throbber
Case: 17-11589 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 1 of 39
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
`__________________________________________________________________
`Appeal No. 17-11589-HH
`District Court No. 1:15-CV-2594-RWS
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.
`
`Defendant/Appellant,
`
`CODE REVISION COMMISSION ET AL,
`
`Plaintiffs/Appellees.
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of Georgia
`__________________________________________________________________
`APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
`__________________________________________________________________
`Elizabeth H. Rader
`Sarah P. LaFantano
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`The Atlantic Building
`1201 W. Peachtree Street
`950 F. Street, N.W.
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Washington, DC 20004
`(404) 881-7000
` (202) 239-3008
`sarah.lafantano@alston.com
` elizabeth.rader@alston.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 17-11589 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 2 of 39
`Public.Resource.Org., Inc. v. Code Revision Commission et al.
`No. 17-11589-HH
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE
`DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and Eleventh Circuit
`
`Rule 26.1, Appellant Public.Resource.Org, Inc. provides the following Certificate of
`
`Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement:
`
`• Acton, Anne M. (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Adelman, Beth (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Alston & Bird, LLP (Counsel for Defendant-Appellant)
`
`• American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Georgia, Inc. (Amicus
`
`Curiae)
`
`• Anazalone, Filippa Marullo (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Askew, Anthony B. (Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellees)
`
`• Bhandari, Esha (Counsel for Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union
`
`Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Georgia,
`
`Inc.)
`
`• Bowler, John M. (Counsel for Amicus Matthew Bender & Co., Inc.)
`
`• Butler, Brandon C. (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Carrier, Michael A. (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• CaseText (Amicus Curiae)
`
`
`
`C-1 of 6
`
`

`

`Case: 17-11589 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 3 of 39
`Public.Resource.Org., Inc. v. Code Revision Commission et al.
`No. 17-11589-HH
`
`
`• Chisolm, Tuneen (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Clifford, Ralph D. (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Code Revision Commission (Plaintiff-Appellee, on behalf of and for the
`
`benefit of the General Assembly and the State of Georgia)
`
`• Cohen, Hon. Mark H. (U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of
`
`Georgia (originally assigned))
`
`• Courtney, Kyle K. (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Danner, Richard A. (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Duan, Charles (Counsel for Amici Curiae Public Knowledge, The American
`
`Library Association, The Association of Research Libraries, The
`
`Organization for Transformative Works, The Institute of Intellectual
`
`Property and Social Justice and forty-one (41) librarians and professors of
`
`law)
`
`• Durie Tangri, LLP (Counsel for Defendant-Appellant)
`
`• Emerson, Amy A. (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Fastcase, Inc. (Legal publisher having an interest in offering its subscribers
`
`the Official Code of Georgia, Annotated without the need for a license)
`
`• Ford, Roger Allan (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Fortney, Katie (Amicus Curiae)
`
`
`
`C-2 of 6
`
`

`

`Case: 17-11589 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 4 of 39
`Public.Resource.Org., Inc. v. Code Revision Commission et al.
`No. 17-11589-HH
`
`
`• Free Law Project (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Frye, Brian L. (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• General Assembly of Georgia (Beneficiary of Plaintiffs-Appellees)
`
`• Georgia Attorney General’s Office (Counsel for State of Georgia)
`
`• Ghosh Shubha (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Gratz, Joseph C. (Counsel for Defendant-Appellant)
`
`• Halperin, David (Counsel for Defendant-Appellant)
`
`• Hansen, David R. (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Heald, Paul Justin (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Hirsch, Kenneth J. (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Hirsch, Michelle J. (Counsel for State of Georgia)
`
`• Hobbs, Michael B. (Counsel for Amicus Matthew Bender & Co., Inc.)
`
`• Joergensen, John (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Johnson, Eric E. (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Judicata (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Juelsgaard Intellectual Property and Innovation Clinic (Counsel for Amici
`
`Curiae Casetext, Free Law Project, Judicata, OpenGov Foundation, and
`
`Ravel)
`
`• Keele, Benjamin J. (Amicus Curiae)
`
`
`
`C-3 of 6
`
`

`

`Case: 17-11589 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 5 of 39
`Public.Resource.Org., Inc. v. Code Revision Commission et al.
`No. 17-11589-HH
`
`
`• Kennedy, Jocelyn (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Klinefelter, Anne (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• LaFantano, Sarah Parker (Counsel for Defendant-Appellant)
`
`• Lantagne, Stacey M. (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Lee, Sarah Hooke (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Leiter, Richard (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Lexis/Nexis Group (Parent of Amicus Matthew Bender & Co., Inc.)
`
`• Liebesman, Yvette Joy (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Macklin, Lisa A. (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Malamud, Carl (President and Founder of Defendant-Appellant)
`
`• Malone, Phillip R. (Counsel for Amici Curiae Casetext, Free Law Project,
`
`Judicata, OpenGov Foundation, and Ravel)
`
`• Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. (Amicus and licensee of Plaintiffs-Appellees)
`
`• Mayer, John (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC (Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees)
`
`• Mills Legal Clinic at Stanford Law School (Counsel for Amici Curiae
`
`Casetext, Free Law Project, Judicata, OpenGov Foundation, and Ravel)
`
`• Mtima, Lateef L. (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• OpenGov Foundation (Amicus Curiae)
`
`
`
`C-4 of 6
`
`

`

`Case: 17-11589 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 6 of 39
`Public.Resource.Org., Inc. v. Code Revision Commission et al.
`No. 17-11589-HH
`
`
`• Pavento, Lisa C. (Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees)
`
`• Pearlman, Jeffrey (Counsel for Amici Curiae Casetext, Free Law Project,
`
`Judicata, OpenGov Foundation, and Ravel)
`
`• Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (Defendant-Appellant)
`
`• Rader, Elizabeth H. (Counsel for Defendant-Appellant)
`
`• Ravel (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Rosenberg, Jason D. (Counsel for Defendant-Appellant)
`
`• Schemmel, Lawrence A. (Counsel for State of Mississippi)
`
`• Seipp, David J. (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Selby, Courtney (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Silbey, Jessica (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Smith, Kevin L. (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Sorkin, David E. (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• State of Georgia (Beneficiary of Plaintiffs-Appellees)
`
`• State of Mississippi (State alleging Defendant-Appellant infringes copyright
`
`in its official code)
`
`• Story, Hon. Richard W. (U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of
`
`Georgia )
`
`• Street, Leslie (Amicus Curiae)
`
`
`
`C-5 of 6
`
`

`

`Case: 17-11589 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 7 of 39
`Public.Resource.Org., Inc. v. Code Revision Commission et al.
`No. 17-11589-HH
`
`
`• Thomas, Warren J. (Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees)
`
`• Troutman Sanders LLP (Counsel for Amicus Matthew Bender & Co., Inc.)
`
`• Tushnet, Rebecca (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Walters, Edward (Co-Founder and CEO of Fastcase, Inc.)
`
`• Wheeler, Ronald E. (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Williams, Beth (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Zimmerman, Katie (Amicus Curiae)
`
`• Zittrain, Jonathan L. (Amicus Curiae)
`
`Appellant Public.Resource.Org, Inc. certifies that it is a California non-profit
`
`corporation, that it has no parent corporation, that there is nothing to declare with
`
`respect to stock ownership, and that there is no other entity related to, or affiliated
`
`with, Public.Resource.Org, Inc. that has a financial interest in the outcome of the
`
`claims asserted against it in this case.
`
`.
`
`
`
`C-6 of 6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-11589 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 8 of 39
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS ................................................... C-1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... i
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 3
`
`
`A.
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reversing the district court’s decision, on the grounds that the
`O.C.G.A. is the only official and definitive publication of
`Georgia’s code would only apply and clarify longstanding
`federal common law ............................................................................. 3
`
`The district court erred by only considering summaries of
`decisions because Public Resource’s counterclaim and motion
`for summary judgment required the court to consider whether
`other kinds of annotations are copyrightable ..................................... 12
`
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`To resolve Public Resource’s declaratory judgment
`counterclaim, the district court should have clearly
`delineated the metes and bounds of the State’s copyright,
`if any, in the nonstatutory portions of the O.C.G.A ................ 14
`
`Contrary to the Commission’s explanation, the district
`court did not analyze all the issues Public Resource
`raised in support of its declaratory judgment
`counterclaims ........................................................................... 17
`
`Public Resource’s use of the O.C.G.A. was both transformative
`and noncommercial, and the District Court’s holding that it was
`not a fair use is an error as a matter of law ........................................ 20
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-11589 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 9 of 39
`
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`
`3.
`
`The Commission mischaracterizes the transformative
`nature and noncommercial purpose of Public Resource’s
`providing access to and engagement with the O.C.G.A.
`on the Internet .......................................................................... 20
`
`Public Resource’s posting the whole O.C.G.A., including
`the annotations, was necessary in light of its purpose to
`improve access and usability of Georgia’s only official
`code .......................................................................................... 22
`
`Public Resource presented evidence, which was
`unrebutted, that neither the Commission nor Lexis/Nexis
`has lost any sales from Public Resources Use or that it
`would suffer if others made the same use of the O.C.G.A ...... 23
`
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 25
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...................................................................... 27
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-11589 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 10 of 39
`
`TABLE OF CITATIONS
`
` Page(s)
`
`
`Cases
`Banks v. Manchester,
`
`128 U.S. 244 (1888)......................................................................................... 8
`
`BUC Int’l. Corp. v. Int’l Yacht Council Ltd.,
`
`489 F.3d 1129 (11th Cir. 2007) .....................................................................19
`
`Building Officials & Code Adm. Int’l. Inc. v. Code Tech, Inc.,
`
`628 F.2d 730 (1st Cir. 1980)............................................................................ 8
`
`Callaghan v. Myers,
`128 U.S. 617 (1888).............................................................................. 8, 9, 10
`
`
`Cambridge Univ. Press v. Patton,
`
`769 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2014) .............................................................. 21, 22
`
`County of Suffolk v. First Am. Real Estate Solutions,
`
`261 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2001) ..........................................................................11
`
`Davidson v. Wheelock,
`
`27 F. 61 (Minn. Cir. Ct. 1866) ......................................................................... 8
`
`Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,
`
`499 U.S. 340 (1991)................................................................................ 18, 19
`
`Harrison v. Code Revision Comm’n,
`
`244 Ga. 325 (1979) .......................................................................................... 8
`
`Home Design Servs. Inc. v. Turner Heritage Homes,
`
`825 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. June 17, 2016) .......................................................18
`
`Intervest Constr., Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc.,
`
`554 F.3d 914 (11th Cir. 2008) .......................................................................18
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-11589 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 11 of 39
`
`Nash v. Lathrop,
`
`142 Mass. 29 (1886) ........................................................................................ 8
`
`Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,
`
`464 U.S. 417 (1984).......................................................................................24
`
`United States v. Lanier,
`
`520 U.S. 259 (1997)......................................................................................... 8
`
`Veeck v. Southern Building Code Cong. Int’l,
`
`293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002) ........................................................................... 8
`
`Weitzman, LLC v. Microcomputer Res.,
`
`542 F.3d 859 (11th Cir. 2008) ......................................................................... 7
`
`Wheaton v. Peters,
`
`33 U.S. 591 (1834).........................................................................................10
`
`Rules and Statutes
`
`17 U.S.C. § 105 .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`17 U.S.C. § 107 .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`17 U.S.C. § 411(a) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) .................................................................................................14
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices ....................................... 5, 6, 7, 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`

`

`Case: 17-11589 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 12 of 39
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`This case should not turn on whether summaries of judicial opinions in the
`
`Official Code of Georgia, Annotated are sufficiently original and creative to be
`
`copyrightable. The entire O.C.G.A. is in the public domain from its creation,
`
`because it is the only official, authoritative statement of Georgia law and thus an
`
`edict of government. It is a longstanding doctrine in the law of the United States
`
`that statutes and other state-sanctioned sources of the law of the country or state
`
`are not protectable by copyright. The O.C.G.A. is the only official code of
`
`Georgia. The Commission and its publisher assist with its publication on behalf of
`
`the General Assembly. The legislature amends the O.C.G.A. each time it considers
`
`a new bill, and the legislature endorses the complete O.C.G.A. after it has been
`
`prepared. The district court’s decision to consider the O.C.G.A.’s annotations as
`
`separate works, for the purpose of considering whether they are copyrightable
`
`subject matter, is therefore an error of law. This is a Constitutional issue of law,
`
`reviewed de novo, because First Amendment and Due Process concerns underpin
`
`the established doctrine that edicts of government are not copyrightable.
`
`The Code Revision Commission focuses on copyrightability of the
`
`O.C.G.A.’s annotations that are summaries of judicial decisions because the
`
`summaries are the only kind of annotations where they have a colorable (though
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-11589 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 13 of 39
`
`not ultimately compelling) argument that they are sufficiently original and creative
`
`for copyright protection. This only responds to Public Resource’s secondary,
`
`alternative argument: that each of the various kinds of annotations are not
`
`copyrightable for grounds expressly stated in the copyright act or established in
`
`federal common law. These grounds include lack of originality or creativity and
`
`the merger doctrine. The different copyrightability arguments require different
`
`analyses, but the Commission confusingly mingles these analyses. Furthermore,
`
`the district court simply skipped over several of Public Resource’s arguments,
`
`leaving this Court no way to review its decision on them. By treating judicial
`
`summaries as representative of all the annotations in the O.C.G.A., the district
`
`court oversimplified its analysis. In this way, it also failed to enter a declaratory
`
`judgment that clearly declared each party’s rights. If the district court’s decision is
`
`affirmed, it would leave confusion about how Public Resource and others can
`
`lawfully use the O.C.G.A.
`
`Finally, addressing Public Resource’s third defense, fair use, the
`
`Commission merely defends and elaborates on the district court’s cursory analysis
`
`of the four factors in 17 U.S.C. § 107. But it cannot save the district court’s order
`
`from the several clear errors that resulted in its holding that, even if the
`
`Commission holds a valid, enforceable copyright in the O.C.G.A’s annotations,
`
`Public Resource’s use of the O.C.G.A. was a fair use under the Copyright Act.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-11589 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 14 of 39
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`A. Reversing the district court’s decision, on the grounds that the O.C.G.A. is
`the only official and definitive publication of Georgia’s code would only
`apply and clarify longstanding federal common law.
`
`
`The most important issue in this case is whether the state of Georgia can
`
`assert copyright in the annotations in the O.C.G.A. to prohibit copying of its entire
`
`official code, even though Georgia’s General Assembly, through the Commission,
`
`requires these specific annotations and supervises their preparation by its private
`
`publisher. Op. Br. at 15, 25-26. As Public Resource and amicus ACLU have
`
`explained, this is a constitutional issue. Id. at 29-30; ACLU Br. at 13, 23, 25. One
`
`of the reasons laws and related state-mandated sources of legal interpretation of
`
`statutes are not protected by copyright is to ensure citizens’ access to the laws that
`
`govern them to ensure that citizens are informed when they exercise their
`
`constitutional right to discuss the content, effects and fairness of those laws.
`
`ACLU Br. at 23-25; Public Knowledge (“PK”) Br. at 18-19, 24-25. Another
`
`reason for the doctrine is to give citizens notice of governing laws to protect their
`
`right to due process. PK Br. at 24, 27-28; ACLU Br. at 25-26.
`
`Yet the Commission barely acknowledges this critical issue in the summary
`
`of its argument. Instead, its brief begins by defending the General Assembly’s
`
`1982 decision to contract with a private publisher to publish an annotated Georgia
`
`Code and to assert copyright against another publisher of Georgia’s statutes.
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-11589 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 15 of 39
`
`Comm’n Br. at 34-35, 51-52. It tells the Court the General Assembly cut its deal
`
`with LexisNexis to keep the O.G.C.A.’s price low for Georgia’s citizens. Because
`
`the General Assembly could have continued to only publish its laws in the
`
`uncodified Georgia Laws, the annotations are a bonus it generously provides to
`
`Georgia’s citizens, and are none of Public Resource’s or amici’s business. Id. at
`
`35-36, 52-53.
`
`Finally touching on the edicts-of-government doctrine twenty-six pages into
`
`its brief, the Commission mischaracterizes Public Resource’s argument. It states
`
`that Public Resource argues that copyrightability of the O.C.G.A. must be
`
`considered based on the work as a whole—that the statutory materials in the
`
`O.C.G.A. render the entire work uncopyrightable. Id. at 43. Public Resource’s
`
`position is different: Georgia’s legislature has declared the LexisNexis-annotated
`
`code, the O.C.G.A., to be the only official and authoritative code of Georgia; thus
`
`the whole unified work is not subject to copyright. Op. Br. at 18-19; 30-31. Public
`
`Resource does not argue that the statutes codified in the O.C.G.A. somehow infect
`
`otherwise copyrightable elements in the O.C.G.A. Instead, the entire O.C.G.A.
`
`including the annotations are in the public domain from creation as a result of the
`
`State Legislature’s determinations that the official code must be annotated and that
`
`only the annotated code is official. Id. at 33-34. Moreover, the General Assembly,
`
`through the Commission, supervises and approves the annotations. Lexis/Nexis’s
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-11589 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 16 of 39
`
`editors’ numerous selections, coordination and arrangements carry out the General
`
`Assembly’s and the Commission’s deliberate direction to Lexis/Nexis that the
`
`official Code shall contain annotations, captions, titles, catchlines, headings,
`
`history lines, editorial notes, cross references and so on. Doc. 44 at 3; Doc. 29-8 at
`
`2. The State’s close direction of the preparation of the annotations is additional
`
`evidence that those annotations are an integral part of the State government’s
`
`official statement of its law and not subject to copyright.
`
`The Commission contends that this Court’s reversal of the district court’s
`
`decision, on the grounds that the O.C.G.A. is a unified edict of government, would
`
`be a watershed holding. But the reversal and holding for which Public Resource
`
`argues would merely follow longstanding and controlling precedent holding edicts
`
`of government and other government-created statements of the law not subject to
`
`copyright.1 Op. Br. at 28-30, 40-32.
`
`
`1 Public Resource’s proposed amendment to the Copyright Act, supported by 115
`law professors and law librarians, would do the same thing, clarifying the
`confusion created by the unfortunate statement in the Copyright Office’s
`Compendium that the Office may register annotations unless they “have the force
`of law.” The Commission crows that Public Resource’s founder has advocated for
`an amendment to the U.S. Copyright Act to provide that state and local official
`legal documents are uncopyrightable for reasons on public policy. Comm’n Br. at
`28. The proposed amendment is not evidence, however, for the contention that
`annotations are only copyrightable if they have the force of law. Rather, the
`proposed amendment seeks to codify the preexisting federal common law doctrine.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-11589 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 17 of 39
`
`The rule the district judge applied, that annotations, even in a state’s official
`
`code, are copyrightable unless they have the force of law, is simply wrong.
`
`Nonbinding portions of judicial opinions are public domain and not subject to
`
`copyright, even though only portions of an opinion have the force of law. Op. Br.
`
`at 33; PK Br. at 21-22.2 The Commission continues to rely on a quotation from the
`
`Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices stating that it may register
`
`annotations commenting on legal materials unless the annotations themselves have
`
`the force of law. As noted in Public Resource’s Opening Brief, this Court owes
`
`no deference to the Compendium. Additionally, the Compendium does not
`
`“declare that official state annotations are copyrightable as long as those
`
`annotations do not have the force of law.” It merely describes which works
`
`prepared by government officers and employees the Copyright Office may
`
`register. In this way, the Compendium is analogous to a federal court’s internal
`
`operating procedures. Works are copyrightable or not based on the provisions of
`
`
`2 The Commission argues that Public Resource says copyrightability of the
`O.C.G.A.’s annotations is an all-or-nothing proposition, and that controlling cases
`hold that courts should consider whether given elements are protectable by
`copyright. Comm’n Br. at 43-44. This is misleading. As discussed in Section II
`below, Public Resource recognizes the courts should consider separately whether
`each element of a work the defendant copied is a kind protectable by copyright.
`Op. Br. at 38-40. But whether the State of Georgia can enforce copyright in the
`O.C.G.A.’s annotations, and thus in its entire only official and authoritative code,
`because it hired a publisher to draft and update the annotations, is an all-or-nothing
`proposition.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-11589 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 18 of 39
`
`the Copyright Act and federal common law. If they are copyrightable subject
`
`matter, they are “born copyrighted” when fixed in tangible form even if the author
`
`never applies to register them. Weitzman, LLC v. Microcomputer Res., 542 F.3d
`
`859, 863 (11th Cir. 2008) (“copyright exists the moment an original idea leaves the
`
`mind and finds expression in a tangible medium”). Registration with the
`
`Copyright Office grants the copyright owner additional advantages. 17 U.S.C.
`
`§ 411(a).3 Accordingly, the Compendium is a secondary authority and not a
`
`particularly persuasive one.
`
` The Commission also tries to distinguish a state’s codification of its laws
`
`from federal government works on the grounds that the Copyright Act only
`
`specifically exempts works of the federal government from copyright and is silent
`
`as to works of a state government. 17 U.S.C. § 105 (“Copyright protection under
`
`this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the
`
`United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights
`
`transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.”). But courts have applied
`
`
`3 Since the Commission filed this case, the Copyright Office still has not issued
`certificates of registration for the 2015 O.C.G.A. volumes that Public Resource
`posted. The district court did not consider their continuing non-issuance between
`July 2016 and the date of the district court’s order (because that fact was not in the
`record when the briefing was completed) but did note that the Commission’s
`motion was for partial summary judgment because the 2015 works were “yet to be
`registered” at the time of briefing.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-11589 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 19 of 39
`
`the doctrine prohibiting copyright in the law to state sources of law as well as to
`
`the federal government’s. Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244, 253 (1888); Nash v.
`
`Lathrop, 142 Mass. 29, 35 (1886); Davidson v. Wheelock, 27 F. 61 (Minn. Cir. Ct.
`
`1866); Harrison v. Code Revision Comm’n, 244 Ga. 325, 329 (1979); Building
`
`Officials & Code Adm. Int’l. Inc. v. Code Tech, Inc., 628 F.2d 730, 734 (1st Cir.
`
`1980); Veeck v. Southern Building Code Cong. Int’l, 293 F.3d 791, 802 (5th Cir.
`
`2002) (en banc). As a practical matter, there is no reason to apply a different test
`
`for a state’s official materials stating and interpreting its laws than the test that
`
`applies to the federal government’s materials. The same reasoning applies to state
`
`law, including the due process concerns articulated in some cases. See United
`
`States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 265 (1997); Building Officials & Code, 628 F.2d at
`
`734; Veeck, 293 F.3d at 795.
`
`The Commission, like the district court, relies on Callaghan v. Myers for its
`
`proposition that the official nature of the O.C.G.A. does not render its
`
`Commission-supervised annotations uncopyrightable,citing Callaghan, 128 U.S.
`
`617, 623, 645-46, 649-50 (1888). That reliance is misplaced. The supplemental
`
`materials the Supreme Court found copyrightable, authored by the court reporter—
`
`not by the State of Illinois—were headnotes, syllabi of each opinion, lists of the
`
`judges composing the court, names of counsel and sometimes their arguments and
`
`an index, arranged alphabetically, consisting substantially of a reproduction of the
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-11589 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 20 of 39
`
`headnotes. Callaghan, 128 U.S. at 633. The Court distinguished these
`
`annotations, written by a court reporter who worked for the state, from headnotes
`
`and statements written by judges themselves, which are not subject to copyright.
`
`Id. at 647. Illinois has no official code, annotated or otherwise. The Court applied
`
`the “general proposition that the reporter of a volume of law reports can obtain a
`
`copyright for it as an author, and that such copyright will copy the parts of the
`
`book of which he is the author, although he has no exclusive right in the judicial
`
`opinions published…” Id. at 649.
`
`The Commission argues that recognizing copyright in the O.C.G.A.’s
`
`annotation (and, by implication, enforcing it) does not violate the due process
`
`clause because copyright in the annotations does not preclude a citizen’s receiving
`
`notice and fair warning of a state’s laws. In short, citizens can go do their own
`
`legal research and find and analyze, on their own, the opinions summarized and
`
`other annotations provided in the O.C.G.A. Id. at 50. This argument is
`
`inconsistent with the Commission’s position that its interest, when it decided
`
`Georgia’s official code should contain the annotations, was “to help its citizens
`
`understand the laws of Georgia” and that the annotations are “tangible benefits” to
`
`Georgia citizens that “assist in understanding the Georgia statutes.” Id. at 35-36.
`
`If citizens need the annotations in the O.C.G.A. to understand the laws they are
`
`subject to, then it follows that using copyright to restrict access to the annotations
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-11589 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 21 of 39
`
`prepared for the Commission acting for the General Assembly under a contract
`
`offends due process.
`
`The Commission’s reference to the reported decision of Wheaton v. Peters,
`
`33 U.S. 591 (1834), is misleading. In that case, the parties were private publishers
`
`of Supreme Court reports. The remark that compilations “may be of great utility,
`
`but they are not the law” was speaking of compilations of judicial opinions—
`
`reporters. And, moreover, the language quoted in the Commission’s brief and
`
`presented as the Supreme Court’s explanation is actually in the reported argument
`
`of one of the defendants’ attorneys, not part of the Court’s opinion, which begins at
`
`page 654. Wheaton, 33 U.S. at 654. The Supreme Court decided that Wheaton
`
`might have exclusive rights to publish his reports under an act of Congress but
`
`remanded for a jury trial to determine whether Wheaton had complied with
`
`requisite publication of his compliance with the statute in a newspaper and delivery
`
`of a copy to the secretary of state. Id. at 667-68; see also Callaghan, 128 U.S. at
`
`648 (summarizing).
`
`The Commission also observes that other courts have held that “law-related
`
`official state documents are copyrightable because the copyright does not prevent
`
`fair warning of the laws.” The Commission relies too much on a Second Circuit
`
`case about county maps used to assess taxes. Id. at 49, (citing County of Suffolk v.
`
`First Am. Real Estate Solutions, 261 F.3d 179, 194-95 (2d Cir. 2001)). In that
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-11589 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 22 of 39
`
`case, the court derived a two-part test, never adopted by the Eleventh Circuit, for
`
`when state-authored works can be protected by copyright. The two parts are (1)
`
`whether the work’s creator had adequate incentives, absent copyright, to create the
`
`work, and (2) whether the public needs notice of the work to have notice of the
`
`applicable law. Id. at 194. Even if the Court decided to adopt the Second Circuit’s
`
`test, it would favor Public Resource. The record shows that the General Assembly
`
`determined that the only official Code should contain annotations. The
`
`Commission asserts that this decision was to benefit Georgia’s citizens so they
`
`could better understand Georgia’s statutes. Accordingly, the State’s incentives to
`
`create the annotations are unrelated to its claim of copyright in the annotations. If
`
`they were, it would follow that all state-authored works registered with the
`
`Copyright Office would pass the first part of the Suffolk test. And indeed, the
`
`Commission boldly asserts, without citing authority, that “[s]tates are permitted to
`
`hold copyright in state-authored works.” Comm’n Br. at 38 n.5. In its briefing
`
`below, the Commission quoted the Compendium for this po

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