• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Courtroom5

Be Your Own Lawyer

  • How It Works
  • Legal Tips
    • Access To Justice
    • Affirmative Defenses
    • Discovery
    • Dismissal
    • Legal Research
    • Litigation Strategy
    • Summary Judgment
  • Sign Up
  • Sign In

April 30, 2020 By Debra Slone 2 Comments

The Supreme Court Delivers Step For Justice, Stumble For Crackheads

We won one!

On April 27, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a narrow 5-4 victory to justice in the case of Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.

Earlier this year, we briefly discussed the case in a post titled The Crackheads and Extortionists Who Sell State Laws. The article likened state legislatures to crackheads who keep coming to their citizens for another hit, and then another. We wrote

Georgia Charges Citizens $404 Per Year To Read Their Own Laws. It’s bad enough that jury instructions aren’t free, but Georgia is charging hundreds of dollars for annotated codes that help people understand the law in Georgia. To protect its relationship with its pusher, LexisNexis, Georgia has gone all the way to the US Supreme Court.

In 2015, Georgia sued watchdog group Public.Resource.Org for copyright infringement after it refused to pull the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) from its free website. The case was argued before the US Supreme Court on December 2, 2019.

The Supreme Court has made its decision, with a surprising mix of bedfellows. (Checkout the supporters and dissenters). The court ruled that the government edicts doctrine barred Georgia from copyrighting its laws.  Under this doctrine, a person, such as a reporter, can hold a copyright to information he created because he has no authority to speak with the force of law. Judges and other government bodies, like a legislator, on the other hand, cannot assert a copyright for works they produce in their capacity as judges or legislators.

That’s the law.

More about Georgia. The Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) is a compilation of the Georgia statutes (laws) with full annotations from the Georgia Code Commission. The State of Georgia argued that, since OCGA is a compilation of annotations, it should have the copyright protection enjoyed by other annotations. See the Copyright Act.

The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the OCGA annotations are not wholly like other annotations because their author qualifies as a legislator. The sole “author” being the Georgia Code Commission, an arm of the Georgia Legislature. The Commission developed the annotations in its legislative capacity. The Court explains

If Georgia were correct, then unless a State took the affirmative step of transferring its copyrights to the public domain, all of its judges’ and legislators’ non-binding legal works would be copyrighted. And citizens, attorneys, nonprofits, and private research companies would have to cease all copying, distribution, and display of those works or risk severe and potentially criminal penalties.

The Court ruled the annotations to be ineligible for copyright protection because “no one can own the law”.

To many, this may seem like a small victory, but for people representing themselves in court, it’s a huge win. Now, shelling out hundreds of dollars just to read the law might be removed from the list of stumbling blocks for self-represented litigants. Indeed, it is hoped that the ruling has a chilling effect on officials in other states, cities, and counties who were considering slapping a price tag on their laws.

In this case, the Supreme Court did the right thing. It curtailed at least some of the crackhead behavior by government entities who stumble their way back to their citizens again and again for another hit.

We can breath a sigh of relief for now. On to the next battle.

—–
Pssst! Hey, you there, struggling to win your case. Isn’t it time you gave Courtroom5 a spin? We publish articles like this to help you level the playing field, but it’s sometimes too late to save your case. Stop trying to catch up. Get ahead of the game and start driving your case to the judgment you deserve. See how it works today!

More Like This:

  • If You're A Pro Se Plaintiff, This Manual Is For YouIf You're A Pro Se Plaintiff, This Manual Is For You
  • Test Your Readiness For CourtTest Your Readiness For Court
  • 31 Affirmative Defenses And How To Assert Them31 Affirmative Defenses And How To Assert Them
  • #BlackLivesMatter = #DefundThePolice#BlackLivesMatter = #DefundThePolice
  • Best Blog Posts For Pro Se Litigants — The 2019 EditionBest Blog Posts For Pro Se Litigants — The 2019 Edition
  • Did You Come To Appease Or To Conquer? The 5 Types Of Pro Se LitigantsDid You Come To Appease Or To Conquer? The 5 Types…
  • The Skills You Need To Be Effective In CourtThe Skills You Need To Be Effective In Court
  • How To Analyze A Civil Case And Craft A Litigation Strategy, Part 2How To Analyze A Civil Case And Craft A Litigation…

Tagged With: copyright protection, OCGA, state laws, Supreme Court

About Debra Slone

Debra Slone is a co-founder at Courtroom5. Through legal sorcery, she can find case law to support any position she wants to take in court.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Daisy says

    April 30, 2020 at 7:02 pm

    They should have to do that for ALL courts and jurisdiction. The inequity and disparity in “language” on our streets and in our Courts is not justice. Like that old cliche, “shooting fish in a barrel”. Until we start learning the definition of Words as they mean in Blacks Law Dictionary we will never be able to communicate on the same level as the law enforcement officials from policemen, judges, legislatures and correctional institutions. No matter what color of skin, law language is not the same as English Language, Ebonic dialects, Mexican, etc. The economic challenges creates law and justice challenges. The Colonial Common Law Language of Centuries before is an obstacle in todays society. Justice is a language barrier or is language a justice barrier?

    Reply
    • Debra Slone says

      May 1, 2020 at 11:39 pm

      Hi Daisy,

      You’ve made some good points here. This ruling is actually law. So, at least on this decision, they went in the right direction. Thanks for your comments.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Get Our Free 5-Day Course to Your Inbox

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

We hate spam too. We'll never share your email.

Popular Articles

  • 31 affirmative defenses 31 Affirmative Defenses And How To Assert Them
  • biggest mistakes pro se litigants make 6 Of The Biggest Mistakes Pro Se Litigants Make
  • How to Write a Motion How To Write A Motion--A Guide And Sample Motions For Pro Se Litigants

Popular Tags

access to justice affirmative defenses answer appeal bias Brian Vukadinovich case analysis Case Manager civil legal aid complaint constitution court costs court reporter Courtroom5 criminal discovery elements of a claim eviction evidence hearing how to win in court I Am Not A Lawyer judicial bias jurisdiction Lawyers We Love legal analysis legal argument Legal Bits legal research litigation litigation strategy motion for summary judgment motion to dismiss podcast pro se litigants pro se litigation Richard Zorza rules of civil procedure self-representation self represented litigant settlement Sonja Ebron summary judgment trial unbundled legal services
Follow @Courtroom5Legal
Courtroom5
Courtroom5 @Courtroom5Legal
5 hours ago
Justice is the antidote to chaos. Happy Martin Luther King Day 2021. #accesstojustice https://t.co/Bspn62idc5
View on Twitter
0
0
Courtroom5
Courtroom5 @Courtroom5Legal
4 days ago
Thanks to @WRAL for naming Courtroom5 a finalist in this year’s Voters Choice Award for most innovative local startup. #WRALVCAs https://t.co/Vde2rnxfQQ
View on Twitter
0
0
Courtroom5
Courtroom5 @Courtroom5Legal
4 days ago
Yes, still true. #accesstojustice https://t.co/D0PgmjNwDr
View on Twitter
Open Hands Legal Svc @openhandslegal
https://t.co/X4xw9pYT1w
1
2
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • Terms
  • Privacy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

© 2021 Courtroom5 | A Techstars Company · My Account
No legal advice offered · No substitute for a lawyer

We use cookies to ensure the best experience on our website. If you continue to browse Courtroom5, we assume this is okay for you.OK