Quick Summary
The state of Georgia (plaintiff) sued Public.Resource.Org (defendant) over posting the OCGA with annotations online, claiming copyright infringement. The main issue was whether these annotations were copyrightable, considering they were produced by a commission established by Georgia’s legislature.
The Supreme Court concluded that under the government edicts doctrine, these materials were not subject to copyright as they were created in an official legislative capacity. Dissents raised concerns about this interpretation’s impact on states’ practices and the nature of legislative duties.
Facts of the Case
In 1977, the state of Georgia (plaintiff) established the Code Revision Commission to compile the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA), which included annotations explaining statutory provisions. The Commission contracted with LexisNexis Group (Lexis) to create the annotations.
The legislature approved these annotations, which did not have the force of law, before publication. Lexis was permitted to sell hard copies of the OCGA, and the copyright vested in the state.
Public.Resource.Org (Public) (defendant), a nonprofit organization, uploaded a digital version of the OCGA with annotations online without permission, leading to a copyright infringement lawsuit by the Commission on behalf of Georgia.
Public argued that the annotations were not copyrightable as they were produced by an arm of the legislature in the course of its official duties.
Procedural History
- The Code Revision Commission, on behalf of Georgia, sued Public.Resource.Org for copyright infringement in federal district court.
- The district court sided with the Commission, ruling that the annotations were copyrightable as they did not have the force of law.
- The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision.
- The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether the annotations in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) are subject to copyright protection under federal law.
Rule of Law
The government edicts doctrine holds that officials who have the authority to create law cannot be authors of copyrighted works in the performance of their official duties. This doctrine applies to both judges and legislators, barring copyright for works produced by these officials within their official capacity.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit’s decision based on the government edicts doctrine. The Court reasoned that since the Code Revision Commission is an arm of the Georgia Legislature and creates annotations in its legislative capacity, the annotations are authored by legislators acting in their official capacity and thus are not copyrightable.
The majority also noted that denying copyright protection for these materials affirms the principle that no one can own the law and ensures public access to legal information.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the OCGA annotations are not eligible for copyright protection because they are authored by an arm of the legislature in the course of its official duties.
Dissenting Opinions
Justices Thomas and Ginsburg filed dissenting opinions. Justice Thomas argued that this extension of the government edicts doctrine was not supported by precedent and could have negative implications for states that rely on similar arrangements. Justice Ginsburg contended that creating annotations is not a legislative duty and thus should be copyrightable.
Key Takeaways
- The government edicts doctrine prevents officials who have authority to create law from being considered authors for copyright purposes.
- The Official Code of Georgia Annotated’s annotations are not copyrightable because they are created by an arm of the legislature in their official capacity.
- There is a distinction between work done by judges and legislators in their official capacity and other types of work that may be eligible for copyright protection.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What is the government edicts doctrine and how does it impact copyright law?
The government edicts doctrine establishes that texts created by legislature and judiciary in their official capacities cannot be copyrighted. This ensures that the law, which must be accessible to the public without restriction, is not limited by private rights. In contrast, works created by government officials that do not carry the authority of law could potentially be copyrighted if they fulfill other legal requirements.
- For example: Court opinions and statutes are generally not copyrightable under this doctrine, while a report written by a federal agency employee about trends in agriculture could be protected by copyright if it original and creative.
How does a work's purpose and creator's role within the government influence copyright eligibility?
A work’s purpose within the legal framework and the creator’s official role are crucial in determining copyright eligibility. If a government official authors a work in the course of carrying out public duties that have authoritative legal weight, such work is not subject to copyright. However, creative expression by a government employee unrelated to law-making or judicial functions could be protected.
- For example: A safety manual written by a state agency for public dissemination would not be copyrighted, but an illustrative poster designed by a city graphic designer for an art festival may be eligible for copyright.
Under what circumstances can state-created materials become subject to copyright protection?
State-created materials can become subject to copyright protection if they are produced outside the scope of creating official legal documents or interpreting law, involve original creative work, and are not produced by an officer of the legislature or judiciary acting in their official capacity. A combination of originality, creativity, and purpose outside governmental functions associated with law-making or adjudication are key factors.
- For example: Tourism promotional materials featuring artwork and photographs commissioned by a state tourism department could be copyrighted since it constitutes creative work not involved with legislative or judicial functions.
References
Was this case brief helpful?