`
`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