Law librarianship in the U.K., like all other types of librarianship elsewhere, is a service profession which reflects the activities of the body of users served. Lawyers in the common law system depend upon the written law, and must refer to the primary sources –statutes and cases– for authoritative statements in support of their arguments and actions. The absence of a formal legal code has long been one of the main characteristics of the U.K. legal system, and marks it off from many other systems, both of civil and common law, although the increasing predominance of statute law in the U.K. has resulted in more and more effectual codification of more and more specific areas of our law during this century. However, in the absence of a “master” code, or even an agreed set of principles underlying our law, U.K. lawyers, perhaps even more than others, are tied to the primary, written legal data base. Their education is concerned mainly with the handling of this data base - locating materials on specific subjects within it, and making classifications of legal subjects according to current trends. Superimposed upon the primary data base are many secondary sources (indexing, abstracting and summarizing services), with which the lawyer becomes acquainted, sometimes as a student, but more often as a practitioner. These are sweeping generalizations, but I hope that my main point will be adequately illustrated by them: that the role of legal information officer or law librarian (apart from purely custodial activities) closely reflects an important part of the role of a qualified lawyer; indeed one upon which his education lays great emphasis.

Law librarianship in Nigeria is not as old as the legal profession but certainly older than public librarianship or any other brand of librarianship. The oldest libraries -those of the Lagos High Court and Federal Ministry of Justice– are law libraries and they date as far back as 1900.

The present Copyright Act of the United Kingdom was passed in 1956, when modern photocopying was in its comparative infancy. The lusty cries of the novel technology were echoed in the Act. For instance, publishers secured a new form of copyright -in the typographical arrangement of an edition– which was protected against unauthorised reproduction by any photographic or similar process for 25 years from first publication of the edition. The Act also attempted to strike a balance over photocopying and similar practices. But the result was a cautious compromise which simply has not worked.

Problems of copyright infringement involved in the extensive and largely uncontrolled use of coin operated photocopying machines in libraries, particularly University libraries, have become the most acute in Australian copyright law at the present time. These problems are not of course unique to Australia, but the recent decision of the High Court in University of New South Wales v Moorhouse and Angus & Robertson (Publishers) Pty Ltd has created a serious and difficult situation for libraries for which a workable solution has not yet been found. In 1974 the Australian government appointed a Committee, known as the Franki Committee, to examine the question of the reprographic reproduction of copyright works in Australia and to recommend any alterations to the copyright law and any other measures considered necessary to effect a proper balance of interest between owners and users of copyright materials in respect of reprographic reproduction. The Committee has not yet made its report and it is not known whether any recommendations will be made which will assist libraries in arriving at a solution to the legal problems now facing them where selfservice coin operated photocopying machines are made available for use by readers.

As a result of the increasingly complex issues and greater specialization of parliamentary work the German Bundestag has created a number of facilities designed to provide technical and material assistance to its Members and organs.