Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.
Headline: Court bars states from copyrighting annotated official codes, freeing state law annotations for public access and limiting states’ ability to sell or restrict those legal annotations.
Holding: The Court held that annotations published with Georgia’s official code cannot be copyrighted because they were authored by a legislative body acting in its legislative capacity, so such annotations belong in the public domain.
- Prevents states from claiming copyright in legislative annotations of their official codes.
- Allows nonprofits and the public to post and share official annotated codes.
- Limits publishers’ exclusive control over state-published legal annotations.
Summary
Background
A nonprofit called Public.Resource.Org posted Georgia’s Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) online. The OCGA includes statutory text plus non-binding annotations that summarize cases, attorney general opinions, and references. The Code Revision Commission, created and overseen by Georgia’s legislature, hired Lexis to draft the annotations under a work-for-hire contract and claimed copyright in the annotations. The Commission sued when PRO distributed copies; the District Court sided with the Commission, and the Eleventh Circuit reversed.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the OCGA annotations could be copyrighted. The Court applied the longstanding government edicts doctrine, which treats officials empowered to speak with the force of law as not being authors for copyright purposes. The Court found the Commission functions as an arm of the legislature and produces the annotations as part of its legislative duties. Because legislators cannot be considered authors when acting in that role, the annotations are not copyrightable.
Real world impact
The ruling frees Georgia’s annotated materials for copying and online sharing. It means nonprofits and the public can post the OCGA annotations without infringement. It also constrains states’ and private publishers’ ability to charge for or control access to annotations that were created by or at the direction of legislative bodies.
Dissents or concurrances
JUSTICE THOMAS dissented, arguing the issue should be left to Congress and that the precedents do not clearly reach these annotations. JUSTICE GINSBURG dissented separately, reasoning the annotations are descriptive, produced after enactment, and therefore should be 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?