140 S.Ct. 1498
SCOTUS2020Background
- The Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) contains the text of Georgia statutes plus non‑binding annotations (case summaries, attorney‑general opinions, research citations).
- Georgia’s Code Revision Commission (a legislature‑created, legislature‑funded body staffed by the Office of Legislative Counsel) supervises compilation; Matthew Bender/Lexis prepared the annotations under a work‑for‑hire contract that vested copyright in the State.
- Public.Resource.Org (PRO) posted and distributed the OCGA online without permission; the Commission sued for copyright infringement while PRO sought a declaratory judgment that the OCGA (including annotations) is public domain.
- The district court ruled for the Commission (annotations not law, so copyrightable); the Eleventh Circuit reversed under the government‑edicts doctrine and entered judgment for PRO.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit: applying the government‑edicts doctrine to legislators, the Court held annotations authored by an arm of the legislature in the course of legislative duties are not copyrightable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Georgia/Commission) | Defendant's Argument (Public.Resource.Org) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Copyrightability of OCGA annotations | Annotations are original, nonbinding commentary and therefore protectable under the Copyright Act | Annotations are authored by a legislative body performing legislative duties and thus fall under the government edicts doctrine | Annotations are not copyrightable (public domain) |
| Scope of the government‑edicts doctrine | Doctrine should focus on whether work has the force of law; nonbinding materials can be copyrighted | Doctrine turns on the identity/authority of the author; judges and legislators cannot be "authors" for official work | Doctrine applies to legislators as well as judges; author identity dispositive regardless of legal force |
| Interaction with Copyright Act text (§101, §105) | §101 expressly lists "annotations" as protectable and Congress did not bar states; §105 federal exclusion does not require same rule for states | Statutory labels do not override the settled construction of "author"; federal exclusions are broader and not dispositive here | Statutory language does not displace the doctrine; precedent interpreting "author" controls; Congress can change rule if desired |
| Relief sought (injunction/enforcement) | Commission sought and obtained injunction in district court to stop PRO’s distribution | PRO sought declaratory judgment and reversal of injunction | Eleventh Circuit judgment for PRO affirmed; injunction vacated because annotations are public domain |
Key Cases Cited
- Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591 (1834) (court opinions cannot be copyrighted; judges cannot confer such a right on a reporter)
- Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244 (1888) (judges are not "authors" of works produced in their judicial capacity, including nonbinding headnotes/syllabi)
- Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U.S. 617 (1888) (materials prepared by an author lacking law‑making authority—e.g., a reporter’s headnotes—may be copyrighted)
- Code Revision Comm’n v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 906 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2018) (Eleventh Circuit held OCGA annotations fall under government‑edicts doctrine and are not copyrightable)
- Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (originality requirement for copyright)