3 ms·

The text of the Georgia law is not copyrightable, and the article states this. The issue is with the annotations, which are basically links to related resources

The text of the Georgia law is not copyrightable, and the article states this. The issue is with the annotations, which are basically links to related resources. These are made at great effort and expense by Lexis/Nexis, a private company. These annotations are copyrightable. The mistake is Georgia making the annotated version of its codes the "official" version.

plussed_reader 10y ago
"Mistake."
wnissen 10y ago
Except every bill in the legislature is called "An Act to amend the Official Code of Georgia Annotated." It's not a mistake, the official version is the annotated version. There's no daylight between the mythical "unannotated" version and the annotated one.
- jcranmer 10y ago
  Very likely, the annotations have no controlling legal effect. The difference between unofficial and official versions of the text largely relies on which version will control the interpretation if there is a copying error (e.g., one says "remuneration" and one says "enumeration"). I suspect Georgia made the annotated code official on the basis that it's the copy that everyone already has. Stripping out the annotations and publishing that should be completely kosher for copyright and would still give the controlling version of the law (assuming no copying errors were made, of course).
  - khedoros1 10y ago
    A law gets passed. Years later, a court case comes up about it that changes the way that the law is usually interpreted. There's nothing in the law itself that links those two occurrences, but the legal case has essentially clarified and/or rewritten the original law. The annotations would link those. Sure, you could read through both parts of the law (the codes and the court cases), and presumably that's what Lexisnexis did, but it doesn't seem like the unannotated state law would be practically useful, because it won't transparently reflect what the actual controlling version of the law is.
    - jcranmer 10y ago
      The same is true even when the official version of the law is unannotated. The annotations themselves have no legal bearing, but they are immensely useful for tracking down court cases and (presumably) the legislative sources and discussions about the law to divine legislative intent. That's why lawyers have annotated copies of law on their shelves instead of unannotated ones, even if the annotated text isn't technically the controlling copy.
- dpark 10y ago
  > It's not a mistake, the official version is the annotated version. Joshuaheard is saying that making it the official version is a mistake. Not in the sense of "oops, we accidentally wrote down the wrong thing" but in the sense of "this is a bad idea caused by lack of foresight". Just as someone might say it's a mistake to ask a stranger in a bar to watch your bag while you go to the restroom. It's not an accident but it is a mistake.
Chaebixi 10y ago
> These are made at great effort and expense by Lexis/Nexis, a private company. According to the article: > the annotations, which were copyrighted and owned by the state If the state published an official version of its code and Lexis/Nexis took that and privately published its own edition with value-add annotations, then I think that argument that the annotated version can be under restrictive copyright would make more sense. However, if the state contracted with Lexis/Nexis and retains copyright on the annotations, Lexis should be getting paid by the state for the work, and the work should be free.

plussed_reader 10y ago

"Mistake."

wnissen 10y ago

Except every bill in the legislature is called "An Act to amend the Official Code of Georgia Annotated." It's not a mistake, the official version is the annotated version. There's no daylight between the mythical "unannotated" version and the annotated one.

jcranmer 10y ago
Very likely, the annotations have no controlling legal effect. The difference between unofficial and official versions of the text largely relies on which version will control the interpretation if there is a copying error (e.g., one says "remuneration" and one says "enumeration"). I suspect Georgia made the annotated code official on the basis that it's the copy that everyone already has. Stripping out the annotations and publishing that should be completely kosher for copyright and would still give the controlling version of the law (assuming no copying errors were made, of course).
- khedoros1 10y ago
  A law gets passed. Years later, a court case comes up about it that changes the way that the law is usually interpreted. There's nothing in the law itself that links those two occurrences, but the legal case has essentially clarified and/or rewritten the original law. The annotations would link those. Sure, you could read through both parts of the law (the codes and the court cases), and presumably that's what Lexisnexis did, but it doesn't seem like the unannotated state law would be practically useful, because it won't transparently reflect what the actual controlling version of the law is.
  - jcranmer 10y ago
    The same is true even when the official version of the law is unannotated. The annotations themselves have no legal bearing, but they are immensely useful for tracking down court cases and (presumably) the legislative sources and discussions about the law to divine legislative intent. That's why lawyers have annotated copies of law on their shelves instead of unannotated ones, even if the annotated text isn't technically the controlling copy.
dpark 10y ago
> It's not a mistake, the official version is the annotated version. Joshuaheard is saying that making it the official version is a mistake. Not in the sense of "oops, we accidentally wrote down the wrong thing" but in the sense of "this is a bad idea caused by lack of foresight". Just as someone might say it's a mistake to ask a stranger in a bar to watch your bag while you go to the restroom. It's not an accident but it is a mistake.

Chaebixi 10y ago

> These are made at great effort and expense by Lexis/Nexis, a private company. According to the article: > the annotations, which were copyrighted and owned by the state If the state published an official version of its code and Lexis/Nexis took that and privately published its own edition with value-add annotations, then I think that argument that the annotated version can be under restrictive copyright would make more sense. However, if the state contracted with Lexis/Nexis and retains copyright on the annotations, Lexis should be getting paid by the state for the work, and the work should be free.