Court: Annotations to Georgia law not protected by copyright

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Last edited Wed Oct 24, 2018, 02:55 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Associated Press, via Fox 5 in Atlanta

POSTED: OCT 23 2018 04:37 PM EDT

ATLANTA (AP) - Annotations to Georgia's legal code are "intrinsically public domain material" and cannot be copyrighted, a federal appeals court in Atlanta has ruled. ... The opinion Friday from a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the ruling of a lower court judge who found the annotations included in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated were protected by copyright.

"After a thorough review of the law, and an examination of the annotations, we conclude that no valid copyright interest can be asserted in any part of the OCGA," the 11th Circuit opinion says.

The question arose in a legal dispute between the state of Georgia and Public.Resource.Org Inc. The nonprofit is run by Carl Malamud, an internet public domain advocate who argues for free access to legally obtained files.

The nonprofit distributed and made available online copies of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated. The state sued in July 2015, arguing the annotations include analysis and guidance added by a third-party publisher and are protected by copyright. ... Malamud's organization countersued two months later, asking the judge to rule that its activities didn't infringe upon copyright laws because laws enacted by government agencies are not copyrightable and are in the public domain.
....

Read more: http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/court-annotations-to-georgia-law-not-protected-by-copyright-1

---

The article at Fox 5 is dated yesterday. The article at BoingBoing was dated today.

Not only that, but it was at TechDirt four days ago:

Appeals Court Says Of Course Georgia's Laws (Including Annotations) Are Not Protected By Copyright And Free To Share

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181019/12232640876/appeals-court-says-course-georgias-laws-including-annotations-are-not-protected-copyright-free-to-share.shtml

So this thread should probably get locked. Oh, well.

-- -- --

Old source and original text:

Title: EFF scores a huge appeals court victory: the law cannot be copyrighted

Link: https://boingboing.net/2018/10/24/free-to-read-write.html

EFF scores a huge appeals court victory: the law cannot be copyrighted

Source: BoingBoing

https://boingboing.net/2018/10/24/free-to-read-write.html

For years we have chronicled the tireless fight of rogue archivist Carl Malamud (previously) whose Public.Resource.org has devoted itself to publishing the world's laws, for free, where anyone can see and share them. (1)

The principal that the law must be both readable and writable is as old as the idea of the rule of law itself, dating back to the Magna Carta and beyond. But in recent years, governments have begun to integrate commercially developed standards into their laws as their official safety code ( "The plumbing code of East Dingleberry County shall be version xyz of the Unified Plumbing Standards Body's Master Code" ), and thereafter, people who want to read the law -- to make sure they're obeying it, to investigate whether someone else has violated it -- has to pay (often thousands of dollars) to get a copy of their own laws.

Malamud's position is that once a standard is part of the law, it is no longer copyrightable and he can publish it. Despite the obvious justice of this position and its long precedent, he often finds himself on the receiving end of dire legal threats and even lawsuits. And when that happens, it's usually the Electronic Frontier Foundation that steps up to defend him.

Last week, Malamud and EFF scored a massive victory in this fight: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit struck down the state of Georgia's bid to suppress the publication of its laws, upholding Malamud's right to publish them. The appeals court's decision was unequivocal in its support for the position that the law is free for all to read and write -- and that Georgia's bid to make its laws pay-to-read was unconstitutional and illegitimate. (2)
....

(1) https://boingboing.net/?s%22carl%20malamud%22

(2) http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201711589.pdf

-- -- --

BoingBoing? I'll keep my fingers crossed.

-- -- --

EmergyHat! Retweeted

https://twitter.com/Popehat

EFF scores a huge appeals court victory: the law cannot be copyrighted https://boingboing.net/2018/10/24/free-to-read-write.html ...

Link to tweet

-- -- --

I'm a bit of a stickler, but isn't that the Confederate Stars and Bars flag with a 'C' placed inside the stars?

Link to tweet

-- -- --

This was my thought too, but it's the Georgia flag with a copyright symbol in the canton.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Georgia_(U.S._state).svg

[suffragette]

1. K&R

[zipplewrath]

2. This seems brain dead obvious

You can't write "secret" laws. And you can't write laws and not make them publicly available. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" but it should be obvious that one cannot be held responsible for a law they aren't allowed to know.

[Cryptoad]

3. BoingBoing is now a major news source?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

5. I was concerned about that too. I'll look for another. Got it: Associated Press.

Will change it now.

[debsy]

4. One word: Kavanaugh

The SCOTUS is now a corporate-owned entity. This and many other future SC cases will, IMHO, wind up being reversed by the 5 corporate stooges that now occupy our highest court.

[Hekate]

6. Well done EFF and Carl Malamud

[SunSeeker]

7. A lot of money is made publishing law books, it's a disgrace.

The PEOPLE "own the copyright," it's the PEOPLE'S law. Our taxes paid for these laws to be created. We paid the legislators to write these laws. Same goes for court opinions, which should all be free and readily accessible by EVERYONE, not just those who pay a Lexis or Westlaw subscription.

[TomSlick]

8. I will confess I found this decision odd.

It seems obvious that a State's code can not be the subject of copyright but I would have thought the annotations - which are not part of the public statute but the work of private editors - are protected by copyright.

My fear is that if the annotations are not protected by copyrights, the editors will stop doing the work. Annotations are sometimes a useful way to start research on cases involving statutes. I have found that annotations cannot be trusted, I have to read the cases, but it is a starting place.