38 ms·

Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

• adammunich 6y ago
  This is a huge win for civil liberty.
  • SamWhited 6y ago
    I'm not sure that it is. While I agree with the final outcome (seriously, why would the states be able to copyright annotations?), it sounds like the court ignored precedent and effectively made up a new law out of whole cloth to reach this outcome. We may be okay with this particular outcome, but would we feel the same way if they did it for say Roe v. Wade (or some other more established opinion that you like, depending on your political leanings)? I can't tell how serious this is, but it sounds like another attempt to weaken stare decisis to me (again, with the disclaimer that I am not a lawyer or legal expert of any kind and maybe it's not nearly as bad as it sounds to me?)
    • thaumasiotes 6y ago
      > it sounds like the court ignored precedent and effectively made up a new law out of whole cloth to reach this outcome. > We may be okay with this particular outcome, but would we feel the same way if they did it for say Roe v. Wade That's... pretty much exactly what they did for Roe v. Wade.
      • SamWhited 6y ago
        No, they didn't. In Roe v. Wade they made up a legal test which they can do, and they interpreted existing laws in terms of their constitutionality. However, as far as I can tell that's not what's happening here. They just took a law that applies to the judiciary and said "yah, that applies to the legislature too now". Again, not a lawyer, so the way in which they reached their outcome may not be as bad as it seems to me since I don't really have the knowledge to evaluate it properly. Just because the decision is good though doesn't mean it doesn't have other bad consequences.
        • rmilk 6y ago
          I would not agree with your assessment. The legislature wrote the laws, which are not copyrighted. But they went a step further in this case to add that the ACTUAL law to be applied in the State is the Annotated version, not the original unannotated version. Or in other words, the only way to obtain the actual law is through the version that was copyrighted. (See the Ars Technica article that has some good background on the history of the case). I still see the case as being about the legislature creating law but then assigning the copyright to that law to someone else. That was decided long ago in the government edicts precedents. Without this overturned decision, this leaves you in the position that you cannot access the Official Laws without being forced to go to the owner of the copyright for access.
    • NineStarPoint 6y ago
      I’m not so sure it ignores precedent, although it definitely extends it. I think Ginsberg in her dissent says it well that the issue follows from related precedent as such: “To explain why, I proceed from common ground. All agree that headnotes and syllabi for judicial opinions—both a kind of annotation—are copyrightable when created by a reporter of decisions, Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U. S. 617, 645–650 (1888), but are not copyrightable when created by judges.” She goes on to say “In contrast, the role of the legislature encompasses the process of ‘making laws’- not construing statutes after their enactment.” and that, “The OCGA annotations, in my appraisal, do not rank as part of the Georgia Legislature’s lawmaking process for three reasons.” Those in the majority instead say “If judges, acting as judges, cannot be ’authors’ because of their authority to make and interpret the law, it follows that legislators, acting as legislators, cannot be either.” They say this extends to the annotations as “That of course includes final legislation, but it also includes explanatory and proce- dural materials legislators create in the discharge of their legislative duties.” Whether the majority is correct in their decision or not, I think this is definitely a reasonable clarification of past precedent. I think Justice Thomas’s dissent is accurate when it says that this was not as clear cut a confirmation as the Majority opinion’s writing makes it out to be, but I think saying the decision is incongruous with previous precedent is also incorrect.
      • SamWhited 6y ago
        That may be fair; rereading Ginsburg's dissent though I'm still left wondering if it makes sense to apply precedent in the way the majority did, or if they were just making things up. It's quite possible that I'm just misunderstanding what I'm reading too though.
        • NineStarPoint 6y ago
          It’s definitely fair to disagree with the majority here. The written dissents also make sense, and as a 5:4 decision that wasn’t along party lines you’re in good company with Supreme Court Justices who think it was an incorrect decision.
• tantalor 6y ago
  https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/georgia-v-public-resource-org-inc/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/georgia-v-public...
• olliej 6y ago
  this is a huge win - although it's interesting that Ginsburg and some other "liberal" judges seem to side with Georgia in saying that the state should be able to put the law of the land behind a pay wall.
  • irrational 6y ago
    Why?
  • tantalor 6y ago
    That dissent refers to "non-binding annotations" which are more like the opinions of the law-makers, hence not part of their duties because they are not law.
    • pmiller2 6y ago
      Indeed, here is the very first paragraph of the dissenting opinion by Ginsburg (joined by Breyer), beginning at p. 39 of the linked submission: > Beyond doubt, state laws are not copyrightable. Nor are other materials created by state legislators in the course of performing their lawmaking responsibilities, e.g., legislative committee reports, floor statements, unenacted bills. (Ante, at 8–9). Not all that legislators do, however, is ineligible for copyright protection; the government edicts doctrine shields only “works that are (1) created by judges and legislators (2) in the course of their judicial and legislative duties.” (Ante, at 9) (emphasis added). The core question this case presents, as I see it: Are the annotations in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) done in a legislative capacity? The answer, I am persuaded, should be no.
      • huffmsa 6y ago
        Which is reasonable, but isn't this publication THE only codified publication of Georgia's laws?
        • ejstronge 6y ago
          How would your argument change in the event that this were the only such publication? How about if there were 1,000? EDIT: I now realize that George effectively only published an annotated version of its laws, which can only be purchased (it seems) from LexisNexis. While a free version is available, this version appears to be prepared by LexisNexis (all of this is my understanding from ref 1) 1. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/12/justices-debate-allowing-state-law-to-be-hidden-behind-a-pay-wall/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/12/justices-debate-...
• amerine 6y ago
  It’s a welcome decision, but a very obvious one. Why did Georgia need to get told that we, the people, own the laws?
  • QUFB 6y ago
    This Amicus brief from other states aligned with Georgia attempts to explain the rationale: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1150/114285/20190830130939502_Georgia%20v.%20Public.Resource.Org%20States%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1150/114285/201...
  • jki275 6y ago
    There's a little more to it than that -- "the laws" are clearly beyond the reach of copyright and have been forever. What this case is about was some kind of annotated version of the statutes that included case notes and precedents and such. Georgia tried to claim that was subject to copyright. The Justices disagreed, claiming that the annotations were primarily created by legislators in the course of doing legislative work, and thus also could not be copyrighted.
  • CobrastanJorji 6y ago
    The dissenting judges would tell you that the laws are not copyright, the annotations are, which, although important to understanding the law, are not the law.
    • simcop2387 6y ago
      But while they aren't the law, they hold the power of law as the annotations are used by judges to decide cases.
      • wahern 6y ago
        As the majority opinion and one dissenting opinion explain, whether a work has the force of law is not the test. If it were, dissenting judicial opinions would be copyrightable, but they're not. The rule is that works produced by judges or legislators acting in their official capacities are not copyrightable. In this case, the annotations were works-for-hire of the legislature; whether they have the force of law is irrelevant.
• sciurus 6y ago
  For background on this, see https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/12/justices-debate-allowing-state-law-to-be-hidden-behind-a-pay-wall/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/12/justices-debate-...
• ISL 6y ago
  Reading the opinions, it is a breath of fresh air to see one of the branches of government relying upon fact and logical argument when discussing the issues. This is how America is supposed to work.
  • thanksforfish 6y ago
    The partisan politics you see on TV is thankfully just the tip of the iceberg.
    • softwaredoug 6y ago
      I'm not sure I agree. I think mundane issues become partisan whenever they become political, but many mundane issues are still just dealt with by whatever bureaucrat or official is just doing their job applying the law. In my experience with the US Federal Gov't (through my wife and family) applying the boring law is the norm, and what's not normal is when political actors inject themselves or create a narrative about an issue to suit their purpose. US Federal Employees are deeply apolitical as a workplace culture. We see a lot of the latter, but there's only so much bandwidth for it. Most work is boring and getting done in a professional manner
    • FearNotDaniel 6y ago
      I suspect that idiom means just the opposite of what you think it means. By "thankfully" I infer that you are relieved that the vast majority of political activity, "below the surface" of what is seen on TV, is nowhere near as reprehensible. Whereas "tip of the iceberg" is generally used to imply that the visible problem is merely a fractional indication of the much greater and uglier problem that lies beneath, being of the same matter and type of that which has already been seen.
      • thanksforfish 6y ago
        Ah correct, I did misuse it. Thank you.
  • matheusmoreira 6y ago
• cure 6y ago
  Yay for public.resource.org. Carl Malamud does excellent work. You can donate here: https://public.resource.org/about/donate.html https://public.resource.org/about/donate.html
• lidHanteyk 6y ago
  There are interesting implications: > First, the author of the annotations qualifies as a legislator. Whoa! There is a massive amount of such code, and the folks writing it are usually thought of as private lawyers, rather than public legislators. That's a big deal, since the legislative process cannot be unconditionally private, but has to be balanced to keep the public informed.
• tzs 6y ago
  I had never heard of the "government edicts doctrine" before. Doing a little research, I see why. It is a judicially created doctrine created by the Supreme Court ~130 years ago, and this is the first time since then it has been back to the Court. What they decided way back then was that opinions of state court judges, like opinions of Federal court judges, were not copyrightable. They also decided a little later that annotations written by a state-employed annotator where the state did not claim copyright on the annotator's work could be copyrighted by the annotator. What's new in this case compared to those cases that originally established the government edicts doctrine is that it was a state that was trying to assert copyright ownership of the annotations.
• supernova87a 6y ago
  Aside from the particulars of this case, I feel that the whole subject of copyright is generally anti-competitive and rent-seeking, as codified in the laws and time limits being inflated grossly to suit copyright holders in the current era. In my opinion, the argument that copyright extension incentivizes authors/creators doesn't hold much water. I generally observe that there are plenty of people willing to create and publish things with absolutely no hope of profit or legal protection, and yet we bend over backwards to extend our protections for the lucky few to the tune of the author's life + 70 years. Even more if for hire. Tell me how that's in the public interest.
  • zzo38computer 6y ago
    I agree with you. I don't like copyright either. I think it should be abolished, but would also accept to greatly reduce the duration and scope of copyright. That is why I write stuff to be public domain instead.
  • bgorman 6y ago
    Intellectual property is the probably the number one way the western world oppresses the poor.
    • zozbot234 6y ago
      Intellectual property monopoly oppresses everyone, not just the poor.
    • DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
      I assume you’re referring to drug patents with that remark?
    • CamperBob2 6y ago
      Your own post is "intellectual property." Can you be a bit more specific?
      • bgorman 6y ago
• allears 6y ago
  The point is, judges make decisions based on these annotations. Therefore, if you're a private citizen, or even an attorney, and you're dealing with the court system, you must have access to the annotations or you're at a serious disadvantage. For that reason, hiding them behind a subscription or paywall is the equivalent of "secret" laws, or perhaps justice reserved for the well-to-do.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• ineedasername 6y ago
  Laws, and their official (albeit non-binding) interpretations should not be under copyright. This has struck me as an absurd assertion from the very beginning: We're supposed to live in a nation of laws: how could that ever be the case if the laws themselves are kept from the people?
  • segfaultbuserr 6y ago
    Another related issue is the copyright of technical standards incorporated into law. A selection of technical standards, especially in the domain of civil engineering, the standards on fire, electrical safety, energy efficiency, and test design standards, are effectively laws. The implementation of standards is explicitly required by the laws and there's no alternative. Yet, these standards are often sold for-profit with copyright restriction. The EFF has some coverage on the issue [0][1]. [0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/11/eff-court-dont-let-private-organizations-control-access-law https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/11/eff-court-dont-let-pri... [1] https://www.eff.org/press/releases/publicresourceorg-prevails-free-speech-case-over-publishing-safety-standards https://www.eff.org/press/releases/publicresourceorg-prevail...
    • danielisaac 6y ago
      I'm pretty eager to see where the ASTM case lands. I'm rooting for Public.Resource.Org, but given that the DC Circuit remanded on fair use (rather than copyrightability), the court will probably consider "amount and substantiality" of the work reproduced relative to the original. Public.Resource.Org photocopied and distributed the complete standards, cover to cover, including ASTM's illustrations, logos, etc. But what aspect of the manuals are the actual law? The technical measurements? From what I understand, the Georgia annotations became law by reference in their entirety. I don't think it's obvious here and I worry the court will rule against them :/ Regardless, I love Public.Resource.Org's work and wish them the best.
      • segfaultbuserr 6y ago
        > I don't think it's obvious here and I worry the court will rule against them :/ Yes, ultimately, the issue of technical standard is still untested in court and remains a problem, it will take a prominent lawsuit before it's resolved. > But what aspect of the manuals are the actual law? The technical measurements? What Public.Resource.Org is doing is still a gray area, as you said. But I guess it will not be a total loss - if there are legal challenges in the future, they can publish a "censored" version of technical standard and defend that.
• metaphor 6y ago
  Surprised no cite to the oral argument on Oyez in current discussion: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-1150 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-1150
• wsh 6y ago
  Does the Court’s holding that officials cannot be “authors” have any implications for copyright in privately written documents that have been adopted as laws or regulations? Is Veeck v. Southern Bldg. Code Congress Int'l, Inc., 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002) still good law after today?
• jeffdavis 6y ago
  I haven't read the whole opinion yet, but it seems to be arguing that works produced in the course of a legislative function are not authored, and therefore not copyrightable. It doesn't seem to have much to do with the content relating to the law or not. And if so, what is the larger significance?