{"id":1210,"date":"2019-01-15T17:10:45","date_gmt":"2019-01-15T17:10:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/can-the-annotated-georgia-code-be-copyrighted\/"},"modified":"2019-01-15T17:10:45","modified_gmt":"2019-01-15T17:10:45","slug":"can-the-annotated-georgia-code-be-copyrighted","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/can-the-annotated-georgia-code-be-copyrighted\/","title":{"rendered":"Can the Annotated Georgia Code be Copyrighted?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently determined<\/a> that the Official Code of Georgia Annotated cannot be copyrighted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Previously, this blog discussed Code Revision Commission v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.<\/a><\/span>,<\/em> 1:15-CV-2594-RWS, 2017 WL 1228539 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 23, 2017), in which the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia held that a nonprofit did not have the right to freely distribute and provide access to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (\u201cOCGA\u201d) because the annotated version could be copyrighted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Code Revision Commission v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. <\/em>lawsuit arose after a California non-profit known as Public.Resource purchased all 186 printed volumes of the OCGA and its supplements, scanned them, and then posted copies to its website.  Public.Resource also distributed copies on USB thumb drives to various politicians and government employees. Code Revision Commission\u2014 an arm of the Georgia General Assembly\u2014made claims for both direct and indirect copying infringement, seeking injunctive relief and for the infringing materials to be removed from the internet.  Public.Resource responded with counterclaims, alleging that state laws cannot be copyrighted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The District Court found in favor of Code Revision Commission because, unlike the official codes of many other states, Georgia\u2019s official code is heavily annotated with non-statutory text including summaries of judicial decisions, editor\u2019s notes, research references, notes on law review articles, summaries of Georgia Attorney General opinions, indexes, and title, chapter, article, part, and subpart captions, which the District Court found to be copyrightable.  The majority of these supplemental annotations were developed by a private party, Matthew Bender & Co. (LexisNexis), pursuant a contract with the State of Georgia. By providing free access to this material, Public.Resource jeopardized the potential royalties that could be earned from those who would pay to access these annotations.  For this reason, among others, the District Court found in favor of Code Revenue Commission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Appellate Court Decision<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The three-judge panel for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that the official code annotations exist somewhere between statutory text (which all agree cannot<\/u> be copyrighted) and private annotations to statutory text (which generally can<\/u> be copyrighted).  Although it was a close call, on balance, the Court of Appeals concluded that the annotations are \u201csufficiently law-like\u201d so as to be uncopyrightable.  One reason for this is that the state is simply too involved in the development of the annotations to treat them as if LexisNexis had drafted them independently:<\/p>\n\n\n\n