Georgia v. Public Resource.Org, Inc.
Headline: Court rules that Georgia’s official statutory annotations are not copyrightable, blocking the State’s monopoly and allowing free public posting and sharing of the annotated code.
Holding:
- Allows public organizations to post Georgia's annotated code online for free.
- Prevents Georgia from enforcing sales-only access to its annotations.
- Could affect other states that use similar annotated-code arrangements.
Summary
Background
The dispute involved Georgia’s Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA), which combines the state’s statutory text with editorial annotations. A state body called the Code Revision Commission hired Lexis to prepare the annotations under a work-for-hire contract and the Commission and legislature approved and published the merged product. Public.Resource.Org, a nonprofit that posted digital copies of the OCGA without permission, was sued by the Commission, which sought to stop online distribution of the annotations.
Reasoning
The key question was whether copyright protection covers the annotations prepared by an arm of the legislature. The Court applied long-standing "government edicts" precedents holding that officials who make or interpret law cannot be treated as the copyright "authors" of works produced in their official duties. The Court found the Commission to be an extension of the legislature and concluded the annotations were created in the course of legislative duties, so they are ineligible for copyright protection.
Real world impact
As a result, Georgia may not enforce a copyright monopoly over those annotations and the injunction against Public.Resource.Org was reversed. The ruling allows public posting and wider free access to the OCGA annotations and may affect other official annotated codes produced under similar legislative arrangements. The Court noted that Congress remains free to change the law if it wishes.
Dissents or concurrances
Two dissents argued the opposite: one urged deference to Congress and warned of practical disruption to states and publishers, while another urged that the annotations are non-legislative, descriptive work and should remain copyrightable.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?