throbber
NO. 18-1150
`
`3511 the $upreme QEuurt at the @Hniteh $tate§
`
`STATE OF GEORGIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
`
`U.
`
`PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.
`
`0N WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
`
`COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
`
`BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS
`
`ANTHONY B. ASKEW
`
`JEREMY C. MARWELL
`
`LISA C. PAVENTO
`
`JOSHUA S. JOHNSON
`
`WARREN J. THOMAS
`MEUNIER CARLIN &
`
`Counsel of Record
`MATTHEW X. ETCHEMENDY
`
`CURFMAN LLC
`
`VINSON & ELKINS LLP
`
`.999 Peachtree St. NE,
`Suite 1300
`
`2200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
`NW, Suite 500 West
`
`Washington, DC 20037
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`(202) 639-6500
`(404) 645- 7700
`joshjohnson@velaw.com
`DANIEL R ORTIZ
`UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA JOHN P. ELWOOD
`
`SCHOOL OF LAW
`
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE
`
`SUPREME COURT
`
`SCHOLER LLP
`
`LITIGATION CLINIC
`580 Massie Road
`
`601 Massachusetts Ave.,
`NW
`
`Charlottesville, VA
`22903
`
`Washington, DC 20001
`(202) 942—5992
`
`
`
`

`

`QUESTION PRESENTED
`
`This Court has held, as a matter of “public policy,”
`that judicial opinions are not copyrightable. Banks v.
`Manchester, 128 U.S. 244, 253-254 (1888). Based on
`that precedent, lower courts have held that certain
`other “government edicts” having the force of law, such
`as state statutes, are not eligible for copyright
`protection.
`
`The question presented is:
`
`Whether the government edicts doctrine extends
`to—and thus renders uncopyrightable—works that
`lack the force of law, such as the annotations in the
`Official Code of Georgia Annotated.
`
`(I)
`
`

`

`II
`
`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`1. Petitioners, the State of Georgia and the Georgia
`Code Revision Commission, on behalf of and for the
`benefit of the General Assembly of Georgia, were
`plaintiffs and counter-defendants in the district court,
`and appellees below.
`
`2. Respondent Public.Resource.Org, Inc., was the
`defendant and counter-claimant in the district court,
`and the appellant below.
`
`

`

`III
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Question Presented...................................................... I
`
`Parties To The Proceedings ........................................ II
`
`Appendix Contents ..................................................... V
`
`Table Of Authorities .................................................. VI
`
`Opinions Below ............................................................ 1
`
`Jurisdiction .................................................................. 1
`
`Constitutional And Statutory Provisions In-
`volved .................................................................... 1
`
`Introduction ................................................................. 1
`
`Statement ..................................................................... 5
`
`Summary Of Argument ............................................. 17
`
`Argument ................................................................... 20
`
`I. The Copyright Act’s Text And History
`Establish
`The
`OCGA
`Annotations’
`
`Copyrightability .................................................. 21
`
`A. Denying Copyright Protection Conflicts
`With Plain Statutory Text ........................... 21
`
`B. The Act’s History Confirms The Anno-
`tations Are Copyrightable ............................ 26
`
`C. Copyright Office Guidance Supports
`Georgia’s Position ......................................... 30
`
`II. This Court’s Precedents Do Not Deprive
`The OCGA’s Annotations Of Copyright
`Protection ............................................................ 31
`
`A. Wheaton, Banks, And Callaghan Only
`Preclude Copyrighting Works Having
`
`

`

`IV
`
`The Force Of Law, And Expressly Au-
`thorize Copyrighting Annotations ............... 32
`
`B. Because The OCGA’s Annotations Are
`
`Not The Law, They Are Not Subject To
`The Government Edicts Doctrine ................ 40
`
`C. Regardless Of Its Theoretical Founda-
`tions, The Government Edicts Doctrine
`Does Not Justify Denying Copyright
`Protection To The OCGA’s Annotations ...... 43
`
`III. The Eleventh Circuit’s Approach Creates
`Substantial Uncertainty And Disruption
`Without Corresponding Benefit ......................... 55
`
`Conclusion .................................................................. 58
`
`

`

`V
`
`APPENDIX CONTENTS
`
`S.B. 52, § 54 (enacted May 12, 2019) ........................ 1a
`
`Page
`
`

`

`VI
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases:
`
`Page(s)
`
`American Soc’y for Testing & Materials v.
`PublicResource. Org, Inc. ,
`896 F.3d 437 (DC. Cir. 2018) ........................ 44, 54
`
`Baker v. Selden,
`101 U.S. 99 (1880) ................................................ 54
`
`Banks & Bros. v. West Publg Co.,
`27 F. 50 (C.C.D. Minn. 1886) ............................... 39
`
`Banks v. Manchester,
`128 U.S. 244 (1888) ...................................... passim
`
`Banks v. Manchester,
`23 F. 143 (C.C.S.D. Ohio 1885) ............................ 35
`
`Bates v. United States,
`522 U.S. 23 (1997) ................................................ 45
`
`Beckles v. United States,
`137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) ............................................ 51
`
`Brosseau v. Haugen,
`543 U.S. 194 (2004) .............................................. 48
`
`BUC Int’l Corp. v. Int’l Yacht Council Ltd.,
`489 F.3d 1129 (11th Cir. 2007) ............................ 13
`
`Building Officials & Code Adm’rs v. Code
`Tech., Inc.,
`628 F.2d 730 (1st Cir. 1980) ................................. 50
`
`Callaghan v. Myers,
`128 U.S. 617 (1888) ...................................... passim
`
`Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First
`Interstate Bank of Denver, NA,
`511 U.S. 164 (1994) .............................................. 44
`
`

`

`VII
`
`Cases—Continued:
`
`Page(s)
`
`Community for Creative Non-Violence v.
`Reid,
`490 U.S. 730 (1989) ............................ 11, 19, 26, 58
`
`Connecticut v. Gould,
`34 F. 319 (C.C.N.D.N.Y. 1888) ............................. 39
`
`County of Suffolk v. First Am. Real Estate
`Sols.,
`261 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2001) .......................... passim
`
`Danforth v. Minnesota,
`552 U.S. 264 (2008) .............................................. 48
`
`Eldred v. Ashcroft,
`537 U.S. 186 (2003) .................................... 5, 53, 55
`
`FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.,
`567 U.S. 239 (2012) .............................................. 50
`
`Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,
`499 U.S. 340 (1991) .......................................... 5, 24
`
`Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.,
`510 U.S. 517 (1994) .................................. 44, 45, 57
`
`Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-
`Street.com, LLC,
`139 S. Ct. 881 (2019) ............................................ 22
`
`Golan v. Holder,
`565 U.S. 302 (2012) .............................................. 53
`
`Gray v. Russel,
`10 F. Cas. 1035 (C.C.D. Mass. 1839) ............. 33, 39
`
`Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation
`
`Enters.,
`471 U.S. 539 (1985) ........................................ 54, 56
`
`

`

`VIII
`
`Cases—Continued:
`
`Page(s)
`
`Harrison Co. v. Code Revision Comm’n,
`260 S.E.2d 30 (Ga. 1979) .......................... 10, 41, 47
`
`Henneford v. Silas Mason Co.,
`300 U.S. 577 (1937) .............................................. 45
`
`Hill v. Colorado,
`530 U.S. 703 (2000) ........................................ 51, 52
`
`Howell v. Miller,
`91 F. 129 (6th Cir. 1898) ................................ 42, 43
`
`Inhale, Inc. v. Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc.,
`755 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2014) .............................. 31
`
`Jennings v. Rodriguez,
`138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) ............................................ 52
`
`Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes
`
`Dredge & Dock Co.,
`513 U.S. 527 (1995) .............................................. 58
`
`John G. Danielson, Inc. v. Winchester- Conant
`
`Props, Inc.,
`322 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2003) ..................................... 6
`
`Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
`136 S. Ct. 1979 (2016) .......................................... 56
`
`Lanzetta v. New Jersey,
`306 U.S. 451 (1939) ........................................ 50, 51
`
`Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control
`
`Components, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 118 (2014) .............................................. 57
`
`Little v. Gould,
`15 F. Gas. 612 (C.C.N.D.N.Y. 1852) ..................... 39
`
`Marbury v. Madison,
`5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) ................................ 47
`
`

`

`IX
`
`Cases—Continued:
`
`Page(s)
`
`Marks v. United States,
`430 U.S. 188 (1977) .............................................. 48
`
`Mathews v. Eldridge,
`424 U.S. 319 (1976) .............................................. 52
`
`Mazer v. Stein,
`347 U.S. 201 (1954) .............................................. 31
`
`McLean v. Arkansas,
`211 U.S. 539 (1909) .............................................. 57
`
`Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder,
`469 U.S. 153 (1985) .............................................. 28
`
`Morrissey v. Brewer,
`408 U.S. 471 (1972) .............................................. 52
`
`Myers v. Callaghan,
`5 F. 726 (C.C.N.D. Ill. 1881) ........................... 37, 38
`
`Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 663 (2014) .............................................. 22
`
`Practice Mgmt. Info. Corp. v. American Med.
`Ass’n,
`121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997) .................... 44, 51, 52
`
`Quality King Distribs., Inc. v. L’Anza
`Research Int’l, Inc.,
`
`523 U.S. 135 (1998) .............................................. 22
`
`Rose v. Locke,
`
`423 U.S. 48 (1975) ................................................ 50
`
`Russello v. United States,
`
`464 U.S. 16 (1983) ................................................ 23
`
`Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida,
`517 U.S. 44 (1996) ................................................ 48
`
`

`

`Cases—Continued:
`
`Page(s)
`
`Skidmore v. Swift & Co.,
`323 U.S. 134 (1944) .............................................. 31
`
`Southco, Inc. v. Kanebridge Corp.,
`390 F.3d 276 (3d Cir. 2004) .................................. 31
`
`Star Athletica, L.L. C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc.,
`137 S. Ct. 1002 (2017) .......................................... 21
`
`State v. Wilson,
`388 N.E.2d 745 (Ohio 1979) ................................. 36
`
`Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC v. Scientific-
`Atlanta, Inc.,
`552 U.S. 148 (2008) .............................................. 45
`
`Texas v. West Publg Co.,
`882 F.2d 171 (5th Cir. 1989) ................................ 51
`
`Veeck v. Southern Bldg. Code Cong. Int’l,
`Inc.,
`293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002) .................... 43, 46, 54
`
`Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren,
`139 S. Ct. 1894 (2019) .......................................... 23
`
`Warth v. Seldin,
`422 U.S. 490 (1975) .............................................. 52
`
`Wheaton v. Peters,
`
`33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834) ........................... passim
`
`Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,
`343 U.S. 579 (1952) .............................................. 48
`
`Zivotofsky v. Kerry,
`135 S. Ct. 2076 (2015) .......................................... 48
`
`Constitutional Provisions:
`
`Ga. Const. art. III, §V ............................................... 40
`
`

`

`XI
`
`Constitutional Provisions—Continued: Page(s)
`
`Ga. Const. art. V, § II, para. IV ................................. 40
`
`U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, c1. 8 ................................ 1, 5, 21
`
`Federal Statutes:
`
`17 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................... passim
`
`17 U.S.C. § 102 ....................................................... 1, 24
`
`17 U.S.C. § 102(a) ...................................... 5, 15, 22, 24
`
`17 U.S.C. § 102(b) ...................................... 5, 44, 53, 54
`
`17 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................... passim
`
`17 U.S.C. § 103(b) ................................................ 18, 24
`
`17 U.S.C. § 104(b)(2) .................................................. 39
`
`17 U.S.C. § 105 ................................................... passim
`
`17 U.S.C. § 106 ......................................................... 1, 5
`
`17 U.S.C. § 107 ..................................................... 14, 44
`
`17 U.S.C. § 201(a) ...................................................... 24
`
`17 U.S.C. § 201(b) ............................................ 3, 11,25
`
`17 U.S.C. § 410(a) ...................................................... 30
`
`17 U.S.C. § 410(c) ....................................................... 31
`
`17 U.S.C. §§ 408-410 .................................................... 6
`
`17 U.S.C. § 701 ............................................................. 6
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ...................................................... 1
`
`Act of Mar. 3, 1817, ch. 63, 3 Stat. 376 ..................... 32
`
`Act of Jan. 12, 1895, ch. 23, § 52, 28 Stat. 601 ......... 26
`
`Act of Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 320, § 7, 35 Stat.
`1075 ....................................................................... 27
`
`Rev. Stat. § 4952 (1878) ............................................. 36
`
`

`

`XII
`
`State Statutes:
`
`Page(s)
`
`1883 Mich. Pub. Acts 8 .............................................. 43
`
`1977 Ga. Laws 922-923 ............................................... 7
`
`1981 Ga. Laws, Extraordinary Sess, at 8-9 ............... 8
`
`2017 Ga. Laws 819, § 54(b) ....................................... 10
`
`2017 Ga. Laws 819-820, § 54 ..................................... 10
`
`2018 Ga. Laws 1123, § 54 ........................................ 1, 9
`
`2018 Ga. Laws 1123, § 54(b) ...................................... 10
`
`Ga. Code Ann. § 14-2-1302 (West 2018) ................... 41
`
`O.C.G.A. § 10-7-21 ..................................................... 10
`
`O.C.G.A. § 1-1-1 ................................................. passim
`
`O.C.G.A.§1-1-7 ........................................... 1, 9, 41, 46
`
`O.C.G.A. § 1-1-9 ........................................................... 8
`
`O.C.G.A. § 28-9-2(a) ..................................................... 8
`
`O.C.G.A. § 28-9-3(15) ................................................. 11
`
`O.C.G.A. § 28-9-3(5) ................................................... 11
`
`O.C.G.A. § 28-9-5(c) ..................................................... 9
`
`O.C.G.A. § 34-9-260 ................................................... 10
`
`S.B. 52, § 54 (enacted May 12, 2019) ................ 1, 9, 10
`
`S.B. 52, § 54(a) (2019) ................................................ 41
`
`S.B. 52, § 54(b) (2019) ................................................ 41
`
`Other Authorities:
`
`1 David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright
`(2019) .................................................................... 23
`
`14 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d ed. 1955) ........................ 36
`
`

`

`XIII
`
`Other Authorities—Continued:
`
`Page(s)
`
`2 William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright
`(2019) .................................................................... 23
`
`Arguments Before the Comms. on Patents of
`the S. and H., Conjointly, on the Bills S.
`6330 and HR. 19853, 59th Cong. 135
`(1906) .................................................................... 27
`
`Carl Malamud, 10 Rules for Radicals (2010),
`https://bit.ly/2LcM9U7 ......................................... 12
`
`Copyright Law Revision: Report of the
`Register of Copyrights on the General
`Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law, 87th
`Cong., 1st Sess. (H.R. Judiciary Comm.
`Print 1961) ........................................................ 4, 29
`
`Copyright Law Revision: Studies Prepared
`for the Subcomm. on Patents,
`Trademarks, and Copyrights of the S.
`Comm. on the Judiciary, Study No. 33,
`86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1961) ...................... 26, 27, 28
`
`Craig Joyce, A Curious Chapter in the
`History of Judicature: Wheaton v. Peters
`and the Rest of the Story (of Copyright in
`the New Republic), 42 Hous. L. Rev. 325
`(2005) .................................................................... 34
`
`Craig Joyce, The Rise of the Supreme Court
`Reporter: An Institutional Perspective on
`Marshall Court Ascendency, 83 Mich. L.
`Rev. 1291 (1985) ....................................... 32, 33,34
`
`E. Fulton Brylawski & Abe Goldman,
`Legislative History of the 1.909 Copyright
`Act (1976) ........................................................ 26, 27
`
`

`

`Page(s)
`
`XIV
`Other Authorities—Continued:
`L. Ray Patterson & Craig Joyce,
`Monopolizing the Law: The Scope of
`Copyright Protection for Reports and
`Statutory Compilations, 36 UCLA L. Rev.
`719 (1989) ............................................................. 27
`O.C.G.A., vol. 12 (2017 ed.) ....................................... 41
`O.C.G.A., vol. 40 (2011 ed.) ....................................... 41
`Public.Resource.Org, Official State Codes,
`Internet Archive, https://bit.ly/2C9KLyQ ............ 12
`Terry A. McKenzie, The Making of a New
`Code, 18 Ga. St. B.J. 102 (1982) ............................ 8
`U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S.
`Copyright Office Practices (3d ed. 2017),
`https://www.copyright.gov/comp3 ................ passim
`
`

`

`BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS
`
`OPINIONS BELOW
`
`The court of appeals’ opinion (Pet. App. 1a-53a) is
`reported at 906 F.3d 1229. The district court’s order
`granting petitioners’ motion for partial summary judg-
`ment and denying respondent’s motion for summary
`judgment (Pet. App. 54a-73a) is reported at 244 F.
`Supp. 3d 1350. The district court’s permanent injunc-
`tion order (Pet. App. 74a-75a) is unreported.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`The court of appeals’ judgment was entered on Oc-
`tober 19, 2018. Justice Thomas extended the time for
`filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to March 4,
`2019. The petition was filed on March 1, 2019. The
`Court granted the petition on June 24, 2019. This
`Court’s jurisdiction rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
`
`PROVISIONS INVOLVED
`
`Pertinent portions of relevant constitutional and
`statutory provisions—U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8; 17
`U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 105, and 106; O.C.G.A. §§ 1-1-
`1 and 1-1-7; and 2018 Ga. Laws 1123, § 54—appear in
`the appendix to the certiorari petition. Pet. App. 76a-
`84a. SB. 52, § 54 (enacted May 12, 2019), is set forth
`in the appendix to this brief.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`For decades, Georgia—like many other states—has
`contracted with a private company to publish its stat-
`utes. Georgia’s current agreement requires the pub-
`lisher to make the statutes available online, free of
`charge. The publisher also prepares an annotated
`compilation of Georgia’s laws called the Official Code
`
`(1)
`
`

`

`2
`
`of Georgia Annotated (“OCGA”). The annotations ap-
`pear alongside the statutory text and consist of such
`materials as summaries of judicial decisions interpret-
`ing or applying particular statutes. The publisher pre-
`pares the annotations without charge to Georgia, rely-
`ing instead on sales of the OCGA for compensation.
`Georgia caps the price of printed OCGA volumes at a
`fraction of that charged for competing, privately pub-
`lished annotations, and the OCGA’s annotations are
`available without charge at over 60 public facilities
`throughout Georgia.
`
`The question here is whether the OCGA’s annota-
`tions are eligible for copyright protection. Citing the
`judicially created doctrine that certain “government
`edicts,” such as statutes and judicial decisions, are not
`copyrightable, the Eleventh Circuit held that Geor-
`gia’s registered copyrights in the OCGA’s annotations
`are invalid.
`It thus rejected Georgia’s infringement
`claim against respondent Public.Resource.Org,
`Inc.
`(“PRO”), which has posted online numerous OCGA vol-
`umes and supplements in their entirety. If allowed to
`stand, the decision below would require a wholesale
`reworking of Georgia’s established system for publish-
`ing its code, as the OCGA’s publisher has made clear
`that “it would lose all incentive to remain in [its] [c]on-
`tract” with Georgia if it could not “recoup its signifi-
`cant investment * * * in developing the [a]nnotations”
`through sales of copyright-protected publications. J .A.
`674.
`
`The Eleventh Circuit’s decision conflicts with a
`
`straightforward application of the Copyright Act’s text
`and this Court’s precedents. Those authorities estab-
`lish that while the law itself is not copyrightable,
`works summarizing or discussing the law are eligible
`
`

`

`3
`
`for copyright protection. Under that rule, the OCGA’s
`annotations are copyrightable because, although they
`are aids for researching the law, it is undisputed they
`have no independent legal force; in other words, they
`do not establish any enforceable rights or obligations.
`
`To start where there is common ground: The par-
`ties here agree that the law is not copyrightable. This
`Court established that rule in three nineteenth-cen-
`
`tury cases—Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591
`(1834), Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244 (1888), and
`Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U.S. 617 (1888). The rule re-
`flects the “public policy” that because “the law * * *
`bind[s] every citizen,” it should be “free for publication
`to all.” Banks, 128 U.S. at 253.
`
`It is also common ground that statutory “annota-
`tions created by a private party generally can be copy-
`righted.”
`Pet. App. 2a; accord id. at 62a; Br.
`in
`Opp’n (BIO) 3. The Copyright Act expressly provides
`that “annotations” are copyrightable derivative works,
`and the Act does not exclude annotations discussing
`primary legal materials from that protection.
`17
`U.S.C. §§ 101, 103.
`
`Nevertheless, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Geor-
`gia cannot hold a copyright in the annotations that the
`private publishing company prepares for the OCGA
`under a work-for-hire agreement with the state. See
`17 U.S.C. § 201(b) (addressing works for hire). Based
`on a novel, multifactor test lacking any basis in the
`Copyright Act’s text, the Eleventh Circuit held that
`although the OCGA’s annotations do “not hav[e] the
`force of law,” they are “sufficiently law-like” to be inel-
`igible for copyright protection under the government
`edicts doctrine. Pet. App. 26a.
`
`

`

`4
`
`The Eleventh Circuit departed from the Copyright
`Act’s text and history in subjecting the OCGA’s anno-
`tations to a different rule than a private party’s anno-
`tations, which the court recognized “generally can be
`copyrighted,” Pet. App. 2a. While the Act specifically
`excludes “work[s] of the United States Government”
`
`from copyright protection, 17 U.S.C. §105, Congress
`chose to allow copyright protection for works by state
`governments.
`It did so with the recognition that re-
`source-constrained state governments frequently rely
`on copyright protection as an incentive for private pub-
`lishers “to print and publish [state government works]
`at their own expense as a commercial venture”—pre-
`cisely what Georgia did here. Copyright Law Revision:
`Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General
`Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law, 87th Cong., 1st
`Sess., 129-130 (H.R. Judiciary Comm. Print 1961)
`(Copyright Law Revision Report). Accordingly, the
`Copyright Office recognizes that state-government-
`created “annotations that summarize or comment
`
`upon legal materials” are copyrightable, “unless the
`annotations themselves have the force of law”—which
`
`even the Eleventh Circuit concedes the OCGA’s anno-
`
`tations lack (Pet. App. 26a). U.S. Copyright Office,
`Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices
`§ 313.6(C)(2)
`(3d
`ed.
`2017),
`https://www.copy-
`right.gov/comp3 (Compendium). The Eleventh Cir-
`cuit’s decision also conflicts with Callaghan—this
`Court’s last statement on the government edicts doc-
`trine, which recognized the copyrightability of annota-
`tions prepared by Illinois’s official reporter of state su-
`preme court decisions.
`
`Without any foundation in statutory text or this
`Court’s precedents,
`the Eleventh Circuit’s decision
`
`

`

`5
`
`threatens to upend the longstanding arrangements of
`Georgia and numerous other states, which rely on cop-
`yright’s economic incentives to make useful research
`aids available at little or no cost to taxpayers while
`also ensuring that actual laws are widely dissemi-
`nated and easily accessible, without charge. This
`Court should reverse.
`
`STATEMENT
`
`1. a. Federal copyright protection is a statutory
`right, not a common-law one. See Wheaton, 33 U.S. at
`661-662. The Constitution empowers Congress “[t]o
`promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by se-
`curing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
`exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Dis-
`coveries.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8. Congress en-
`acted the Nation’s first copyright statute in 1790 and
`has overhauled federal copyright law several times
`since, with the most recent comprehensive revision be-
`ing the Copyright Act of 1976. See Eldred v. Ashcroft,
`537 U.S. 186, 194-195 (2003).
`
`“Copyright protection subsists * * * in original
`works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of
`expression.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). The statutory scheme
`grants copyright owners a bundle of exclusive rights,
`including the rights of reproduction and distribution.
`Id. § 106. This protection only extends to original ex-
`pressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves.
`Id.
`§ 102(b). However, even if certain elements in a work
`are ineligible for copyright protection, other elements
`can still be protected. See, e.g., Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v.
`Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 348-349 (1991).
`
`b. This case involves the “government edicts” doc-
`trine, a narrow,
`judicially created exception to
`
`

`

`6
`
`copyright protection for certain works having the force
`of law. That doctrine originated in three cases this
`Court decided in the 1800s—Wheaton v. Peters,
`33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834), Banks v. Manchester, 128
`U.S. 244 (1888), and Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U.S. 617
`(1888). Those cases, which addressed the copyrighta-
`bility of works reporting court decisions, held that ju-
`dicial opinions are not copyrightable. See Wheaton, 33
`U.S. at 667-668 (analyzing copyright protection for
`this Court’s first official reporter); Banks, 128 U.S. at
`252-254 (denying copyright protection for state su-
`preme court decisions); Callaghan, 128 U.S. at 647-
`650 (recognizing copyright in original matter authored
`by state supreme court’s official reporter, but not in
`“the judicial opinions” themselves).
`
`Lower courts have extended that holding to state
`statutes. See John G. Danielson, Inc. v. Winchester-
`
`Conant Props, Inc., 322 F.3d 26, 38 (1st Cir. 2003)
`(discussing case law). Accordingly, the Copyright Of-
`fice, which registers copyrights and performs other ad-
`ministrative functions related to copyright law, recog-
`nizes a “longstanding public policy” that “government
`edict [s]” having “the force of law” cannot be copy-
`righted, including “legislative enactments, judicial de-
`cisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or
`similar types of official legal materials.” Compendium
`§ 313.6(C)(2); see also 17 U.S.C. §§ 408-410, 701.
`
`No statute directly codifies the government edicts
`doctrine.
`Instead, the Copyright Act provides that
`“[c]opyright protection * * * is not available for any
`work of the United States Government,” regardless of
`whether the work constitutes a “government edict.” 17
`U.S.C. § 105 (emphasis added). There is no parallel
`provision denying copyright protection for works of
`
`

`

`7
`
`state and local governments. See County of Suffolk v.
`First Am. Real Estate Sols., 261 F.3d 179, 187 (2d Cir.
`2001). Therefore, the Copyright Office recognizes that
`a “work that does not constitute a government edict
`may be registered [as copyrighted], even if it was pre-
`pared by an officer or employee of a state, local, terri-
`torial, or foreign government while acting within the
`course of his or her official duties.” Compendium
`§ 313.6(C)(2).
`
`The Copyright Office also recognizes that copyright
`protection is available for “annotations that summa-
`rize or comment upon legal materials issued by a fed-
`eral, state, local, or foreign government, unless the an-
`notations themselves have the force of law.” Compen-
`dium § 313.6(C)(2); accord id. § 717.1. That guidance
`accords with this Court’s decision in Callaghan, which
`held that annotations of judicial opinions—including
`those of a court’s official reporter—may be copy-
`righted. 128 U.S. at 649-650 (“[T]he reporter of a vol-
`ume of law reports can obtain a copyright for it as an
`author, and * * * such copyright will cover the parts of
`the book of which he is the author, although he has no
`exclusive right in the judicial opinions published.”).
`And it is consistent with the Copyright Act, which pro-
`vides that “annotations” are copyrightable as “deriva-
`tive works”—i.e., works “based upon one or more
`preexisting works.” 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 103.
`
`In 1977, the Georgia General Assembly cre-
`2. a.
`ated the Code Revision Commission (“Commission”) to
`assist with recodifying Georgia’s laws for the first time
`in decades.1 Pet. App. 7a; 1977 Ga. Laws 922-923. See
`
`1 The Commission is composed of Georgia’s Lieutenant Gover-
`nor, four members of the Georgia Senate, the Speaker of the
`
`

`

`8
`
`generally J .A. 233-242; Terry A. McKenzie, The Mak-
`ing ofa New Code, 18 Ga. St. B.J. 102 (1982), repro-
`duced at J.A. 243-254. The Commission contracted
`
`with the Michie Company to prepare and publish the
`OCGA. Pet. App. 55a.
`
`Under the Commission’s supervision, Michie pre-
`pared a manuscript containing a compilation of Geor-
`gia statutes. Pet. App. 55a. After the General Assem-
`bly voted to adopt that manuscript as Georgia’s official
`code, Michie added the types of annotations at issue
`here, such as summaries of judicial decisions inter-
`preting or applying statutory provisions and summar-
`ies of relevant Georgia Attorney General opinions.2
`See id.; J.A. 237, 246; see also 1981 Ga. Laws, Extraor-
`dinary Sess., at 8-9. The OCGA took effect in 1982.
`OCGA § 1-1-9.
`
`Consistent with the approach taken at the time of
`the OCGA’s original enactment, the Georgia General
`Assembly has never reviewed and voted to approve in-
`dividual OCGA annotations. Pet. App. 47a (“General
`Assembly does not individually enact each separate
`annotation as part of the ordinary legislative process”);
`id. at 48a (annotations are prepared “outside of the
`normal channels of the legislative process” and “are
`not voted on individually in the way that Georgia ses-
`sion laws are”). To the contrary, the General Assembly
`has repeatedly made clear that only the OCGA’s stat-
`utory portion has the force of law, and that the OCGA’s
`
`Georgia House of Representatives, four additional House mem-
`bers, and five Georgia State Bar members, including a superior
`court judge and a district attorney. OCGA § 28—9-2(a).
`
`2 Throughout this brief, Georgia uses the term “annotations” to
`refer to the OCGA components in which it claims copyright. See
`J.A. 496-497 (listing those components).
`
`

`

`9
`
`annotations are merely research aids lacking any legal
`effect. The first code section explains:
`
`The statutory portion of the codification of Geor-
`gia laws prepared by the Code Revision Com-
`mission and the Michie Company pursuant to a
`contract entered into on June 19, 1978, is en-
`acted and shall have the effect of statutes en-
`
`acted by the General Assembly of Georgia. The
`statutory portion of such codification shall be
`merged with annotations, captions, catchlines,
`history lines, editorial notes, cross-references,
`indices, title and chapter analyses, and other
`materials pursuant to the contract and shall be
`published by authority of the state pursuant to
`such contract and when so published shall be
`known and may be cited as the “Official Code of
`Georgia Annotated.”
`
`OCGA § 1-1-1 (emphasis added). Thus, at the code’s
`very beginning, the legislature distinguishes between
`the OCGA’s “statutory portion,” which “ha[s] the effect
`of statutes enacted by the General Assembly,” and “an-
`notations,” which do not. A nearby provision likewise
`states that “[a]ll historical citations, title and chapter
`analyses, and notes set out in this Code are given for
`the purpose of convenient reference and do not consti-
`tute part of the law.” Id. § 1-1-7 (emphasis added).
`
`The General Assembly also acknowledges annota-
`tions’ lack of legal effect in annual “reviser acts” mak-
`ing technical changes to the OCGA, such as correcting
`typographical errors.
`J.A. 301-302; see also OCGA
`§ 28—9-5(c). Those bills reenact the OCGA’s “statutory
`portion.” E.g., S.B. 52, §54 (enacted May 12, 2019);
`2018 Ga. Laws 1123, §54; 2017 Ga. Laws 819-820,
`
`

`

`10
`
`§ 54. At the same time, they expressly provide that
`the OCGA’s “[a]nnotations” are “not enacted as stat-
`utes,” and thus lack the force of law. E.g., S.B. 52,
`§ 54(b) (2019); 2018 Ga. Laws 1123, § 54(b); 2017 Ga.
`Laws 819, § 54(b).
`
`Consistent with this clear statutory language, the
`Georgia Supreme Court has explained that “the inclu-
`sion of annotations in an ‘official’ Code [does] not * * *
`give the annotations any official weight.” Harrison Co.
`v. Code Revision Comm’n, 260 S.E.2d 30, 35 (Ga.
`1979).
`Indeed, PRO itself has noted that “[o]nly the
`laziest student or lawyer would rely on a judicial sum-
`mary [in the OCGA] without reading the actual judi-
`cial decision.” Def.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. for Summ. J.
`23—24 (May 17, 2016), ECF No. 29—2.
`
`b. The Commission now contracts with Matthew
`
`Bender & Co., part of the LexisNexis Group (“Lexis”),
`to maintain, publish, an

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket