Supreme Court Says Georgia Can’t Copyright State Code
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that an annotated version of Georgia’s state law code is not subject to copyright protection because it is a “government edict” and must be free for all to use.
In a 5-4 ruling, the judges rejected a copyright infringement lawsuit the state brought against a group called Public.Resources.Org, Inc., which copied and distributed the code without paying for it.
The annotations in the current Official Code of Georgia were produced by Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., a division of the LexisNexis Group, pursuant to a work-for-hire agreement with the 15-member Code Revision Commission, a state entity composed mostly of legislators.
Under the agreement LexisNexis has the exclusive right to publish the annotated code, as long as it limits the price and makes a version without annotations free online.
But Georgia claims the copyright and sued Public.Resource.Org, a non-profit that advocates for public access, for infringement when the organization tried to publish the code on its own.
Writing for the majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts cited a trio of 19th century cases.
In Wheaton v. Peters (1834), the court held that no reporter can have a copyright on the court’s opinions and that the Justices cannot confer such a right on any reporter.
In Banks v. Manchester (1888), the court held that judges could not assert copyright in “whatever work they perform in their capacity as judges” — be it “the opinion or decision, the statement of the case and the syllabus or the head note.”
Finally, in Callaghan v. Myers (1888) the court reiterated that an official reporter cannot hold a copyright interest in opinions created by judges.
The animating principle behind the government edicts doctrine is that no one can own the law.
“Because Georgia’s annotations are authored by an arm of the legislature in the course of its legislative duties, the government edicts doctrine puts them outside the reach of copyright protection,” Roberts said.
He was joined in the majority by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
But Justice Clarence Thomas worried about the impact the majority’s decision would have on the 22 other states along with the District of Columbia that rely on arrangements similar to Georgia’s to produce annotated codes.
“The majority’s rule will leave in the lurch the many states, private parties and legal researchers who relied on the previously bright-line rule,” Thomas wrote in his dissent. “Perhaps, to the detriment of all, many states will stop producing annotated codes altogether.”
Thomas argued that annotations can be copyrighted, although Congress can step in and change the law.
His dissent was joined in full by Justice Samuel Alito Jr., and in part by Justice Stephen G. Breyer.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a separate dissent that was also joined by Breyer.
“Beyond doubt, state laws are not copyrightable,” Ginsburg wrote. “Nor are other materials created by state legislators in the course of performing their lawmaking responsibilities, [for example], legislative committee reports, floor statements, unenacted bills.
“Not all that legislators do, however, is ineligible for copyright protection; the government edicts doctrine shields only ‘works that are (1) created by ‘judges and legislators (2) in the course of their judicial and legislative duties.’
“Because summarizing judicial decisions and commentary bearing on enacted statutes, in contrast to, for example, drafting a committee report to accompany proposed legislation, is not done in a legislator’s law-shaping capacity, I would hold the OCGA annotations copyrightable and therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit,” she concluded.
In The News
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision Thursday blocked a lower court ruling allowing curbside voting in Alabama and waiving some absentee ballot requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conservative justices granted Alabama’s request to stay a federal judge’s order that would... Read More
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court announced on Thursday that it would decide whether Congress may see currently redacted parts of the report prepared by Special Counsel Robert Mueller during his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. As is their custom, the justices did not... Read More
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struck down a ban on taxpayer funding for religious schools on Tuesday, saying such institutions can't be prevented from participating in programs that use public funds to support private education. The 5-4 ruling upheld a Montana scholarship program that allows state... Read More
WASHINGTON — A nearly unanimous Supreme Court said Tuesday that the travel website Booking.com can trademark its name, a ruling of high significance to other companies using a generic word followed by ".com." as a name. Lower courts had sided with Booking.com, but the Trump administration... Read More
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed President Donald Trump's ability to fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Monday, but left undisturbed the rest of the statute that created the agency in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis. Writing for the... Read More
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court upheld a provision of federal law Monday that requires foreign affiliates of U.S.-based health organizations to denounce prostitution as a condition of receiving taxpayer money to fight AIDS around the world. Writing for the majority in the 5-3 ruling, Justice Brett... Read More