Legal Research Companies Post Laws Online, but Do They Own the Data?
Experts note that laws and regulations, for the most part, aren't copyrightable and that the prohibition is geared toward continuing easy access of laws for citizens.
November 15, 2018 at 09:30 AM
4 minute read
As more private companies upload judicial opinions, state and federal regulations and other public court documents, attempting to copyright those documents may prove futile. After all, many public court documents are deemed uncopyrightable and essential for public consumption.
“Most public agencies recognize there's a public interest in making their records as readily available to the public as possible,” said Jones Day's Peter Canfield. “If there's a cost that gets in the way, it should be a minimal one.”
As U.S. state and federal government agencies have faced the burden of uploading voluminous state regulations, laws and judicial opinions, some are outsourcing those tasks to private companies. Those companies, in turn, may seek to copyright the material as their own.
Matt Roessing, a Georgia-based lawyer and lecturer at the University of Georgia, said the practice is a “uniquely American, capitalist approach.” But recently, that practice was challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
In Code Revision Commission v. Public.Resource.Org, the circuit court ruled Georgia's laws and its included annotations weren't copyrightable. The Code Revision Commission, which is a state agency that oversees the Official Code of Georgia, collects royalties from LexisNexis when Lexis sells print, CD-ROM and online versions of the annotated code. The commission claimed, and a district court agreed, that Public.Resource was committing copyright infringement when it uploaded the code and its annotations online for free use. The 11th Circuit, however, reversed that ruling, stating that public records can't be copyrighted.
The Code Revision Commission decision came 10 days before the 11th Circuit also issued an opinion in Fastcase v. Lawriter, a case where a legal service provider claimed copyrighting state regulations precluded an organization from reposting those regulations.
In 2010, Fastcase partnered with the State Bar of Georgia to create a database of Georgia law and regulations. The Bar pays Fastcase a yearly fee for the service. In 2015, Georgia's secretary of state entered into a contract with Lawriter allowing the company to post the regulations for free public usage, prompting Lawriter to allege copyright infringement. The district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, but on Oct. 29 the 11th Circuit remanded the case back to the district court.
The 11th Circuit didn't address copyrightability of laws as it did in Code Revision Commission but it may be a factor in Fastcase. The 11th Circuit's ruling aligns with federal laws that prohibit copyrighting laws and regulations, according to lawyers contacted by Legaltech News.
Baker & Hostetler partner Oren Warshavsky cited 17 U.S. Code Section 105 as a regulation that says federal laws aren't copyrightable. Warshavsky also said a section in the Code of Federal Regulations prohibits the federal Copyright Office from registering laws and regulations, and that the policies seemed to imply people should have access to the law without fearing possible copyright infringement.
“As a matter of public policy, it seems unfair that someone could obtain the exclusive rights to publish the laws of a state and exclude others from quoting those laws or decisions,” Warshavsky said. “If you allow the other private party or government to copyright state statute that would in essence preclude a third party from copying those statutes or laws, subject to any defenses, like fair use of course.”
Michael Boutros, a partner in Atlanta-based Krevolin & Horst, added that because citizens are the writers of law, no private company can claim copyright of the text. However, he noted any summary or analysis of judicial opinions or regulations can be copyrightable. Such copyrightability also extends to legal briefs that lawyers submit to courts and agencies because briefs are an individual's analysis.
“They are an individual's analysis, rearrangement of underline laws. How they are structured can be technically copyrightable,” Boutros said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250