Supreme Court Copyright Ruling Could Shake Up Legal Publishing; Publishers weekly, April 27, 2020

Andrew Albanese, Publishers Weekly; Supreme Court Copyright Ruling Could Shake Up Legal Publishing

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court this week held that legislators "cannot be the authors of—and therefore cannot copyright—the works they create in the course of their official duties."

"In upholding the appeals court reversal, the Supreme Court held that the annotations amended to the state of Georgia’s legal code were “ineligible for copyright protection” under the “government edicts doctrine,” a legal regime developed from a trio of 19th-century Supreme Court decisions.

“The animating principle behind the government edicts doctrine is that no one can own the law,” Roberts wrote. “Over a century ago, we recognized a limitation on copyright protection for certain government work product, rooted in the Copyright Act’s ‘authorship’ requirement. Under what has been dubbed the government edicts doctrine, officials empowered to speak with the force of law cannot be the authors of—and therefore cannot copyright—the works they create in the course of their official duties.”"

Georgia Can’t Copyright Its Entire State Code, the Supreme Court Rules; The New York Times, April 27, 2020

Adam Liptak, The New York Times; Georgia Can’t Copyright Its Entire State Code, the Supreme Court Rules

In a 5-to-4 ruling with unusual alliances, the court said that annotations cannot be copyrighted if they are the official work of state lawmakers.

"Georgia may not copyright its entire official code, which includes both the state’s laws and annotations interpreting them, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday. The 5-to-4 decision featured unusual alliances and would most likely be widely felt, as about 20 other states have claimed that parts of similar annotated codes are copyrighted."

US Federal Court Bars Online Publication Of Copyrighted Standards Incorporated Into Laws; Intellectual Property Watch, February 17, 2017

Dugie Standeford, Intellectual Property Watch; 

US Federal Court Bars Online Publication Of Copyrighted Standards Incorporated Into Laws

"In a case pitting standards development organisations against internet content aggregators, a United States federal court ruled that Public.Resource.Org breached copyright by posting unauthorised copies of standards incorporated into government education regulations. Public Resource has appealed.

The 2 February opinion of the US District Court for the District of Columbia consolidates two cases, one of which is American Educational Research Association [AERA], Inc., American Psychological Association, Inc. and National Council on Measurement in Education, Inc. v. Public.Resource.Org. The plaintiffs in both cases are standards development organisations (SDOs); Public.Resource.Org (Public Resource) is a non-profit entity devoted to the public dissemination of legal information."

Research Is Just the Beginning: A Free People Must Have Open Access to the Law; Electronic Frontier Foundation, 10/23/14

Corynne McSherry, Electronic Frontier Foundation; Research Is Just the Beginning: A Free People Must Have Open Access to the Law:

"The bad news: the specter of copyright has raised its ugly head. A group of standards-development organizations (SDOs) have banded together to sue Public.Resource.Org, accusing the site of infringing copyright by reproducing and publishing a host of safety codes that those organizations drafted and then lobbied heavily to have incorporated into law. These include crucial national standards like the national electrical codes and fire safety codes. Public access to such codes—meaning not just the ability to read them, but to publish and re-use them—can be crucial when there is an industrial accident; when there is a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina; or when a home-buyer wants to know whether her house is code-compliant. Publishing the codes online, in a readily accessible format, makes it possible for reporters and other interested citizens to not only view them easily, but also to search, excerpt, and generate new insights.

The SDOs argue that they hold a copyright on those laws because the standards began their existence in the private sector and were only later "incorporated by reference" into the law. That claim conflicts with the public interest, common sense, and the rule of law.

With help from EFF and others, Public.Resource.Org is fighting back, and the outcome of this battle will have a major impact on the public interest. If any single entity owns a copyright in the law, it can sell or ration the law, as well as make all sort of rules about when, where, and how we share it."