throbber
No.
`
`3511 the $upreme QEuurt at the @Hniteh $tate§
`
`STATE OF GEORGIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
`
`U.
`
`PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.
`
`0N PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`ANTHONY B. ASKEW
`
`JOHN P. ELWOOD
`
`LISA C. PAVENTO
`
`JOSHUA S. JOHNSON
`
`MEUNIER CARLIN &
`CURFMAN LLC
`
`Counsel of Record
`MATTHEW X. ETCHEMENDY
`
`.999 Peachtree Street
`
`VINSON & ELKINS LLP
`
`2200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
`NW, Suite 500 West
`
`Washington, DC 20037
`(202) 63.9- 6623
`joshjohnson@velaw. com
`
`NE, Suite 1300
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`
`(404) 645- 7700
`
`DANIEL R. ORTIZ
`
`UNIVERSITY OF
`
`VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF
`
`LAW SUPREME COURT
`
`LITIGATION CLINIC
`
`580 Massie Road
`
`Charlottesville, VA
`22903
`
`
`

`

`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). Lower
`courts have extended that holding to state statutes.
`See, e.g., John G. Danielson, Inc. v. Winchester- Conant
`Props., Inc., 322 F.3d 26, 38 (1st Cir. 2003). But the
`rule that “government edicts” cannot be copyrighted
`has “proven difficult to apply when the material in
`question does not fall neatly into the categories of
`statutes or judicial opinions.” Ibid.
`
`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 ................................................... IV
`
`Table Of Authorities ................................................... V
`
`Opinions Below ........................................................... 1
`
`Jurisdiction ................................................................. 1
`
`Constitutional And Statutory Provisions
`Involved ................................................................. 1
`
`Introduction ................................................................ 1
`
`Statement .................................................................... 3
`
`Reasons For Granting The Petition ......................... 15
`
`I.
`
`The Decision Below Exacerbates An
`
`Acknowledged Split Of Authority On The
`Scope Of The Government Edicts Doctrine ...... 15
`
`A. Courts Of Appeals Are Sharply Divided On
`The Government Edicts Doctrine .................... 16
`
`B. The OCGA Annotations Would
`
`Be
`
`Copyrightable In Other Circuits ..................... 22
`
`II. The Decision Below Is Wrong .......................... 24
`
`III. This Case Presents An Ideal Vehicle For
`
`Issue Of Unquestionable
`Resolving An
`Importance ......................................................... 32
`
`Conclusion ................................................................. 36
`
`

`

`IV
`
`APPENDIX CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`APPENDIX A: Opinion of the U.S. Court of
`Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
`(Oct. 19, 2018) ........................................................... 1a
`
`APPENDIX B: Order of the U.S. District
`
`Court for the Northern District of Georgia
`(Mar. 23, 2017) ........................................................ 54a
`
`APPENDIX C: Permanent Injunction
`Order of the U.S. District Court for the
`
`Northern District of Georgia (Apr. 7, 2017) ........... 74a
`
`APPENDIX D: Constitutional and
`
`Statutory Provisions ............................................... 76a
`
`

`

`V
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases:
`
`Page(s)
`
`Banks L. Pub. v. Laws.’ Co-Operative Pub.
`
`Co., 169 F. 386 (2d Cir. 1909) .............................. 29
`
`Banks v. Manchester,
`
`128 U.S. 244 (1888) ...................................... passim
`
`BUC Int’l Corp. v. Int’l Yacht Council Ltd.,
`489 F.3d 1129 (11th Cir. 2007) ............................ 12
`
`Callaghan v. Myers,
`128 U.S. 617 (1888) ...................................... passim
`
`CCC Information Services, Inc. v. Maclean
`Hunter Market Reports, Inc.,
`44 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1994) ................................ 19, 23
`
`County of Suffolk v. Experian Info.
`Solutions, Inc.,
`
`No. 99-cv-8735, 2000 WL 628731
`(S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2000) ....................................... 17
`
`County of Suffolk v. First Am. Real Estate
`Sols.,
`261 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2001) .......................... passim
`
`Eldred v. Ashcroft,
`537 U.S. 186 (2003) .......................................... 4, 27
`
`Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,
`499 U.S. 340 (1991) .......................................... 4, 25
`
`Gray v. Russel,
`10 F. Cas. 1035 (C.C.D. Mass. 1839) ................... 29
`
`Harrison Co. v. Code Revision Comm’n,
`260 S.E.2d 30 (Ga. 1979) ............................ 8, 23, 27
`
`

`

`Cases—Continued:
`
`Page(s)
`
`Howell v. Miller,
`91 F. 129 (6th Cir. 1898) ...................... 3, 18, 19, 22
`
`Inhale, Inc. v. Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc.,
`755 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2014) .............................. 26
`
`John G. Danielson, Inc. v. Winchester-
`
`Conant Props, Inc.,
`322 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2003) ........................... 3, 4, 15
`
`Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co.,
`313 U.S. 487 (1941) .............................................. 28
`
`Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder,
`469 U.S. 153 (1985) .............................................. 26
`
`New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann,
`285 U.S. 262 (1932) .............................................. 33
`
`Practice Management Information Corp. v.
`American Medical Ass’n,
`121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997) ........................ passim
`
`Rosemond v. United States,
`572 U.S. 65 (2014) ................................................ 35
`
`Seago v. Horry County,
`663 S.E.2d 38 (8.0. 2008) ..................................... 18
`
`Skidmore v. Swift & Co.,
`323 U.S. 134 (1944) .............................................. 26
`
`Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress
`Int’l, Inc.,
`
`293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002) ........................ passim
`
`Wheaton v. Peters,
`33 U.S. 591 (1834) ........................................ passim
`
`

`

`VII
`
`Cases—Continued:
`
`Page(s)
`
`Zivotofsky v. Clinton,
`566 U.S. 189 (2012) .............................................. 35
`
`Constitutional Provisions:
`
`Ga. Const. art. III, §V ............................................... 27
`
`Ga. Const. art. V, § II, para. IV ................................. 27
`
`U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, c1. 8 .......................................... 3
`
`Statutes:
`
`17 U.S.C. § 101 ....................................................... 6, 25
`
`17 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................... 32
`
`17 U.S.C. § 102(a) ........................................................ 3
`
`17 U.S.C. § 102(b) ........................................................ 4
`
`17 U.S.C. § 103 ....................................................... 6, 25
`
`17 U.S.C. § 103(b) ...................................................... 25
`
`17 U.S.C. § 105 ................................................. 5, 25, 33
`
`17 U.S.C. § 106 ............................................................. 4
`
`17 U.S.C. § 107 ........................................................... 12
`
`17 U.S.C. § 410(c) ....................................................... 26
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ...................................................... 1
`
`2016 Ga. Laws 882, § 54(b) ......................................... 8
`
`2016 Ga. Laws 882-883, § 54 ....................................... 8
`
`2017 Ga. Laws 819, § 54(b) ......................................... 8
`
`2017 Ga. Laws 819-820, § 54 ....................................... 8
`
`2018 Ga. Laws 1123, § 54 ............................................ 8
`
`2018 Ga. Laws 1123, § 54(b) .................................. 8, 27
`
`

`

`VIII
`
`Statutes—Continued:
`
`Page(s)
`
`Act of Mar. 3, 1817, ch. 63, 3 Stat. 376 ..................... 28
`
`Ark. Code Ann. § 1-2-102(b) ...................................... 34
`
`Ga. Code Ann. § 14-2-1302 (West 2018) ................... 27
`
`NY. Real Prop. Tax Law § 503(1)(a)
`(McKinney 2000) .................................................. 17
`
`O.C.G.A. § 1-1-1 ............................................... 7, 27, 34
`
`O.C.G.A. § 1-1-7 ..................................................... 8, 27
`
`O.C.G.A. § 28-9-2(a) ..................................................... 6
`
`O.C.G.A. § 28-9-5(c) ..................................................... 8
`
`O.C.G.A. § 34-9-260 ..................................................... 9
`
`O.C.G.A. § 34-9-260 (2017) .......................................... 9
`
`O.C.G.A. § 34-9-260(3) ................................................. 9
`
`Other Authorities:
`
`Brief of Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant
`First American Real Estate Solutions,
`L.L.C., County of Suffolk v. First Am.
`Real Estate Sols., 261 F.3d 179 (2d Cir.
`2001) (No. 00-9011), 2001 WL 34113786 ............. 17
`
`Carl Malamud, 10 Rules for Radicals,
`https://bit.ly/2LcM9U7 ......................................... 10
`
`Compendium of U. S. Copyright Office
`Practices (3d ed. 2017),
`https://Www.copyright.gov/comp3 .................... 5, 26
`
`

`

`IX
`
`Other Authorities—Continued:
`
`Page(s)
`
`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) ...................................................... 26, 33
`
`Craig A. Joyce, The Rise of the Supreme
`Court Reporter: An Institutional
`Perspective on Marshall Court
`Ascendency, 83 Mich. L. Rev. 1291
`(1985) ........................................................ 28, 29, 30
`
`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) .................................................................... 30
`
`O.C.G.A., vol. 12, at 1-2 (2017 ed.) ............................ 27
`
`O.C.G.A., vol. 40, at 166-167 (2011 ed.) .................... 27
`
`Public.Resource.Org, Official State Codes,
`Internet Archive, https://bit.1y/2C9KLyQ ............ 10
`
`Terry A. McKenzie, The Making of a New
`Code, 18 Ga. St. B.J. 102 (1982) ........................ 6, 7
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`The State of Georgia and the Georgia Code
`Revision Commission, on behalf of and for the benefit
`of the General Assembly of Georgia,
`respectfully
`petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment
`of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
`Circuit.
`
`OPINIONS BELOW
`
`The opinion of the court of appeals, App., infra, 1a-
`53a, is reported at 906 F.3d 1229. The district court’s
`order granting petitioners’ motion for partial summary
`judgment and denying respondent’s motion for
`summary judgment, App., infra, 54a-7 3a, is reported
`at 244 F. Supp. 3d 1350.
`The district court’s
`permanent injunction order, App., infra, 74a-75a, is
`unreported.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`The judgment of the court of appeals was entered
`on October 19, 2018. On December 20, 2018, Justice
`Thomas extended the time for filing a certiorari
`petition to March 4, 2019. The jurisdiction of this
`Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
`
`PROVISIONS INVOLVED
`
`Pertinent constitutional and statutory provisions
`are set forth in the appendix to this petition. App.,
`infra, 7 6a-84a.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Based on a novel expansion of the doctrine that
`copyright protection is not available for “government
`
`(1)
`
`

`

`2
`
`edicts” such as judicial decisions—an extratextual,
`policy-based rule that this Court has not addressed
`since creating it in the 1800s (and which has generated
`sharp disagreement among the courts of appeals ever
`since)—the Eleventh Circuit invalidated the State of
`Georgia’s copyright in annotations appearing in the
`Official Code
`of Georgia Annotated (“OCGA”),
`consisting of such materials as summaries of judicial
`decisions and state Attorney General opinions. That
`decision
`threatens
`to upend the
`longstanding
`arrangements of Georgia and numerous other states
`that rely on copyright’s economic incentives to create
`and distribute annotations useful
`to guide legal
`research, while ensuring that the states’ laws are
`widely disseminated and easily accessible.
`It also
`conflicts with decisions of the Second, Fifth, Sixth, and
`
`Ninth Circuits. Those courts disagree regarding the
`scope and rationale of the government edicts doctrine,
`but under each of their divergent approaches,
`the
`annotations here would be copyrightable because they
`undisputedly lack “the force of law” (App.,
`infra,
`26a)—the
`essential
`condition for
`applying the
`government edicts doctrine under precedents of this
`Court and other courts of appeals.
`
`Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision rejecting
`Georgia’s
`infringement claim against
`respondent
`Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (“PRO”) squarely conflicts
`with this Court’s last statement on the doctrine, which
`recognized the copyrightability of annotations in
`Illinois’s official
`reporter of state supreme court
`decisions. See Callaghan v. Myers, 128 US. 617, 645-
`650 (1888). And it is impossible to square with a Sixth
`Circuit decision authored by Circuit Justice Harlan (a
`
`

`

`3
`
`member of the Callaghan Court) and joined by then-
`Judge Taft,
`affirming
`the
`copyrightability
`of
`annotations in a government-approved publication of
`Michigan’s statutes. See Howell v. Miller, 91 F. 129
`(1898).
`
`the
`This Court should grant review to correct
`Eleventh Circuit’s misapplication of
`this Court’s
`decisions and resolve the lower courts’ considerable
`
`confusion regarding the government edicts doctrine,
`which has “proven difficult to apply” and produced
`“arguably inconsistent results” across a broad array of
`cases where “the material in question does not fall
`neatly into the categories of statutes or judicial
`opinions.”
`John G. Danielson, Inc. v. Winchester-
`Conant Props, Inc., 322 F.3d 26, 38 (1st Cir. 2003); see
`also Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int’l,
`Inc., 293 F.3d 791, 796-800 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc)
`(rejecting tests applied by Second and Ninth Circuits);
`id. at 815-817 (Wiener, J., joined by King, C.J., and
`Higginbotham, Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, JJ.,
`dissenting) (endorsing those tests).
`
`STATEMENT
`
`1. a. Federal copyright protection is a statutory
`right, not a common-law one. See Wheaton v. Peters,
`33 U.S. 591, 661-662 (1834). The Constitution empow-
`ers Congress “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and
`useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors
`and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
`Writings and Discoveries.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
`To promote and protect “original works of authorship,”
`17 U.S.C. § 102(a), Congress enacted the nation’s first
`copyright statute in 1790.
`It has overhauled federal
`copyright law several times since, with the most recent
`
`

`

`4
`
`comprehensive revision being the Copyright Act of
`1976. See Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 194-195
`(2003).
`
`The statutory scheme grants copyright owners a
`bundle of exclusive rights, including the rights of re-
`production and distribution.
`17 U.S.C. §106. This
`protection only extends to original expressions of
`ideas, not the ideas themselves.
`Id. § 102(b). How-
`ever, 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
`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. 591 (1834), Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244
`(1888), and Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U.S. 617 (1888).
`Those cases, which addressed the copyrightability of
`works reporting court decisions, held that judicial
`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 supreme
`court decisions); Callaghan, 128 U.S. at 647 -650 (rec-
`ognizing 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
`
`

`

`5
`
`Office, which registers copyrights and administers
`many copyright laws, recognizes a “longstanding pub-
`lic policy” that “government edict [s]” having “the force
`of law” cannot be copyrighted, including “legislative
`enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings,
`public ordinances, or similar types of official legal ma-
`terials.” U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S.
`Copyright Office Practices § 313.6(C)(2) (3d ed. 2017),
`https://www.copyright.gov/comp3 (Compendium).
`
`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
`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,
`territorial, 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
`federal, state, local, or foreign government, unless the
`annotations themselves have the force of law.” Com-
`
`That
`§ 717.1.
`pendium § 313.6(C)(2); accord id.
`guidance accords with this Court’s decision in Calla-
`ghan, which held that
`annotations of
`judicial
`
`

`

`6
`
`re-
`opinions—including those of a court’s official
`porter—may be copyrighted.
`128 U.S. at 649-650
`(“[T]he reporter of a volume 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 au-
`thor, although he has no exclusive right in the judicial
`opinions published.”). And it is consistent with the
`Copyright Act, which provides that “annotations” are
`copyrightable
`as
`“derivative 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 App., infra, 7a. See generally Appellant’s
`C.A. App. 256-259; Terry A. McKenzie, The Making of
`a New Code, 18 Ga. St. B.J. 102 (1982), available at
`Appellant’s C.A. App. 264-267. The Commission con-
`tracted with the Michie Company to prepare and
`publish the OCGA. App., infra, 55a.
`
`Under the Commission’s supervision, Michie pre-
`pared a manuscript containing an unannotated
`compilation of Georgia statutes. See App., infra, 55a.
`After the General Assembly voted to adopt that manu-
`script
`as Georgia’s official
`code, Michie added
`annotations, such as summaries of judicial decisions
`and Georgia Attorney General opinions interpreting or
`applying statutory provisions.
`See id.; Appellant’s
`
`1 The Commission is composed of Georgia’s Lieutenant Gover-
`nor, four members of the Georgia Senate, the Speaker of the
`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).
`
`

`

`7
`
`CA. App. 258; McKenzie, 18 Ga. St. B.J. at 103. The
`OCGA took effect in 1982. McKenzie, 18 Ga. St. B.J.
`at 103.
`
`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. App., infra, 47a. To the
`contrary, the General Assembly has repeatedly made
`clear that only the statutory portion of the OCGA has
`the force of law, and that the OCGA’s annotations are
`merely research aids lacking any legal effect. The first
`section of the OCGA explains:
`
`The statutory portion of the codification of Geor-
`gia laws prepared by the Code Revision
`Commission and the Michie Company pursuant
`to a contract entered into on June 19, 1978, is
`enacted 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 very be-
`ginning of the code,
`the legislature distinguishes
`between the OCGA’s “statutory portion,” which “ha[s]
`the effect of statutes enacted by the General Assem-
`bly,” and “annotations,” which do not. A nearby
`provision likewise states that “[a]ll historical citations,
`
`

`

`8
`
`title and chapter analyses, and notes set out in this
`Code are given for the purpose of convenient reference
`and do not constitute part of the law.” Id. § 1-1-7 (em-
`phasis added).
`
`The General Assembly also acknowledges annota-
`tions’ lack of legal effect
`in annual “reviser acts”
`making technical changes to the OCGA, such as cor-
`recting typographical errors. PRO’s Mot. for Summ.
`J., Ex. G, § 9.1 (May 17, 2016), ECF No. 29-9 (OCGA
`publication manual); see also OCGA§ 28-9-5(c). Those
`bills reenact the “statutory portion” of the OCGA. E.g.,
`2018 Ga. Laws 1123, §54; 2017 Ga. Laws 819-820,
`§ 54; 2016 Ga. Laws 882-883, § 54. At the same time,
`they expressly provide that the OCGA’s “[a]nnota-
`tions” are “not enacted as statutes,” and thus do not
`have the force of law. E.g., 2018 Ga. Laws 1123,
`§54(b); 2017 Ga. Laws 819, §54(b); 2016 Ga. Laws
`882, § 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
`judicial decision.” Appellees’ C.A. App., Tab 29-2, at
`23-24.
`
`b. The Commission now contracts with Matthew
`
`Bender & Co., part of the LexisNexis Group (“Lexis”),
`to maintain, publish, and distribute the OCGA. App.,
`infra, 55a. Like the Commission’s original contract
`with Michie, the current agreement requires Lexis not
`
`

`

`9
`
`only to compile statutory provisions, but also to pre-
`pare “annotations” to those provisions,
`including
`summaries of relevant judicial decisions and Georgia
`Attorney General opinions.2 Id. at 55a-56a (quoting
`agreement). Lexis undertakes a resource- and time-
`intensive editorial process to prepare the annotations
`and ensure their accuracy and stylistic consistency.
`See Appellees’ C.A. App., Tab 30-5; see also App., in-
`fra, 69a (creating annotations requires “tremendous
`amount of work”).
`
`Georgia does not claim copyright in the OCGA’s
`statutory text and numbering. Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot.
`for Partial Summ. J. 1 (May 17, 2016), ECF No. 30-1.
`It does, however, hold a “registered copyright in the
`OCGA annotations.” App., infra, 11a; see also Appel-
`lant’s C.A. App. 289 (“work made for hire” provision in
`Georgia-Lexis agreement).
`The agreement grants
`Lexis an exclusive license to publish and sell the
`OCGA in printed, CD-ROM, and online formats. App.,
`
`2 For example, an annotation to OCGA § 34-9-260, which ad-
`dresses workers’ compensation, summarizes a decision applying
`the statute as follows:
`
`Average weekly wage calculated correctly. — Award
`of workers’ compensation benefits was upheld because
`there was some evidence to support the administrative
`law judge’s calculation of the claimant’s average weekly
`wage under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-260(3) based on the claim-
`ant’s testimony that the claimant was supposed to work
`from the car wash’s opening until its close. Cho Carwash
`Property, LLC v. Everett, 326 Ga. App. 6, 755 S.E.2d 823
`(2014).
`
`OCGA§ 34-9-260 (2017) (case note); see also Brief of Amicus Cu-
`riae Matthew Bender & 00., Ex. 2 (June 27, 2016), ECF No. 38-2
`(reproducing OCGA§ 10-7-21’s annotations).
`
`

`

`10
`
`infra, 7a-8a. The Commission receives royalties on the
`CD-ROM and online versions.
`Id. at 8a. The agree-
`ment also sets price controls: As of 2016, the price for
`a full set of printed OCGA volumes was capped at
`$404—less than one-sixth the cost of West Publishing’s
`competing annotated version of the Georgia code
`($2570).
`Id. at 7a; Appellees’ C.A. App., Tab 33-1, at
`20-21.
`
`To ensure that Georgia’s laws are readily accessible
`by the general public, the agreement requires Lexis to
`publish the code’s unannotated statutory text online,
`free of charge. App., infra, 7a; Appellant’s C.A. App.
`189. The CD-ROM version of the OCGA—complete
`with annotations—is also available to the general pub-
`lic without charge “at over 60 state and county-
`operated facilities throughout Georgia, such as librar-
`ies and universities.” App., infra, 8a.
`
`3. Respondent PRO is a non-profit corporation op-
`erated by Carl Malamud.
`Its primary activity is
`publishing government documents online, including
`several state codes, such as Arkansas’s, Colorado’s,
`Idaho’s, and Mississippi’s, and encouraging the public
`to access them for free. See Carl Malamud, 10 Rules
`for Radicals 1] 120, https://bit.ly/2LcM9U7; Public.Re-
`source.Org, Official State Codes, Internet Archive,
`https://bit.ly/2C9KLyQ (last visited Feb. 27, 2019).
`Despite its knowledge of Georgia’s registered copy-
`right, PRO purchased 186 printed volumes and
`supplements of the OCGA, scanned them, and posted
`them online. App., infra, 8a-9a. PRO also distributed
`digital copies to Georgia legislators. Id. at 9a.
`
`After PRO refused to comply with cease and desist
`letters, Georgia filed an infringement suit in the U.S.
`
`

`

`11
`
`District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
`App., infra, 9a. PRO counterclaimed for a judgment of
`non-infringement.
`Ibid. PRO continued reproducing
`the OCGA after Georgia filed suit, publishing the 2015
`volumes and supplements on its website. Id. at 58a.
`
`4. a. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the
`district court held that the OCGA annotations were
`
`copyrightable, PRO’s activities constituted infringe-
`ment, and Georgia was entitled to injunctive relief.
`App., infra, 65a, 73a. The district court affirmed the
`principle, established in Wheaton, Banks, and Calla-
`ghan, that “government documents having the force of
`law are uncopyrightable.” Id. at 63a. But it explained
`that the OCGA annotations were copyright eligible be-
`cause the “commentary portions” of the OCGA are “not
`enacted into law by the Georgia legislature and do[]
`not have the force of law.” Ibid. The court cited the
`
`Copyright Act’s and the Copyright Office’s express
`recognition that “annotations” are copyrightable, as
`well as the “long line of cases recogniz[ing] copyright
`protection for annotated cases and statutes,” including
`Callaghan. Id. at 61a-62a. Indeed, PRO itself “admit-
`ted that annotations in an unofficial reporter would be
`copyrightable.” Id. at 62a. The court concluded that
`nothing in Georgia law or the agreement between
`Lexis and the Commission “transform [ed] copyrighta-
`ble material into non-copyrightable material.” Ibid.
`To the contrary, treating the annotations and statu-
`tory text as “one uncopyrightable unit” would be “in
`direct contradiction to current Georgia law,” which ex-
`pressly establishes that the annotations lack “the force
`of law.” Id. at 62a-64a.
`
`

`

`12
`
`b. The district court also rejected PRO’s reliance on
`the merger doctrine, which denies copyright protection
`where “there is only one or so few ways of expressing
`an idea that protection of the expression would effec-
`tively accord protection to the idea itself.” B UC Int’l
`Corp. v. Int’l Yacht Council Ltd., 489 F.3d 1129, 1142
`
`(11th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). The district court
`concluded that because there are a “multitude of ways
`to write a paragraph summarizing a judicial decision,
`and further, a multitude of ways to compile the differ-
`ent annotations throughout the O.C.G.A.,” the “merger
`doctrine is inapplicable.” App., infra, 65a.
`
`The district court likewise rejected PRO’s “fair use”
`defense. The court analyzed the statutory fair use fac-
`tors, see 17 U.S.C. §107, and concluded that PRO’s
`decision to “cop[y] every word of the annotations ver-
`batim and post[] them free of charge” was not fair use.
`App., infra, 72a. The court reasoned that “it is inevi-
`table that [the] market[]” for the OCGA would “be
`substantially adversely impacted” by PRO’s conduct,
`for the straightforward reason that “people would be
`less likely to pay for annotations when they are avail-
`able for free online.” Id. at 71a.
`
`5. a. The Eleventh Circuit reversed. While ac-
`
`knowledging that “[t]he question is a close one” and
`“important considerations of public policy are at stake
`on either side,” the court held that the OCGA annota-
`tions are not copyrightable under the government
`edicts doctrine.3 App., infra, 2a, 4a. It acknowledged
`
`3 Because the Eleventh Circuit reversed based on the govern-
`ment edicts doctrine, it “ha[d] no occasion to address” PRO’s
`merger and fair use arguments. App., infra, 4a-5a.
`
`

`

`13
`
`that courts of appeals have split on the breadth of the
`government edicts doctrine since this Court “last ad-
`dressed the question in 1888.” Id. at 12a-13a, 17a-18a.
`While some courts have expanded the doctrine, the
`Eleventh Circuit observed, “other courts have declined
`to extend the rule in other, related contexts.” Id. at
`17a.
`
`Because of this lack of consensus in the lower
`
`courts, and because the “foundations of the case law
`establishing this doctrine are far from clear,” the Elev-
`enth Circuit concluded it was necessary to “resort to
`first principles” to resolve the “profound and difficult
`issues” it viewed this case as presenting. App., infra,
`2a-3a, 12a. The court interpreted the nineteenth-cen-
`tury decisions of Wheaton, Banks, and Callaghan—
`this Court’s only decisions on the subject—to establish
`that public “authorship” is the basis for the govern-
`ment edicts doctrine, id. at 12a, such that “any work of
`which the People are the constructive authors is in-
`trinsically public domain material and is
`freely
`accessible to all so that no valid copyright can ever be
`held in it,” id. at 19a. Criticizing the district court for
`“relying * * * on a bright line distinction between
`edicts that have the force of law and those that do not,”
`the court of appeals determined that “there exists a
`zone of indeterminacy” where, even if a work “may not
`be characterized as law,” “policy interests” require
`that it be treated as such for purposes of copyright. Id.
`at 24a-25a.
`
`b. In determining that the annotations here were
`“sufficiently law-like” to be attributable to the con-
`structive authorship of the people of Georgia, App.,
`infra, 26a,
`the court analyzed three factors: who
`
`

`

`14
`
`created the annotations, see id. at 25a-26a, whether
`the annotations are “authoritative,” id. at 38a, and
`“the process by which the annotations were created,”
`id. at 47a.
`
`i. While the court of appeals acknowledged that
`“the annotations were initially prepared by a private
`party” (Lexis), and “annotations created by a private
`party generally can be copyrighted,” App., infra, 2a,
`26a-27a, it concluded that this case fell outside that
`general rule because, in its view, “the Georgia General
`Assembly is the driving force behind [the annotations’]
`creation,” id. at 26a. The court emphasized that the
`agreement between the Commission and Lexis con-
`tains instructions for preparing the annotations, id. at
`26a-28a, that the Commission retains editorial control
`over the OCGA’s

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