Supreme Court Says Georgia Can’t Copyright State Code

April 27, 2020 by Dan McCue
The U.S. Supreme Court building, June 2019. (Photo by Dan McCue)

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

Health

Voting

Supreme Court

Justices Consider Hearing a Case on 'Most Offensive Word'
Supreme Court
Justices Consider Hearing a Case on 'Most Offensive Word'

WASHINGTON (AP) — Robert Collier says that during the seven years he worked as an operating room aide at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, white nurses called him and other Black employees "boy." Management ignored two large swastikas painted on a storage room wall. And for... Read More

Recalling the Pentagon Papers Case, 50 Years On (Part Four)
Media
Recalling the Pentagon Papers Case, 50 Years On (Part Four)
May 12, 2021
by Dan McCue

(This is the fourth and final part of a four-part series. The first three parts can be read here, here and here.) The First Amendment Prevails The Supreme Court’s decision in the Pentagon Papers case, officially, New York Times Co. v. United States, affirmed historical precedents... Read More

Recalling the Pentagon Papers Case, 50 Years On (Part Two)
Media
Recalling the Pentagon Papers Case, 50 Years On (Part Two)
May 11, 2021
by Dan McCue

(This is the second part of a four-part series. The first installment can be read here.) To Publish or Not to Publish Upon his return to Washington, Sheehan and an editor booked a room at the Jefferson Hotel, where they spent weeks reading and summarizing the... Read More

Recalling the Pentagon Papers Case, 50 Years On (Part One)
Media
Recalling the Pentagon Papers Case, 50 Years On (Part One)
May 10, 2021
by Dan McCue

The battle was joined on a Monday night. It was shortly after 7 p.m. on June 14, 1971, when a seething President Richard Nixon telephoned his attorney general, John Mitchell, and told him it was time to make the administration’s position clear to The New York... Read More

Law Requiring Nonprofit Disclosures Gets Chilly Reception in Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Law Requiring Nonprofit Disclosures Gets Chilly Reception in Supreme Court
April 27, 2021
by Tom Ramstack

WASHINGTON -- A California law that requires nonprofit organizations to disclose their donors met with skepticism among most of the U.S. Supreme Court’s justices during a hearing Monday. The law is opposed by coalitions of nonprofit organizations that say the disclosures could dry up their contributions... Read More

High Court Moves Away from Leniency for Minors Who Murder
Supreme Court
High Court Moves Away from Leniency for Minors Who Murder

WASHINGTON (AP) — After more than a decade in which the Supreme Court moved gradually toward more leniency for minors convicted of murder, the justices on Thursday moved the other way.The high court ruled 6-3 along liberal-conservative lines against a Mississippi inmate sentenced to life in... Read More

News From The Well
scroll top