Georgia v. Public Resource.Org, Inc.
Headline: Court bars Georgia from copyrighting annotations in its official state code, clearing a nonprofit to post annotated laws and making legal commentary freely available to the public.
Holding: The OCGA annotations are ineligible for copyright protection because they were authored by an arm of the Georgia Legislature in the course of its legislative duties.
- Allows nonprofits and the public to post and download Georgia’s annotated code without paying.
- Stops Georgia from asserting copyright in annotations authored by its legislative commission.
- May prompt publishers and states to seek congressional changes to copyright law.
Summary
Background
The State of Georgia, through its Code Revision Commission, publishes the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA). The OCGA contains statutory text and non-binding annotations summarizing court decisions, attorney general opinions, and reference materials. A private publisher, Matthew Bender (Lexis), drafted the annotations under a work-for-hire contract with the Commission and sold the OCGA as the state’s official annotated code. Public.Resource.Org (PRO), a nonprofit, posted the OCGA online for free. The Commission sued PRO for copyright infringement, and the District Court sided with the Commission, treating the annotations as copyrightable.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether the annotations can be copyrighted. Relying on the government edicts doctrine, the Court ruled that officials who make or interpret the law cannot be considered the “author” of works they create in their official duties. The Copyright Act treats the Commission as the legal author of the Lexis annotations. Because the Commission acts as an arm of the Georgia Legislature and produced the annotations as part of its legislative duties, the Court held the annotations ineligible for copyright and affirmed the Eleventh Circuit.
Real world impact
The decision lets PRO and others continue to publish Georgia’s annotated code without facing infringement claims. It limits States’ ability to charge for annotations created by legislative bodies, and it may prompt publishers, States, or Congress to seek different arrangements or legislative changes.
Dissents or concurrances
Some Justices dissented, arguing the Copyright Act and practice allow state annotations to be copyrighted, or that Congress rather than the Court should resolve this policy question.
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?