June 24, 2019
Authored and Edited by B. Brett Heavner; Yinfei Wu; Margaret A. Esquenet
On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider whether state and local governments, as well as legal publishers, can claim copyright to certain legal texts. The case appeals a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit which stripped copyright protection for annotations and commentaries on the Georgia state code.
The case started when advocacy group, Public.Resource.Org, Inc., posted on its website full, unauthorized copies of the legal annotations to the Georgia code. While the text of the Georgia code itself is available online for all to freely copy, that is not true of the annotations. Georgia has had a longstanding arrangement with LexisNexis giving the publisher exclusive rights to compile and sell the annotations to the Georgia code. Taking the position that the LexisNexis annotations were copyright protected, Georgia sued Public.Resource.Org. In its defense, the advocacy group argued that the annotations are government documents not protected by copyright and should be free for all to copy.
Last November, the 11th Circuit sided with Public.Resource.Org and ruled that Georgia had no copyright ownership to annotations made to its official legal code. The 11th Circuit determined that the annotations are inherently uncopyrightable public domain materials. Georgia filed a petition for certiorari in March 2019 seeking to overturn the 11th Circuit decision.
In April 2019, eight states submitted amicus briefs supporting Georgia (i.e., Arkansas, Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee). The states argue that without copyright protection, the annotations would become freely available and the compiling author’s annotations sales would fall. Without an economic incentive, private legal publishers would not create or distribute the annotations, and in consequence, the public would be deprived of a useful guide to legal research.
The states claim that the 11th Circuit analysis of the protectability of the annotations is wrong. Specifically, the states argue that the annotation of a code or case is not an exercise of popular sovereignty, but a comment on it. It is the original work of authorship of the legal publishing company (LexisNexis in this case) and is not the authoritative interpretation of law.
The Software & Information Industry Association, a trade organization for software and digital information companies, also backed Georgia in an amicus filing, arguing that the ruling will disincentivize investment in law related works of authorship.
The case is Georgia et al. v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., case number 18-1150, in the U.S. Supreme Court (2019).
Copyright © 2019 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
SCOTUS: Justices Reject Three-Year Limit on Damages for Copyright Infringement
May 10, 2024
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
Courts and Legislators Addressing the Right of Publicity in the Age of AI
April 30, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.