'Hidden Behind a Paywall': SCOTUS Weighs Challenge to Copyrighting Georgia's Legal Code
The state of Georgia contends that Public.Resource.Org violated its copyright when organization founder Carl Malamud bought the 186-volume annotated code and all of its supplements and made it available for free online.
December 03, 2019 at 02:00 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Report
Georgia's four-year fight to stop a California public interest group from making the state's annotated legal code available for free online drew pointed questions from the U.S. Supreme Court Monday.
Georgia contends the Official Code of Georgia Annotated is copyrighted and that it has given a LexisNexis publisher the exclusive rights to publish and sell it. The state contends that Public.Resource.Org violated that copyright when organization founder Carl Malamud bought the 186-volume and all of its supplements and made it available for free online. The state sued in 2015, prompting a countersuit by Public.Resource.Org.
On Monday, Chief Justice John Roberts quickly homed in on the significance of the annotations, whether they were "official," and, if so, whether that gave them "more weight when they're cited in court," according to an unofficial transcript of the arguments.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg asked why, if judges' rulings aren't copyrightable as a matter of law, the Georgia General Assembly has grounds to argue that summaries of state law qualify for copyright protection.
Codes of legal statutes and judicial rulings traditionally are not eligible for copyright protection—a concept known as the "government edicts doctrine." But Georgia's Commission on Code Revision contends that summaries of judicial or attorney general opinions and other editorial notes published as guidance in the annotated code are eligible for copyright protection because they are "commentary" not enacted into law by the General Assembly.
Attorneys for the Public.Resource.Org counter that the first statute in the state's official code—1-1-1—merges annotations and statutory language into one official, annotated code.
A federal trial court ruled in 2017 that Georgia's annotated legal code was copyrightable because the annotations produced by the state's contractor are not an official part of the code. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed a year later.
Joshua Johnson of Vinson & Elkins in Washington, D.C., arguing on behalf of Georgia, sought to distance the state's involvement in the annotations, contending they are prepared by a commercial publisher and are not individually approved by the General Assembly.
But Justice Neil Gorsuch asked Johnson, "Aren't annotations … frequently used by state courts as indications of the legislature's intentions?"
"Why would we allow the official law to be hidden behind a paywall?" Gorsuch added.
"The annotations are not the law," Johnson replied. "So the law is not behind a paywall."
"So you're disavowing that they're never used by the state courts as indications of legislative intent? That never happens? That's the representation that you're making to this court?" Gorsuch pressed.
Johnson replied the annotations would never be used to indicate legislative intent. Johnson also argued that upholding 11th Circuit "would scuttle numerous states' regimes for publishing annotated official codes."
Eric Citron, an attorney at Goldstein & Russell representing Public.Resource.Org, countered that there is a simple legal question: Is the annotated code a legal work, and is it published under the authority of the state?
"If it is, then it can't be copyrighted," Citron said.
In addition, he argued, the annotated code "is still the voice of the state," and annotated commentary is "often used by the courts as an authentic source of law."
Justice Brett Kavanaugh challenged Citron as to whether and to what extent annotations in the Georgia code are relied on by the courts. And, the justice said, a cross-section of states that signed on to an amicus brief in support of Georgia made argued the 11th Circuit's ruling will make it difficult to incentivize the creation of the annotations in the first place.
"The official versions bear the states' imprimatur," Citron replied. "They get to supervise what goes in them. That's the source of the problem with the copyrighting of it. Lexis isn't going to agree to do the annotation work in exchange for a price cap. What it wants for the price cap is the right to publish it officially."
The U.S. Justice Department also weighed for Georgia during Monday's arguments. Anthony Yang, assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, contended the annotations were "research aids" created "after the fact," making them eligible for copyright. He also described them as "a convenient reference" that "does not constitute the law."
"Well," Justice Elena Kagan observed, "The people look at the annotations pretty carefully as guides to what the law is all about."
"And if the [Georgia Code Revision] Commission is basically involved in what should be in and what shouldn't be in [the legal code] to explain to people what the law means, why would that be copyrightable?" she added.
Yang replied: "I don't think they're actually explaining what the law means."
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
- 1Tuesday Newspaper
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-85
- 3Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 4Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 5Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
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