Even If The State Of Georgia Can Copyright Legal Annotations, Should It?

from the rethinking dept

Last week, we wrote about the fact that the State of Georgia is suing Carl Malamud for posting PDFs of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, and sending them around. I've been discussing this with a number of lawyers and other experts over the weekend and have to say that I made a significant error in the original post, which I apologize for. I said that courts frequently rely on the annotations of the law, thus effectively making them a part of the law. This was wrong and it was poor reporting on my part based on incomplete understanding of the situation. Having discussed this with multiple people and checked into it further myself, I really regret the error and will be adding a link to this story as soon as it is published. I was told otherwise originally, but that's no excuse. I should have checked it out and I did not.

The situation is, admittedly, more complicated. I still believe that the State of Georgia is incorrect both legally and morally in deciding to go down this path, but it is at least slightly more nuanced than the original article suggested, so let's dig in and explore the thinking. The state of Georgia hired LexisNexis to create these annotations, and LexisNexis then assigns the copyright that it receives on those annotations over to the state of Georgia. Part of the deal between Georgia and LexisNexis is that LexisNexis does the work and the state gets the copyright, but then LexisNexis gets to host the "official" copies of the laws of the state, while selling that annotated version (in both digital and paper versions). The state argues that this arrangement is actually more beneficial to consumers, because rather than relying on taxpayer funds to do this, LexisNexis gets to recoup the costs in the form of customer fees.

The annotations include things such as the names and a brief paragraph summary of relevant caselaw concerning the specific law being annotated. So, the first question is can this be covered by copyright? Most likely the answer is yes, if a limited kind of copyright. There is some creative choice in selecting what to cover and how to cover it, though significant parts of it are factual (names of cases and whatnot). As some pointed out, LexisNexis competitor WestLaw also offers its own annotated code of the state and sells it itself, and pretty much everyone is comfortable with the copyright there.

So, what's different here? Well, for one, part of the deal with LexisNexis is that after writing the work, the company transfers the copyright to the state itself. Some have pointed to the fact that under federal copyright law the federal government cannot get copyright on works of its own creation, but that does not really apply here in two separate ways. First, there's some dispute over whether or not those same rules apply to state governments as well -- with many arguing that without it being explicit, states can copyright their own creative works. The second issue, though, is that even under federal copyright law, if a third party/contractor creates the work and then assigns the copyright to the government, then even the federal government can keep and use that copyright. And, that's clearly the situation here.

So, yes, it's reasonable to argue that the original annotations should and did receive copyright protection. And it's also reasonable to argue that the state technically still has control over that copyright upon assignment by LexisNexis. From there, however, the legal issues get a bit more cloudy. The state of Georgia still does call the resulting publication the "Official Code of Georgia Annotated." And at the very least, at that point, you have to wonder why any aspect of the "official" laws of Georgia should be covered by copyright. Indeed, as LexisNexis points out on its own site, this "copyright" covered version of the law is "essential" to understanding the law and includes "guidance from the Georgia Code Commission."
The Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) provides users with the official Georgia statutes, fully annotated and including guidance from the Georgia Code Commission. If you live or work in Georgia, the OCGA is the essential reference you need to guide you quickly and efficiently in understanding the Georgia statutory scheme
Furthermore, multiple parts of the Georgia government refer to the OCGA as the law of Georgia, rather than the unannotated version. Just as two quick examples, the Georgia Department of Community Affairs cites the OGCA to explain Georgia's construction codes, rather than the unannotated law. And the Department of Banking and Finance insists that:
Laws governing entities regulated by the Department are primarily found in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) Title 7.
In other words, basically everyone in the Georgia government is saying that if you want to know the laws of Georgia, the OCGA is the only way to do so. And that raises serious questions about whether or not it should be allowed to lock up such text under copyright. The big question is if the OCGA is an "edict of government," as the US Copyright Office has declared such to be not copyrightable "for reasons of public policy."
Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments.
Given how the state of Georiga touts the OCGA as being "essential" and various government agencies directly cite it as where to find out about the laws that may apply to you, it seems reasonable to argue that the "Official Code of Georgia Annotated" is an "edict of government" and thus "not copyrightable for reasons of public policy."

Even if the courts somehow disagree with that, it would seem that Malamud also has a reasonably strong argument for fair use (though it's not a slam dunk -- but fair use is almost never a complete slam dunk). The "purpose and character" of the use and "the nature of the copyrighted work" would likely lean strongly towards fair use, and I would argue that while the last two factors may lean against fair use, the overwhelming nature of the first two should outweigh that when looked at as a whole. If you recognize that the purpose and character is to "let Georgians understand their own law," then the fact that Malamud released all of it should be seen as appropriate and reasonable, rather than excessive.

Finally, let's take this a step further and say that even if the copyright is legit and that this somehow isn't fair use... there remains a pretty essential question: is this appropriate for Georgia to act this way? The only "public benefit" argument that Georgia has on its side is that this current arrangement with LexisNexis saves taxpayer money, because the state doesn't need to pay to create annotated state codes. But that assumes that the state needs to pay to create annotated code. It's not clear that it does. WestLaw creates its own, and it seems likely that LexisNexis would continue to create its own as well should the state end this particular arrangement. If it's arguing that those wouldn't be the "official" ones, then there's a point there, but a minor one. First, this actually undermines the state's argument somewhat, in making it clear that it thinks the annotated code is really important in understanding the law. If that's true, then it's totally reasonable to spend taxpayer money on it -- just as they spend taxpayer money in paying the legislators who write the code, because that's exactly what taxpayer money is for.

And then there's this simple point: if the state of Georgia really believes this annotated code is so important, then it has a moral imperative to make it freely and widely available, rather than lock it up with copyright, such that only big law firms have a copy. It is essentially setting up a system by which only the lawyers are allowed to fully understand the law, and that's no way to run a government "for the people." That it has decided to not only lock up this code, but then to attack Carl Malamud by falsely claiming he's looking to "control access" to these annotations and to quote him totally out of context in claiming that he's doing a form of "terrorism," is just sickening. If the State of Georgia believes in having an informed public, this whole lawsuit is ridiculous, both from a legal and moral standpoint.

Filed Under: annotations, carl malamud, copyright, edicts, georgia, informed public, law
Companies: lexisnexis

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Dan (profile), 28 Jul 2015 @ 7:48am


    I appreciate the significant correction to the previous article, and hope the EFF picks up on it (and unlike you, they don't have any excuse for the misleading headline). I'd still disagree with this part:

    First, there's some dispute over whether or not those same rules apply to state governments as well -- with many arguing that without it being explicit, states can copyright their own creative works.

    There is, in fact, no legitimate dispute on this point. As far as federal copyright law is concerned, there is no question that states can copyright their own creative works. An individual state may restrict its own ability to do so, or the ability of its counties/cities/etc. to do so (which is one of the issues in the City of Inglewood case you wrote about a few weeks ago), but there is no question as a matter of federal law.

    But with respect to the annotations, the situation is unusual. In most states, the state prepares and prints the code. It will contain the full text of the statutes, and may have history (i.e., the dates and act numbers of the original law and any amendments that affected each code section), but won't have case notes or other research aids. This compilation is the law, and is consequently not copyrightable. Then, private publishers (Lexis and/or West, typically) prepare annotated versions of the code. The text of the code will be identical to the "official" version, but their editors will have prepared annotations for each code section, explaining how courts and other authorities (administrative agencies, and sometimes secondary materials like law reviews) have interpreted and/or applied the code section. Those annotations are original, if brief, works of authorship, and are unquestionably protected by copyright. There's no serious question, for example, that West's California Codes, Annotated, are copyrightable material.

    So, in most states, you have the "official", un-annotated code, which is the law and only the law, and is consequently not protected by copyright; and you also have one or more "unofficial" annotated codes, which contain significant original material from private sources, and are copyrighted.

    Georgia is unique in having contracted with a publisher to prepare an "official" annotated code. So far as I know, no other state has done this. That still doesn't make the annotations the law (otherwise you'd be giving private editors, potentially without any oversight whatsoever, the ability to make the law), and the annotations aren't really citable in any way, so their status as "official" is pretty illusory. I'm sure it gives some marketing clout to this version over West's, but beyond that I don't know that it has any effect.

    One result of that fact, though, is that the OCGA is the "official" source of the code, and that's what you cite when you're citing the code. You'll note, though, that what's being cited is always the statutory part--that is, the text of the law itself, which is in the public domain (and which the state makes available for free at the LexisNexis link you gave in the previous post). The code itself even makes this clear, in 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.

    (emphasis added)

    The code is clear that only the statutory portion of that publication is the law. The remainder is useful, relevant information, but it is not the law.

    I disagree with your analysis on fair use--I'd say only one of the four factors, at most, is in Malamud's favor. The factors:

    1. Purpose and character of use. Though I'll readily grant that Malamud is using, or intending to use, the copyrighted material in the public interest, the question here is whether any transformation has taken place, or whether you've simply copied the work wholesale. Malamud is doing the latter.

    2. Nature of the work. The annotations are generally factual (i.e., they're summaries of how a court decision has interpreted or applied a code section), and they are published, which is in Malamud's favor. They're not simple recitations of facts, though, as something like a phone book would be. I think this one balances in his favor, but not particularly strongly.

    3. Amount and Substantiality of the portion taken. Malamud's taking and reprinting the entirety of an 48-volume hardbound set of books. Of course, part of that material is in the public domain. In my experience, annotations typically exceed the statutes themselves in length by at least 2:1, but I'll be generous and assume that they're about equal in length. That means he's reprinting 24 volumes' worth of copyrighted material without permission. I don't think I need to elaborate further on why this factor favors the state.

    4. Effect on the potential market. The OCGA, in print, is really a bargain at $378 if I'm reading that page correctly (Under $400 for a 48-volume set of law books is dirt cheap--which is why I question whether I'm reading the page correctly). West's annotated GA code is 80 volumes and $1753. But even so, who will buy it if they can get it online for free? Some will, no doubt, but it's hard to deny that Malamud's publication will have a significant effect on the market (particularly if he keeps it up to date).

    So no, I don't think fair use will win the day. The argument that the state's decision to incorporate all this material into the "official" code renders it non-copyrightable is an interesting one, and it may be a bit stronger.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

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