Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (18-1150)

argument 18-1150

Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 0m 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central copyright dispute over Georgia’s official code annotations?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument next in case eighteen eleven fifty Georgia versus publicresource dot org uh Inc. Mr. Johnson.

Unknown 0:08

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. The eleventh circuit held that annotations to Georgia's official code are categorically ineligible for copyright protection. That holding conflicts with a straightforward application of the Copyright Act's text in this court's precedence, starting with the statute. Sections one hundred one and one hundred three of the Act expressly provide that annotations are copyrightable derivative. Works. Nothing in the Act supports stripping Georgia's annotations of copyright protection merely because they were prepared by a contractor on behalf of a state agency. Therefore, the crux of the party's dispute is whether this court's 19th-century precedents support a decision different from the one that would be reached by applying

Unknown 1:01

standard interpretive principles to the Copyright Act's plain text. They do not. In fact, those decisions strongly favor Georgia. Together, they hold that while judicial opinions are not copyrightable, Annotations added to opinions by a court's official reporter are copyrightable works of authorship. Similarly, while statutory text is not copyrightable, annotated research references are eligible for copyright protection, even if they appear in an official codebook like the OCGA. As a diverse coalition of states has explained, affirming the decision below would scuttle numerous states' regimes for publishing annotated official codes. Absent direction from Congress, this court should not extend a judge made doctrine to override the systems established by numerous states' democratically elected governments.

Unknown 2:06

I invite questions. Um But as a diverse co um so PRO's case rests heavily on an expansive interpretation of just a few sentences of this court's 1888 Bank's decision. But the banks case really just explained its rationale in a single sentence. And that sentence says that the whole work done by the judges constitutes. Constitutes the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which is binding on every citizen and is thus free for publication to all. So we read that sentence as establishing the principle that a work is not copyrightable if it is of a type that can serve as a vehicle for establishing binding law.

John G. Roberts 2:58

What do you understand the significance to be of the fact that these annotations, the references uh are official? Does that give them more weight when they're cited to the court?

Unknown 3:12

Uh no. And I I think that the uh thing that's official is the code. So it's the official code of Georgia. Whether

John G. Roberts 3:18

the the whatever the additional material is included in

Unknown 3:23

It it it does appear in the same publication, that's correct. And I don't think that that makes a difference for purposes of copyright under this court's precedent. And I I think that that's clear from Wheaton and Callahan. So in both of those cases, the court said that a court appointed official reporter could hold copyright in annotations that appeared in the report. So this case is really just the legislative analog of Callahan. In Callahan, the court held that the official reporter could hold copyright in things like headnotes at the top of a decision. And if you look at the judicial decision summaries in the OCGA, they are materially indistinguishable from those headnotes. But why isn't why isn't the legislature like the judge?

Unknown 4:19

Did the judge put his imprimata on The annotation is not copyrightable. Of the syllabus and here it's this state legislature. Why do you treat the judge and the state legislature differently? Well, I think it's different because the General Assembly is not enacting individual led um annotations through bicameralism and presentment. So the annotations are first prepared by a commercial publisher, so by a contractor, and they do that subject to the supervision of the Code Revision Commission. But they do it as as um what do they call it? Authors for hire. So the one that would hold the copyright would be the state. The state does hold the copyright, that is correct, very much like how an official reporter held the copyright in Wheaton and Callahan.