Introduction

In Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 1498 (2020), the United States Supreme Court addressed the copyrightability of annotations included in Georgia’s official legal code. The case centered around Public.Resource.Org (PRO), a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing public access to government records, which posted the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) online without authorization. The Georgia Code Revision Commission, acting on behalf of the state, asserted copyright in the annotations and sought to prevent PRO from distributing them. The primary legal issue was whether these annotations, prepared by a legislative body, were eligible for copyright protection under the Copyright Act.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the annotations in Georgia's Official Code Annotated are ineligible for copyright protection. The decision affirmed the Eleventh Circuit's reversal of the District Court's injunction against PRO. The Court reasoned that the annotations were created by the Code Revision Commission, a body closely tied to the Georgia Legislature, and thus fell under the government edicts doctrine. This doctrine posits that works produced by officials empowered to speak with the force of law cannot be copyrighted, as they are considered part of the public domain. Chief Justice Roberts, delivering the majority opinion, emphasized that the Commission's role in crafting the annotations was an extension of legislative duties, thereby disqualifying the annotations from copyright protection.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court relied on a trio of 19th-century cases that establish the government edicts doctrine:

• Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591 (1834): The Court held that no reporter or judge can hold copyright in judicial opinions.
• BANKS v. MANCHESTER, 128 U.S. 244 (1888): Reinforced that judges cannot be considered authors of works produced in their judicial capacity.
• CALLAGHAN v. MYERS, 128 U.S. 617 (1888): Distinguished between judicial opinions and explanatory materials created by court reporters, allowing the latter to be copyrighted.

These cases collectively form the backbone of the government edicts doctrine, emphasizing that law itself cannot be owned or restricted through copyright, ensuring public access to legal materials.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning centered on the definition of "author" within the Copyright Act. Under the doctrine, legislators and judges cannot be deemed authors for works created within their official capacities. The OCGA annotations were produced by the Code Revision Commission, an entity composed primarily of legislators and functioning as an arm of the Georgia Legislature. The annotations were created under a work-for-hire agreement with LexisNexis, but the Commission supervised the work and dictated the content, solidifying its role as the legislative body responsible for their creation.

The majority further clarified that the government edicts doctrine applies irrespective of whether the work has the force of law. This approach contrasts with Georgia's argument that the doctrine should hinge on the work's legal authority. The Court maintained that the identity of the author—being a legislative body acting in its official capacity—was the decisive factor.

Additionally, the Court dismissed Georgia's reliance on the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, noting its non-binding nature and consistency with the Court's precedent. Policies promoting copyright as a means to encourage creation were deemed outside the Court's purview, reserved instead for Congress to address.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for state governments and organizations seeking to provide annotated legal materials. By affirming that legislative annotations cannot be copyrighted, the Court ensures that such materials remain freely accessible to the public, aligning with the principle that the law should be openly available to all. States may no longer restrict distribution or monetize their official codes through copyright protections on annotations. This fosters transparency and aids legal research and public understanding of the law without economic barriers.

For entities like PRO, the decision validates efforts to disseminate legal information widely, supporting greater public access and potentially reducing costs associated with obtaining official annotated codes. However, this ruling may also prompt states to reconsider how they collaborate with private publishers in producing and distributing legal materials.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Government Edicts Doctrine

The government edicts doctrine is a legal principle that prohibits government officials, such as judges and legislators, from holding copyright over works they create in their official capacities. This ensures that laws and official legal interpretations are accessible to the public without restrictions, maintaining transparency and the rule of law.

Authorship Under the Copyright Act

Under the Copyright Act, an "author" is typically the creator of an original work of authorship. However, the government edicts doctrine specifically excludes works created by officials empowered to make or interpret laws from being considered as authored by those officials. This exclusion prevents the privatization of legal materials, ensuring they remain in the public domain.

Annotations as Non-Binding Legal Materials

Annotations in legal codes, such as the OCGA, provide supplementary information like summaries of judicial decisions, opinions, and relevant articles. While they aid in understanding the statutes, they are not enacted into law themselves and do not carry legal authority. This non-binding nature classifies them as explanatory materials, which, when produced by legislative bodies, fall under the government edicts doctrine.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. reinforces the principle that legal materials produced by legislative bodies, including annotations, are part of the public domain and cannot be subject to copyright restrictions. By applying the government edicts doctrine, the Court ensures that essential legal information remains accessible to all, promoting transparency and informed citizenship. This ruling underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining open access to the law, free from proprietary constraints, and sets a clear precedent for future cases involving the balance between intellectual property rights and public access to legal resources.

Ultimately, the judgment affirms the longstanding ethos that the law should be freely available, aligning legal practice with democratic principles of transparency and public empowerment.