4 ms·

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.
imapluralistyep 6y ago
As a lawyer, I can chime in here. Annotated statutes are special. They have cross references to the cases which cite to the statutes. So if you're doing research on a statute, the annotated version will have the letter of the law word for word, then at the bottom it will have a little topical index (with topics based on a part of the statute) under each topic will be the cases citation which addressed that topic and a brief 1-2 line description of what that case held. Generally, one of the publishers puts them together instead of the state because it takes a lot of legwork and constant updating as new cases interpret the statute. State laws and statutes are obviously not something you can claim is your intellectual property but when they're annotated you are actually reading a lot of stuff that isn't the just the statute.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Annotated statutes should only be special when created by others. A state's annotation carries significantly more weight: it bears an official status, and it should have been obvious that the state's official interpretation, though not completely binding, still constitutes critical information necessary for citizens to know and understand the laws they are expected to live by.
  - imapluralistyep 6y ago
    I agree. Unfortunately, it is really looked down on by judges when you cite to an annotated statute because the annotation it isn't generally considered law. Obviously, this case may change that in Georgia (maybe elsewhere). I'd certainly try to cite to annotated statutes if the US supreme court said the authors were legislators.
- stefan_ 6y ago
  So why did Georgia feel the need to anoint this one the official annotated code? There is obviously a market for annotations, what stopped LexisNexis from just doing the annotations on it's own initiative and selling the result itself? What doomed their copyright is that they took state money to do it. Is it just corruption and they figured they can charge both sides?

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.

imapluralistyep 6y ago

As a lawyer, I can chime in here. Annotated statutes are special. They have cross references to the cases which cite to the statutes. So if you're doing research on a statute, the annotated version will have the letter of the law word for word, then at the bottom it will have a little topical index (with topics based on a part of the statute) under each topic will be the cases citation which addressed that topic and a brief 1-2 line description of what that case held. Generally, one of the publishers puts them together instead of the state because it takes a lot of legwork and constant updating as new cases interpret the statute. State laws and statutes are obviously not something you can claim is your intellectual property but when they're annotated you are actually reading a lot of stuff that isn't the just the statute.

ineedasername 6y ago
Annotated statutes should only be special when created by others. A state's annotation carries significantly more weight: it bears an official status, and it should have been obvious that the state's official interpretation, though not completely binding, still constitutes critical information necessary for citizens to know and understand the laws they are expected to live by.
- imapluralistyep 6y ago
  I agree. Unfortunately, it is really looked down on by judges when you cite to an annotated statute because the annotation it isn't generally considered law. Obviously, this case may change that in Georgia (maybe elsewhere). I'd certainly try to cite to annotated statutes if the US supreme court said the authors were legislators.
stefan_ 6y ago
So why did Georgia feel the need to anoint this one the official annotated code? There is obviously a market for annotations, what stopped LexisNexis from just doing the annotations on it's own initiative and selling the result itself? What doomed their copyright is that they took state money to do it. Is it just corruption and they figured they can charge both sides?