State Of Georgia Sues Carl Malamud For Copyright Infringement For Publishing The State's Own Laws

from the that-seems...-unwise dept

Update: We've written a new post about this case, which notes an important error we made in the analysis below. We claimed that the annotations were relied upon by the courts, which turns out not to be true. We apologize for the error, and we should have done more research initially. It is true, however, that multiple parts of the Georgia government do point to the annotated code as "the law" of the state and reference parts of that same annotated code. In our updated post, we do a more thorough analysis of the legal arguments -- yet we still regret and apologize for the initial error in this post.

Two years ago, we wrote about the state of Georgia ridiculously threatening to sue Carl Malamud and his site Public.Resource.org for copyright infringement... for publishing an official annotated copy of the state's laws. This followed on a similar threat from the state of Oregon, which wisely backed down. Malamud has spent the last few years of his life doing wonderful and important work trying to make sure that the laws that we live by are actually available to the public. The specific issue here is that while the basic Georgia legal code is available to the public, the state charges a lot of money for the "Official Code of Georgia Annotated." The distinction here is fairly important -- but it's worth noting that the courts will regularly rely on the annotations in the official code, which more or less makes them a part of the law itself the state points directly to the annotated version as the official laws of the state. Furthermore, the annotations are very important in understanding and applying the relevant interpretations and case law (case law is a part of the law, after all). And then, the question is whether or not the law itself should be subject to copyright restrictions. Malamud has long argued no, while the state has obviously argued yes, probably blinded by the revenue from selling its official copy of the annotated code. Update: In the original post, I overstated the claim that the courts would directly rely on the annotations. While the annotations are often used to better understand the relevant case law, it does not appear that the courts directly refer to the annotations themselves.

It took two years, but the state has now done the absolutely ridiculous thing of suing Malamud. It is about as ridiculous as you would expect again focusing on the highly questionable claim that the Official Code of Georgia Annotated is covered by federal copyright law -- and that not only was Malamud (*gasp*) distributing it, but also... creating derivative works! Oh no! And, he's such an evil person that he was encouraging others to do so as well!
This action for injunctive relief arises from Defendant’s systematic, widespread and unauthorized copying and distribution of the copyrighted annotations in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (“O.C.G.A.”) through the distribution of thumb drives containing copies of the O.C.G.A. and the posting of the O.C.G.A. on various websites. Defendant has facilitated, enabled, encouraged and induced others to view, download, print, copy, and distribute the O.C.G.A copyrighted annotations without limitation, authorization, or appropriate compensation. On information and belief, Defendant has also created unauthorized derivative works containing the O.C.G.A. annotations by re-keying the O.C.G.A. in order to make it possible for members of the public to copy and manipulate the O.C.G.A., thereby also encouraging the creation of further unauthorized derivative works.
Believe it or not, the State of Georgia is actually claiming that it needs the copyright protections here to incentivize it to create these annotated copies of the law. Apparently, without copyright, Georgia's law would remain sadly unannotated.
Each of these annotations is an original and creative work of authorship that is protected by copyrights owned by the State of Georgia. Without providing the publisher with the ability to recoup its costs for the development of these copyrighted annotations, the State of Georgia will be required to either stop publishing the annotations altogether or pay for development of the annotations using state tax dollars. Unless Defendant’s infringing activities are enjoined, Plaintiff and citizens of the State of Georgia, will face losing valuable analysis and guidance regarding their state laws.
This is ridiculous. In what world does making the law require copyright protection?

The State is particularly upset that Malamud ran some crowdfunding and donation campaigns seeking to raise money to keep his operations running, saying that he raised this money "to assist the Defendant in infringing the State of Georgia's copyrights." The State also complains that he uploaded the code to the Internet Archive under a CC 0 public domain dedication, saying (incorrectly) that this implies that he claimed that he was the owner of the annotations. That's not true at all. He's claiming that everyone owns them, because they're the law.

Later, the lawsuit makes Malamud out to be some sort of horrible person on a "crusade" to make the laws free, and to "control the accessibility of U.S. government documents."
On information and belief, Carl Malamud has engaged in an 18 yearlong crusade to control the accessibility of U.S. government documents by becoming the United States’ Public Printer – an individual nominated by the U.S. President and who is in control of the U.S. Government Printing Office. Carl Malamud has not been so nominated.
It takes a special kind of ridiculousness to argue that someone seeking to make the laws of the land more accessible to the public is somehow looking to "control the accessibility" of those laws. But, welcome to the State of Georgia, apparently home to just that kind of special ridiculousness.

The complaint further submits as an exhibit this Columbia Journalism Review article about Malamud from 2009 in order to support Georgia's ridiculous claim that Malamud sees what he's doing as a form of "terrorism." The lawsuit says the following:
Carl Malamud, has indicated that this type of strategy has been a successful form of “terrorism” that he has employed in the past to force government entities to publish documents on Malamud’s terms
Of course, all that's likely to really do is further educate the court about what Malamud is really looking to do: make the laws of the land more publicly accessible.

Either way, this seems like a ridiculous move for Georgia. Going after Carl Malamud for copyright infringement for helping to make the public more aware of the law in the state of Georgia just seems ridiculous. And for all of the state's repeated claims in the lawsuit that it's doing this to protect taxpayers, one has to ask why it's spending taxpayer revenue on filing such a ridiculous lawsuit?

Back when the state of Georgia first threatened Malamud two years ago, he responded as such:
It is a long-held tenet of American law that there is no copyright in the law. This is because the law belongs to the people and in our system of democracy we have the right to read, know, and speak the laws by which we choose to govern ourselves. Requiring a license before allowing citizens to read or speak the law would be a violation of deeply-held principles in our system that the laws apply equally to all.

This principle was strongly set out by the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall when they stated “the Court is unanimously of opinion that no reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by this Court, and that the judges thereof cannot confer on any reporter any such right.” Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834). The Supreme Court specifically extended that principle to state law, such as the Ofcial Code of Georgia Annotated, in Banks v. Manchester (128 U.S. 244, 1888) , where it stated that “the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen, is free for publication to all, whether it is a declaration of unwritten law, or an interpretation of a constitution or a statute.”
This still applies, and it seems that the State of Georgia might want to re-evaluate its choice of targets here.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 6:51am

    Foolish government. They can't even enforce their copyrights correctly. The correct course of action is to send notices to google to take down any and all references to Georgia state law, including several sites that clearly have nothing to do with laws (but do include the word Georgia), and 127.0.0.1, and then broadcast how the pirates are killing their business, and without this copyright they won't be incentive to create new laws.

    Based on the general mood towards government, the threat that they won't create new laws if this keeps up will probably send approval ratings through the roof.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 6:57am

    ANOTHER ANOMALY! *incoherent grumbling*

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John William Nelson (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 7:02am

    Standing is an issue

    Not sure what law or resolution has granted the Code Revision Commission authority to represent the General Assembly of Georgia or the State of Georgia. I don't think they have legal standing.

    Also, not sure how they hold the copyright to this, and while I haven't pulled the full filing, have they shown that the alleged copyrighted works were registered prior to filing?

    This case is a crock. This law firm and their lawyers should be ashamed. Unfortunately, I run into too many shameless lawyers in my litigation work.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Martin Marshall, 24 Jul 2015 @ 5:44pm

      Re: Standing is an issue

      The annotations are prepared by Lexis Nexis. I had always assumed that Lexis Nexis owned the copyright to the annotations, as they are editorial material created by Lexis Nexis employees.

      I've always thought of the annotations as a third party's interpretation and explanation of the law. No one cites to the annotations. You cite to the cases that the annotations describe.

      I hope Malamud wins, because it will be a nice development if the annotations are in the public domain. But the distinction between law and editorial material may be a problem.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      TMLutas (profile), 27 Jul 2015 @ 8:24am

      Re: Standing is an issue

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 7:03am

    So, in Georgia is ignorance of the law actually an excuse?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John William Nelson (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 7:42am

      Re: Ignorance is a pre-requisite for being in government in GA

      Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

      However, ignorance of the law, and reason, and logic, are pre-requisites for being members of the General Assembly and for most state-wide and local-government offices.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 7:52am

        Re: Re: Ignorance is a pre-requisite for being in government in GA

        Actually ignorance of the law is an excuse according to the Supreme Court, especially if knowledge of the law is specifically part of your job description.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        John David Galt (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 10:05am

        Re: Re: Ignorance is a pre-requisite for being in government in GA

        If the law is ever successfully copyrighted, the courts will need to revisit the old saw "ignorance of the law is no excuse." After all, we can't be required to know something if we're not allowed to read it without paying.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Landamen, 24 Jul 2015 @ 10:46am

          Re: Re: Re: Ignorance is a pre-requisite for being in government in GA

          I don't know about that...

          *Puts on tinfoil hat*

          Back in 2012, the SCOTUS decided in a 5-4 vote in NFIB vs. Sebelius (Affordable Care Act), that confirmed that our government has the power to compel individual citizens to purchase federal (state) mandated policies through the use of Federal (state) tax powers. Ergo, you cannot plead ignorance due to state licensing because you will be compelled to purchase said law(s) that you broke or be "taxed" in order to compensate the state for your lack of understanding and for having to provide you with a public defender. Further more, you will have to purchase each new law(s) in a piece by piece fashion, on a limited 90 day license to ensure that only lawful parties can use them. In short, the only way to plead ignorance to the law will to be by becoming a tax evader.

          How else can they afford to make new laws?

          *takes off tinfoil hat*

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 3:06pm

      Re:

      Don't think it's ignorance. It's malice. The US South has a deep seated resentment to Federal interference going back before the Civil War but especially over Reconstruction. That's never changed. The State of Georgia routinely tries to get away with willfully ignoring any inconvenient Federal laws and rulings while trying to trumpet the (oft neglected) 10th Amendment.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        TMLutas (profile), 27 Jul 2015 @ 8:35am

        Re: Re:

        In this particular case, the state of Georgia is acting the thief and crying to federal court to enforce its theft so I'm pretty sure nobody's whistling dixie over this one.

        What Georgia is violating, among other things, is the entire idea of limited time copyright as the authorizinge statute 28-9-3 gives the commission the right to limit publication or not without time limit, something that hasn't been true in common law countries since the 1710 Queen Anne statute that eliminated permanent IP.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John Cressman, 24 Jul 2015 @ 7:06am

    This is great!

    So, can I now argue in my defense that sorry your honor, I'm not subject to the law because I didn't agree to the license agreement!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 7:47am

      Re: This is great!

      Isn't that what the pledge of allegiance is? There's a reason they make every kid say it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        DannyB (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 8:36am

        Re: Re: This is great!

        Maybe there is a reason they DON'T make every kid say the pledge of allegiance any more.

        (it can't be a DMCA takedown of the pledge, that would be public, so it must be something more secret.)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Tanner Andrews (profile), 29 Jul 2015 @ 1:43am

        Re: Re: This is great! (pledge of allegiance)

        There's a reason they made every kid say it

        Yes, but the reason is not very compelling. It was written by Francis Bellamy back in the late 1800s. Its original publication and promotion were intended to sell flags into classrooms.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 7:09am

    Wait, so what happened to that whole "works produced by the government cannot be copyrighted" thing? Did the State of Georgia just... completely forget the most relevant fact in this entire case?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John William Nelson (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 7:40am

      Re: Only federal works cannot be copyrighted

      The explicit prohibition against government works being copyrighted in the Copyright Act only applies to federal works, not state government works.

      There is case law supporting an extension to state works on various grounds, however.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 8:28am

      Re:

      Wait, so what happened to that whole "works produced by the government cannot be copyrighted" thing? Did the State of Georgia just... completely forget the most relevant fact in this entire case?

      1. That only officially applies to the federal government, rather than state governments -- though there are reasonable arguments that it *should* also apply to state and local governments.

      2. It also does not apply to works created by outside contractors and then assigned to the government. And here, that's what Georgia is claiming. The works were created by LexisNexis and then assigned to the state of Georgia.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 9:00am

        Re: Re:

        It's too bad (for Georgia) that
        whether it is a declaration of unwritten law

        pretty much describes the annotations, eh?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Sheogorath (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 9:01am

        Re: Re:

        The works were created by LexisNexis and then assigned to the state of Georgia [the government is claiming].
        So the State of Georgia should lose its case, right? I realise that lying in a civil suit won't carry such a hefty penalty as lying during a public prosecution, but the above is so clearly a lie that even the most confused judge in the world should see right through it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Michael, 24 Jul 2015 @ 10:34am

        Re: Re:

        The works were created by LexisNexis

        the courts will regularly rely on the annotations in the official code

        I think this is the crazier part of the whole thing. The Georgia courts are basing rulings on LexisNexis interpretations of Georgia law - not on their own interpretations.

        If the laws are ambiguous without the annotations, perhaps it is time to FIX THE LAWS.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Martin Marshall, 24 Jul 2015 @ 5:49pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "the courts will regularly rely on the annotations in the official code"

          But that's not how it works. I'm a Georgia lawyer, and no one ever cites the annotations. You cite to the caselaw, which the annotations describe.

          All the annotations do is make it easier to find relevant caselaw. The annotations are not themselves the law.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 7:31pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            All the annotations do is make it easier to find relevant case law

            Well, *that's* not derivative at all...

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Martin Marshall, 25 Jul 2015 @ 5:53am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              > All the annotations do is make it easier to find relevant case law

              > Well, *that's* not derivative at all...

              It's derivative of the Code and the caselaw. But the State doesn't claim that those are covered by copyright.

              Any person can create annotations to a state code and copyright those annotations. If you get on Google Scholar and do a search for a code section, you'll get back a list of cases that interpret the code section. For each case on the list, there will be a short blurb of text taken from the case. Congratulations, you've just created your own annotations.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Schmorgluck (profile), 25 Jul 2015 @ 10:47am

        Re: Re:

        Georgia's constitution has no equivalent of the Copyright Clause (article I, section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution of the United States).
        However, it states in its article I, section I, paragraph V: "Freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed. No law shall be passed to curtail or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. Every person may speak, write, and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that liberty."

        Copyright is a restriction of Free Speech, an exception to it. The power to instate such an exception is only granted to the federal level. Georgia has no such provision in its constitution, therefore it doesn't have the power to instate its own version of the exception. Only the provisions of the Copyright Act can apply in Georgia to restrict freedom of speech on that basis. They only have that ground, and the Copyright Clause, as a basis to sue Carl Malamund.

        It will be fun, me says you.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      sorrykb (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 8:39am

      Re:

      "States' rights!"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Sheogorath (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 7:43am

    On information and belief, the State of Georgia has engaged in an 18 year long crusade to control the accessibility of U.S. government documents by becoming the United States’ Public Domain Withholder – a state government nominated by the U.S. President and who is in control of the U.S. Government Information Office. The State of Georgia has not been so nominated.

    FTFY, Georgia. YW. ;)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Sine Nomine, 24 Jul 2015 @ 7:55am

    Access?

    So, Mike, if you are so enthusiastic about public access, why do you use such a restrictive method as Document Cloud to make this complaint available, which doesn't even allow for downloading or printing?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 8:26am

    Making the Law Public will Aid Terrorists

    Allowing any common person to have access to the laws without a license would be aiding the enemy.

    The enemy would use knowledge of the law in order to avoid doing the very things that we would prosecute our enemies for doing. (example: if you knew that jaywalking was illegal, then you would find some other way to accomplish your evil plan of crossing the street without technically violating the jaywalking law.) This makes us all less safe from those who would work around our laws in order to accomplish their goals. (crossing the street)

    We must protect ourselves from enemies who use knowledge of the law to avoid prosecution. (eg, jaywalkers using the crosswalk to avoid prosecution being an example of an enemy terrorist.)

    In addition to secret laws, we need:
    * Secret interpretations of laws
    * Secret courts
    * Secret court orders
    * Secret arrests (in the middle of the night)
    * Secret evidence (that the defense cannot access)
    * Secret trials
    * Secret convictions
    * Secret incarceration
    * Widespread police brutality, sometimes outright torture, condoned, maybe even encouraged by some departments, but defended by all officers
    * Militarization of police
    * Government torture programs

    This list is not all inclusive. If you have questions about what should be on the list, simply look at what we were fighting in the previous century.

    Think of the terrorists!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DannyB (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 8:27am

      Re: Making the Law Public will Aid Terrorists

      (did I need to put a sarcasm tag? Yes, probably, on the intarwebtubes.)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DannyB (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 8:33am

      Re: Making the Law Public will Aid Terrorists

      One way to deal with this is to simply pre-emptively arrest people who use the crosswalk, since doing so should automatically raise suspicious that they are simply trying to avoid prosecution for not violating the law.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John David Galt (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 10:12am

      Re: Making the Law Public will Aid Terrorists

      Don't forget thoughtcrime laws!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Schmorgluck (profile), 25 Jul 2015 @ 12:44pm

      Re: Making the Law Public will Aid Terrorists

      Reminds me that, some years ago, then French president Nicolas Sarkozy asked some senior magistrates about the possibility of abstaining from publishing the decrees relative to a set of security laws in the "Journal officiel de la République française", France's government gazette. Even the (few) magistrates who were politically sympathetic to him found the idea absurdly preposterous. No statute in France is binding in any way if it wasn't published in the "JO", as it is commonly called.

      This guy has no respect for democratic institution. I hope he doesn't manage to come back to power.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    kenichi tanaka (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 9:14am

    While doing some web searching on this matter, I discovered a Harvard Law write-up from 2008 on this very issue, where the state of Oregon sued some websites over this very same thing:

    Although Section 105 of the Copyright Act places the works of federal government employees (so, federal statutes, federal judicial opinions, and the like) in the public domain, Section 105 doesn’t apply to state laws. Does that mean state laws are copyrightable? Although the statute is silent, the courts have always said: no, they aren’t. In Nash v. Lathrop, 6 N.E. 559, 560 (Mass. 1886), the court rested this conclusion on the unfairness of limiting public’s access to the rules that governed its conduct:

    Every citizen is presumed to know the law thus declared, and it needs no argument to show that justice requires that all should have free access to the opinions, and that it is against sound public policy to prevent this, or to suppress and keep from the earliest knowledge of the public the statutes, or the decisions and opinions of the justices. … It can hardly be contended that it would be within the constitutional power of the legislature to enact that the statutes and opinions should not be made known to the public. It is its duty to provide for promulgating them; while it has the power to pass reasonable and wholesome laws regulating the mode of promulgating them, so as to give accuracy and authority to them.

    Source: https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/04/16/can-states-copyright-their-statutes/

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 10:12am

    It reminds me of how the corrupt Catholic church reacted to having the bible translated into English. The less people knew the more power the church had.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Seegras (profile), 27 Jul 2015 @ 12:50am

      Re:

      Ironic. It was translated to latin, so the less-educated people, that did not understand greek (greek being the language of the upper class and the philosophers in ancient rome), could read it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Vel the Enigmatic, 24 Jul 2015 @ 10:20am

    Oh look...

    -more seagulls singing the same tune. Shamelessness knows no bounds.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    jcuffe007 (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 11:14am

    State Of Georgia Sues Carl Malamud

    I work in local government in CAlifornia, and have had the opportunity to meet Mr. Malamud, and listen to his presentation on his mission. I fully support his efforts to make the law more transparent, and frequently use the public.resource.org website, I am a firm believer that it is the governments job to educate the public on the laws, to provide access to the laws, and to help fix the laws that are out of date, or have no real application. I know many in my field that have the same opinion, but we are still in the minority. But with people like Mr. Malamud out there, there is hope.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Dan (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 11:27am

    Annotations

    The issue here is not the code itself, it's the annotations. An annotated code presents a code section (the law), followed by annotations, then the next section, then its annotations, and so forth.

    As an example, a section of the Georgia code makes it illegal to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. In the annotated version, that section will be followed by notes from cases discussing things like how it applies to driving in a parking lot, challenges to the use of the breathalyzer, admissibility of field sobriety tests, etc. These notes will each be a couple of sentences at most, and are (at least usually) prepared by privately-employed editors.

    Annotations are not the law. They are not part of the law. They are, in short, brief summaries of how the law has been applied or interpreted by courts, agencies, law reviews, and other sources. In my years of practice, I've never seen a court cite an annotation as authority for any proposition, and there's no reason that a court would--after all, each annotation cites its authority.

    In the olden days (i.e., before the days of electronic legal research databases), preparing annotations was extremely labor-intensive, and the labor in question was generally provided by attorneys and librarians. Not only was there the actual preparation of the notes, but the extensive cross-referencing was all done by hand. Now the cross-referencing is mostly automated, but you still have attorneys reading the cases and writing the notes.

    If GA were suing over Malamud putting the code online, the case would be well into frivolous territory. But they aren't--they're suing over the annotations, which are a commercial product, and aren't the law. They may or may not win, but contrary to the headline, this isn't about Malamud putting the law online.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 12:04pm

      Re: Annotations

      These notes will each be a couple of sentences at most, and are (at least usually) prepared by privately-employed editors.

      No, these are created by publicly employed editors, who are employed by the state of Georgia to create an official Georgia annotated code. Until the state of Georgia becomes a commercial entity, there is no commercial product involved here.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Dan (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 12:31pm

        Re: Re: Annotations

        Unless LexisNexis has recently been bought by the State of Georgia, this is incorrect. The editors are employed, in this case, by LexisNexis, who has a contract with Georgia to prepare the OCGA. One of the terms of the contract is apparently that the copyright on the OCGA belongs to the state of Georgia.

        It's unclear how significant this distinction is at the state level. At the federal level, the original works of government employees, prepared in the scope of their duties, are not copyrightable, period. However, works prepared under contract for the federal government can be copyrighted, and the government can own those copyrights. Thus, at the federal level, this distinction would be critical.

        At the state level, though, the rules aren't quite as clear. There isn't a bright-line rule that works created by state government employees aren't copyrightable, as there is at the federal level. So even if you were right that the editors were state employees, that would not mean that the annotations couldn't be copyrighted.

        There may be (though I doubt it) a state which hires editors, as state employees, to annotate its codes, but Georgia is not that state.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 12:46pm

          Re: Re: Re: Annotations

          Of course, I forgot about the legal principle that makes the government paying someone to pay someone to create a document that the government owns different than the government paying someone to create a document that the government owns. My mistake.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            icon
            antidirt (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 1:19pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Annotations

            In the federal context, the government can be assigned a copyright, but it cannot be not vested with a copyright ab initio. But that doesn't apply here, and the state can own a copyright either by initial vesting or by assignment.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Dan (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 3:34pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Annotations

            Being a smartass only works when you're right. You aren't right. A government employee (i.e., somebody who's paid directly by the government) is not the same as an employee of a private corporation who has a contract with the government, even if that person spends all his time working on the government project (or even at a government facility). This distinction applies to employment law, tort law, copyright, and a host of other areas of the law.

            But even if you were right that there's no difference, since this is a state government and not the federal government, that still wouldn't render the annotations public domain works.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2015 @ 11:36am

          Re: Re: Re: Annotations

          Unless LexisNexis has recently been bought by the State of Georgia, this is incorrect. The editors are employed, in this case, by LexisNexis, who has a contract with Georgia to prepare the OCGA. One of the terms of the contract is apparently that the copyright on the OCGA belongs to the state of Georgia.

          Which would be the only thing giving Georgia standing. At the same time, it stops the annotations from being private property. They are a legal text paid prepared on behalf and paid for by the tax payers.

          I don't see how Georgia can argue that the tax payers are not to have access to them. The only way this should have a chance of prevailing is if the copyright had remained with LexisNexis, and it would have been LexisNexis who had sued.

          But if Georgia is of the opinion that the annotations are required to a degree for understanding the law that they have expended tax payers' money to acquire the copyright on them, they will have a hard time convincing courts that they should be allowed to paywall them and have citizens pay again before accessing them.

          If sanity prevails. This is the U.S. we are talking about, so that is not a given.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        yodel, 24 Jul 2015 @ 1:16pm

        Re: Re: Annotations

        Not exactly. All states have statutes that allow them to recoup costs of various products like maps, documents, etc. so they might be able to stretch those to cover the annotations as a product and cover some cost of production.

        It might be thin but it's plausible.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 1:51pm

        Re: Re: Annotations

        Bottom line the private company was performing a 'work for hire' since they were paid to do this. Where do you think the money to do this came from. I'll give you a hint... the taxpayer (the one who is now being refused access unless they pay again)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 6:11pm

      Re: Annotations

      The issue here is not the code itself, it's the annotations. An annotated code presents a code section (the law), followed by annotations, then the next section, then its annotations, and so forth.

      This is clearly stated in the post, so not sure why you're calling it out in the comments as if we did not.

      As an example, a section of the Georgia code makes it illegal to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. In the annotated version, that section will be followed by notes from cases discussing things like how it applies to driving in a parking lot, challenges to the use of the breathalyzer, admissibility of field sobriety tests, etc. These notes will each be a couple of sentences at most, and are (at least usually) prepared by privately-employed editors.

      Yes, and if you want people to understand the law, then it's rather important to include that kind of information.

      Annotations are not the law. They are not part of the law.

      Many people disagree with you. Considering that these are the official annotations, released by the state itself as part of its official code of Georgia, then, yes, they are a part of the law.

      If you go to the State Government of Georgia's website and try to find the law, what does it point you to? That's right... the ANNOTATED copy of the law.

      https://georgia.gov/popular-topic/learning-about-georgia-law

      And they call it "the official code of Georgia."

      In other words, yes, the state of Georgia calls its own annotated code the "official code of Georgia." So, yes, the annotated code is law.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Martin Marshall, 25 Jul 2015 @ 6:22am

        Re: Re: Annotations

        > If you go to the State Government of Georgia's website and try to find the law, what does it point you to? That's right... the ANNOTATED copy of the law.

        Incorrect. Follow the link and look at the Code. It's not the annotated version, and they don't call it O.C.G.A.

        WestLaw sells its own annotated version of the Code, which it creates independently of the state. No one would claim that WestLaw can't copyright their annotations.

        The distinction here is that the State owns the copyright in these annotations. If the court rules that the State can't copyright the annotations, then the State will stop hiring LexisNexis to produce the annotations, and LexisNexis will produce and sell them independently, just as WestLaw does.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        meta-monkey, 25 Jul 2015 @ 6:52am

        Re: Re: Annotations

        Did you follow the link you posted? It does not link to the annotated code. It links to the unannotated code, hosted on the LexisNexis site, which identifies itself as "LexisNexis, author of the annotated code."

        So, no, Georgia does not call the annotated code the "official code of Georgia." If you follow the link you posted, you get to the unannotated code.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Dan (profile), 25 Jul 2015 @ 8:22am

        Re: Re: Annotations

        This is clearly stated in the post, so not sure why you're calling it out in the comments as if we did not.

        Because your headline incorrectly states that Malamud is being sued for publishing the law, when it's the annotations that are at issue. And because the post clearly, and incorrectly, stated (before you edited it) that annotations are used and cited as legal authority.

        Many people disagree with you. Considering that these are the official annotations, released by the state itself as part of its official code of Georgia, then, yes, they are a part of the law.

        Find me one attorney who says so. You already have at least two (myself and Martin Marshall) telling you that you're wrong. Annotations are a research tool, not legal authority.

        Malamud's position seems to be similar to yours (though he does recognize that the annotations are not the law)--that since the state has adopted this particular annotated version of the code as the "official" version, other material that would ordinarily be copyrightable, isn't. This is a curious and novel interpretation of the law. I don't think he'll win on that theory, but I'd be interested to see how the case goes.

        There are certainly arguments to be made in Malamud's favor, and good policy reasons supporting open access to the law for all. But it is simply incorrect to state, as you do in your headline, that he's being sued for publishing the law.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        antidirt (profile), 25 Jul 2015 @ 9:13am

        Re: Re: Annotations

        Considering that these are the official annotations, released by the state itself as part of its official code of Georgia, then, yes, they are a part of the law.

        Law students learn this on the first day of law school: The statutes are "law," the comments are not. The comments can be persuasive authority, but they can never be primary authority, i.e., "law."

        See, for example:
        Although the Official UCC Comments following the code provisions are not law, they are persuasive authority concerning interpretation of the statutory language.
        Fetter v. Wells Fargo Bank Texas, N.A., 110 S.W.3d 683, 687 (Tex. App. 2003).
        Comments accompanying the uniform acts are deemed to be “persuasive authority” in interpreting Kentucky statutes.
        Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Estate of Cowles, 982 S.W.2d 224, 226 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998).

        Primary authority, such as statutes, are "law" and are in the public domain. But secondary authority such as comments, annotations, treatises, model codes, law review articles, dictionaries, etc. are not "law" and are not public domain. The fact that courts rely on them as persuasive authority doesn't make them suddenly public domain.

        If you go to the State Government of Georgia's website and try to find the law, what does it point you to? That's right... the ANNOTATED copy of the law. https://georgia.gov/popular-topic/learning-about-georgia-law

        And they call it "the official code of Georgia." In other words, yes, the state of Georgia calls its own annotated code the "official code of Georgia." So, yes, the annotated code is law.


        This is just embarrassing. The official version you linked to is NOT the annotated version. Can you really not tell the difference between them?

        Look at Section 1-1-1 in the linked-to version:
        § 1-1-1. Enactment of Code

        The statutory portion of the codification of Georgia 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 enacted 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."
        After that, there's no annotations.

        But if you actually look at the annotated version, you'll see annotations including editor's notes, judicial decisions, cross references, and law reviews. This lawsuit is over those annotations--the ones you can't even identify correctly.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        jimrtex (profile), 26 Jul 2015 @ 4:37am

        Re: Re: Annotations

        And you can follow that link to the LexisNexis website and freely read the Georgia Code yourself. I'll assume you are a llama professional and want to read the code pertaining to your profession:

        § 4-12-5

        (a) Every llama professional and every llama activity sponsor shall post and maintain signs ...

        Or you can search for "llama" and find all code sections.


        If LexisNexis did not contract to provide this service, then the State of Georgia might. They would have to provide the server, and pay for the bandwidth, and pay the cost of updating it. This year's college intern might do a wonderful job, but next year might not be so good. Or the lack of supervision will lead to deterioration. Georgia would tell you to come to Atlanta and dig through stacks of paper, or volumes and volumes.

        Instead, Georgia contracts with LexisNexis to make the actual code available to you. In turn, it brings potential $$$customers$$$ to its annotated version.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 12:56pm

    lONG AGO, NOT TO fAR AWAY..

    Long ago, there are a country that demanded that the people Live by the Rules in a book, derived and read to them by a representative...
    The books were expensive..and only those in the Church could read and interpret them..

    Until the advent of the printing press, and making TONS of copies. And the Church having a FIT about it..

    1. didnt know a Public LAW was Private..
    2. Didnt know a Public servant had any rights to Privacy.
    3. without a signature on the annotations, how do you know Whom to pay and how much.. And how do you keep records of what was read and recorded...

    I love the concept of EDITING the law..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    antidirt (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 12:59pm

    Annotations are not law, Mike. But I love how in this context you feel comfortable saying there should be no copyright, while you're too ashamed to just admit you feel that way generally. Of course, you have to intentionally lie about annotations being law to get there, but you feel safe in saying it despite the lie. Good for you! Maybe one day you'll tell us how you really feel about it. Then again, you probably won't. For whatever readon, you just can't come clean.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 6:15pm

      Re:

      I love how in this context you feel comfortable saying there should be no copyright, while you're too ashamed to just admit you feel that way generally.

      Weird. I say that there should be no copyright for laws/regulations because that's what I believe.

      I don't say it generally because I don't believe it generally, and it's downright weird that you keep insisting I must believe that even when this has been explained to you multiple times.

      I have told you how I really feel: copyright is broken and is vastly over protective. It should be scaled back massively. To what level is something that deserves more study and *I DON'T KNOW* the exact right level so I don't take a definite position on what the *exact proper level* is.

      I've told you this before and you insist I'm lying because my accurate and honest response to you doesn't match with the made up "Mike" that apparently haunts your dreams. You should maybe stop listening to the strawman Mike in your head and start joining us here in reality.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 26 Jul 2015 @ 4:28am

        Re: Re:

        Balderdash, everyone knows the world and everything in it is composed entirely of black and white!

        If you're not for something, in every aspect and use of it, then you must be against it! Only the lying or cowardly utter such absurdities as 'I don't know' or 'We don't have enough evidence to say exactly/either way', as everyone knows the proper way to deal with the unknown or situations where the evidence isn't strong enough to make an informed decision is to pick one of the two sides and angrily defend it against anything and everything the other side says, while being utterly contemptuous and dismissive towards those weaklings whining about 'gathering evidence before making a decision'.

        /poe

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Spaceman Spiff (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 2:18pm

    To Antidirt

    You are an id10t! If the state publishes such annotations with the laws in question, then they are in the public domain and must be available and publishable by anyone!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Dan (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 3:36pm

      Re: To Antidirt

      So anything that's published in the same volume with the law is automatically in the public domain? On what legal authority do you base this curious assertion?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Silver Fang (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 6:47pm

    Aren't laws supposed to be public available?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 8:05pm

    antidirt just hates it when due process is enforced.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Enlightenment, 25 Jul 2015 @ 5:16am

    What should we expect?

    What should we expect out of Ignorant Rednecks and Racist Southerners?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2015 @ 6:50am

    If the law itself isn't public domain,

    then it isn't the law. Cost differential between parties biases outcomes. Acknowledging this formally would mean the court preferred private interests over public ones, and we don't have privately held courts of law in this country.

    But this is only a small part of BAR bigotry.

    California is the only state in the Union where the BAR exam is expected to be an objective standard. All others require students to attend schools saddled with expensive accreditation processes before they can even ATTEMPT the exam.

    So for most of the country, practicing the law is largely a formalized social class system. Incidentally, the Federal government DOES recognize California's BAR, though almost every state will not.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    meta-monkey, 25 Jul 2015 @ 8:05am

    I don't think Malamud is going about this right

    First, I am a free software nutjob and think copyright is evil. But while it exists...pretty sure Malamud is going about this wrong.

    As I said in a previous comment, you're wrong with your link. You said, "the state points directly to the annotated version as the official laws of the state." No it doesn't. It points to the unannotated code, on a LexisNexis server, which states "This website is maintained by LexisNexis®, the publisher of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, to provide free public access to the law." You just saw the words "publisher of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated," but that's the manner in which LexisNexis is identifying itself, not the content to which Georgia linked. The content of the site, "the official code of Georgia" is unannotated.

    Law is public domain. Court decisions are public domain. But they are not copyleft. I can absolutely create and copyright derivative works about things in the public domain. Slogging through decisions for each law and compiling relevant quotes and analysis for easy digestion is absolutely copyrightable. As other comments have said, LexisNexis is commissioned by the state to produce an annotated code, which it then uses for its judges and attorneys, and sells to other lawyers, probably making it revenue neutral.

    So, you can argue that states should not be allowed to hold copyrights on anything. Maybe that's the case. I don't know. If so, what will happen is Georgia will stop commissioning LexisNexis to make annotations according to standards that we hope are in the best interests of Georgia citizens. LexisNexis will produce the annotations itself and sell copies to government and private attorneys and keep more of the profits itself.

    Malamud thinks access to annotated laws is vital for a free society. I agree! So fine, his organization should dedicate itself to slogging through court decisions and annotating laws, and it should publish them. Create a "Wikipedia for laws" where anybody can annotate their state's laws. Do to LexisNexis and Westlaw what Wikipedia did to Britannica.

    When Linus and RMS thought software should be free, they didn't go hack Microsoft and commercial Unix vendors and publish their software for free. They went and wrote and published their own damn free software.

    Malamud, go write your own damn free annotations.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Seegras (profile), 27 Jul 2015 @ 1:18am

      Re: I don't think Malamud is going about this right

      Slogging through decisions for each law and compiling relevant quotes and analysis for easy digestion is absolutely copyrightable.

      I don't think so. Not because it's a derivative work on a public domain one, but because it fails something else:

      originality.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Jake Heller, 29 Jul 2015 @ 12:01am

      Re: I don't think Malamud is going about this right

      For what it's worth, I started Casetext to make annotated copies of the law available. Our goal is to do to LexisNexis and Westlaw what Wikipedia did to Britannica. In fact, that exact language was in our original pitch to Y Combinator. Check us out!

      There's still a long road for us to travel. Building a free and annotatable version of Westlaw and LexisNexis is hard work. But we are definitely working on it. And if you want to help contribute, sign up and start annotating!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Reedman, 27 Jul 2015 @ 1:30pm

    Copyright of Law

    There is a parallel/inverse effort concerning the building code. Most states/counties/cities require you to obey the national building codes. But, the codes are copyrighted publications of non-profit private entities. Some folks are trying to argue that ANYTHING that is the law of the land must be made available free of charge, and that posting the electrical code online is legal as long as it is the required law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Jul 2015 @ 1:44pm

    Update and apology

    We've written a new post on this story, which you can see here:

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150726/23080731763/even-if-state-georgia-can-copyright-lega l-annotations-should-it.shtml

    In it, we also apologize for a key error in this post (and we've noted a correction to the post above as well) in claiming that the courts rely on the annotations. That is not true, and we take full responsibility for not accurately reporting this initially.

    The new analysis at the link above, however, does explain why the lawsuit is still highly questionable. Multiple parts of the Georgia government still do point to the annotated law as "the law" and the Copyright Office has made it clear that official edicts of state governments are not subject to copyright. And everyone agrees that the annotated code is the "official" annotated code of the government. There is much more at the link above, but we still apologize for the initial error in this post.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mark Lyon, 27 Jul 2015 @ 1:54pm

    Section 1-1-1: The statutory portion of the codification of Georgia laws prepared by the Georgia 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 enacted 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'.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2015 @ 6:39am

    This appears to be more of an editorial piece than a news article. When facts are presented accurately, the reader may then draw his or her own conclusions and feelings about the information without constant editorial prompting from the author. Thank you for the correction.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Augusto Herrmann, 29 Jul 2015 @ 10:23am

    proper usage of CC-Zero

    There is another error on this post.

    I think, as much as anyone else, that the actions of the State of Georgia suing Malamud are very reprehensible. However, they do have a valid argument about CC-Zero being an inappropriate license for the body of annotated law.

    CC-Zero is an instrument for someone who owns the copyright on a work to release it into the public domain. If you have reason to believe in good faith that a work is already on the public domain and you just want to label it as so (i.e. you do not own a copyright on it, neither does anyone else), you should use the Public Domain Mark.

    See the Creative Commons Zero FAQ at https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#What_is_the_difference_between_CC0_and_the_Public_Doma in_Mark_.28.22PDM.22.29.3F

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Deb dugger, 31 Jul 2015 @ 11:23am

    I think the laws belong to the people...in eorgia...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    deb dugger, 31 Jul 2015 @ 11:31am

    Secret laws....hmmmh

    Maybe it's tim to revisit..the laws and write some restricting the state from frivilous lawsuits...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.