. On this view, whether an object is a WAC depends on both its properties of form and the history of its individual production, meaning the (subjective) intent of its individual author and view of society with respect to its nature.

Governments create and commission copyright protected material as part of their core administrative functions and they sometimes compete with the private sector as developers of commercially valuable assets. Governments also use under licence copyright protected material owned and created by others. A wide range of copyright material is also submitted to State and federal governments when individuals and corporations comply with legal obligations or conduct business with government agencies. That material submitted to governments, and the information it contains, can have value that extends beyond the initial transaction. Governments can add value by compiling and processing the information and then charge the public for access. Material submitted to government is also an important source of information about how governments function. When the principles of open government and transparency are discussed, the primary focus is usually upon access to information recorded in documents created within government agencies. However, it is often necessary to extend access to documents received by agencies. Copyright in that material will be privately owned and that can conflict with public access.