590 U.S. 255
SCOTUS2020Background
- The Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) publishes Georgia statutes together with non-binding annotations summarizing cases, attorney-general opinions, and secondary sources.
- The Georgia Code Revision Commission (majority legislators, staffed/funded by the legislative branch) contracts with Matthew Bender/Lexis to produce the annotations under a work-for-hire; the contract states copyright vests in the State/Commission.
- Public.Resource.Org (PRO) posted and distributed the OCGA annotations online without permission; the Commission sued for copyright infringement; PRO counterclaimed seeking a declaration that the OCGA (including annotations) is public domain.
- The district court ruled for the Commission (annotations lack force of law so are copyrightable); the Eleventh Circuit reversed, applying the government edicts doctrine to bar copyright.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit: officials empowered to speak with the force of law (judges and legislators) cannot be treated as "authors" for works produced in their official duties; therefore OCGA annotations are not copyrightable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Georgia) | Defendant's Argument (PRO) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are OCGA annotations copyrightable under the government edicts doctrine? | Annotations are non-binding summaries/editorial work and thus original copyrightable material. | Annotations are produced by a legislative arm in the course of legislative duties and fall under the government edicts/public-domain rule. | Not copyrightable; doctrine bars officials with lawmaking authority from being "authors" of works created in official capacity. |
| Is the Code Revision Commission the relevant "author" and an arm of the legislature? | Commission is a distinct entity; annotations are drafted by Lexis under contract, not legislative authorship. | Commission functions as an extension of the Legislature (composition, funding, staff, legislative approval/merger before publication). | The Commission is treated as an arm of the legislature and thus the statutory "author" is a legislative actor. |
| Should the doctrine rest on whether the material has the "force of law" or on the author's identity? | The proper test looks to whether a work has the force/authority of law (only lawlike materials are excluded). | The longstanding rule focuses on the identity of the author: judges/legislators cannot be authors of official works regardless of binding effect. | The Court holds the authorship/identity test controls; force-of-law focus is inconsistent with precedent. |
| Do Copyright Act text/administrative practices defeat the doctrine as applied to state annotations? | §101 lists "annotations" as copyrightable; federal exemptions (§101/§105) show Congress knew how to draw lines and did not displace state copyrights; Copyright Office Compendium favors registration in some cases. | §101 permits annotations only if an "original work of authorship"—which officials acting in an official lawmaking capacity cannot be; Compendium is nonbinding and follows Banks. | Statutory/textual arguments rejected: Congress has preserved the preexisting meaning of "author"; the Compendium is nonbinding and not persuasive to override precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. 591 (1834) (early statement that reporters/judges cannot hold copyright in judicial opinions)
- Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244 (1888) (held judges are not "authors" for works produced in judicial capacity; doctrine extends to non-binding judge-made materials)
- Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U.S. 617 (1888) (distinguished reporter-created explanatory materials—those by non-lawmaking authors may be copyrightable)
- Code Revision Comm’n v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 906 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2018) (applying government edicts doctrine and reversing district court injunction)
- Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (originality requirement for copyright)