Term: 2019
Docket: 18-1150
Georgia v. Public.resource.org Inc.
- Pro
18-1150 GEORGIA V. PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC. DECISION BELOW: 906 F.3d 1229 CERT. GRANTED 6/24/2019 QUESTION PRESENTED: This Court has held, as a matter of "public policy," that judicial opinions are not copyrightable. Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244, 253-254 (1888). Lower courts have extended that holding to state statutes. See, e.g., John G. Danielson, Inc. v. Winchester-Conant Props., Inc., 322 F.3d 26, 38 (1st Cir. 2003). But the rule that "government edicts” cannot be copyrighted has "proven difficult to apply when the material in question does not fall neatly into the categories of statutes or judicial opinions." Ibid. The question presented is: Whether the government edicts doctrine extends to-and thus renders uncopyrightable-works that lack the force of law, such as the annotations in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 17-11589
The U.S. Supreme Court case Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc., 2019, revolved around the issue of copyright laws and public access to legal texts. The state of Georgia claimed that annotations added to its official code by a private company were protected under copyright law, thus prohibiting their free distribution online by Public.Resource.Org (PRO), a non-profit organization dedicated to facilitating public access to government records and legal materials. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of PRO with a 5-4 decision stating that no one can own the law; hence it cannot be copyrighted because laws are authored by legislators who are representatives of the people and therefore belong in the public domain.
In the dissenting opinion for Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc., Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito and partially by Justice Breyer, argued that copyright protection should extend to annotations in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA). He contended that these annotations are not part of the state's law-making process but rather supplementary materials created by a private company under contract with the state. Therefore, they do not fall within government edicts doctrine which makes laws uncopyrightable. The dissent further stated that denying copyright protection could discourage states from producing annotated codes and deprive them of a valuable tool for understanding their laws. They also disagreed with majority’s historical interpretation about judicial opinions being free from copyright protections as it was based on English common law tradition which does not apply to legislative works like OCGA.
