Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 19 MAY 2020

A 5-to-4 Supreme Court Holds Georgia's Annotated Code Not Copyrightable

Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Contributor
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC

Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC

Founded more than 40 years ago as a boutique law firm servicing the entertainment and arts...

View firm profile
Explore more from Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC

The Supreme Court issued an interesting decision in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. yesterday holding that the annotations in the Official Code of Georgia Annotatedwere not copyrightable under the so-called government edicts doctrine.

United StatesIntellectual Property
Craig Whitney
Craig Whitney
Author LinkedIn connections

The Supreme Court issued an interesting decision in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. yesterday-decided by an unusual combination of judicial bedfellows-holding that the annotations in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) were not copyrightable under the so-called government edicts doctrine. On April 27, 2020, a 5-4 decision of the Court (the majority consisting of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) held that a work is not copyrightable if it's authored by a judge or a legislator acting in the course of his or her judicial or legislative duties.

WHAT WAS IT ABOUT?

The State of Georgia has one official code, the OCGA, which includes the text of every Georgia statute as well as a set of non-binding annotations that appear beneath each statutory provision. Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., a division of the LexisNexis Group, is the primary drafter of the annotations pursuant to a work-made-for-hire agreement with the

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

www.fkks.com

This post first appeared in Frankfurt Kurnit's Focus on the Data blog (www.focusonthedata.com). It provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.

Originally published by the New York Legal Ethics Reporter

www.fkks.com

This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.

www.fkks.com

This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

UMG v. DistroKid: When AI Becomes A Consumer Protection Issue

Universal Music Group's lawsuit against DistroKid raises a critical question about AI disclosure in consumer markets: when does the use of artificial intelligence become material information that must be disclosed to consumers? The case centers on allegations that DistroKid distributed mass-generated AI music while creating the impression it was created by legitimate human artists, potentially violating existing consumer protection laws even without specific AI disclosure requirements.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

PTAB/USPTO Update - October 2026

The USPTO has released new templates and guidance for AIA trial proceedings, announced key appointments including a Chief AI Officer, and published updated procedures for patent applications and subject matter eligibility declarations. Director Squires delivered multiple addresses emphasizing the constitutional importance of intellectual property rights while the agency expanded its community engagement efforts and international collaboration through WIPO's Global IP Assignment Platform pilot program.
United StatesIntellectual Property
WilmerHale
WilmerHale
Article

The Trademark Scam Field Guide: Look-Alike Filing Sites, Fake USPTO Notices, And How To Get Out If You’ve Been Caught

A business decides to file a trademark. Someone on the team searches for a familiar online legal-services brand, clicks the first result, and lands on a site with a similar-sounding name, a polished design, five-star reviews, and a low flat fee. The application gets filed. Months later the business learns the “service” was not who they thought it was, the filing was signed by someone with no authority to sign it, and the USPTO has suspended the application along with hundreds or thousands of others from the same shop.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Harness IP
Harness IP
Article

Is This Real? Navigating AI Impersonation Under New And Existing Laws

Is this AI-generated, or is it real? As generative AI tools have become increasingly capable of creating realistic images, videos, and audio, they have also made it easier to impersonate real people without their consent. In response, states are increasingly adopting laws that impose civil and criminal liability for certain AI-generated content that replicates an individual’s identity, likeness, voice, or other personal attributes.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Wiley Rein
Wiley Rein
Article

Amway To Pay $225 Million Over Alleged False Earnings Claims And Fabricated Sales

The FTC and Washington state secured a record $225 million settlement from Amway and affiliated groups over allegations they misled recruits about earnings potential while pressuring them to buy products with little retail opportunity. The complaint reveals that over three-quarters of U.S. product volume was sold to IBOs themselves rather than retail customers, with fabricated sales reporting masking the recruitment-driven model. The settlement's injunctive provisions establish new standards for earnings cl
United StatesConsumer Protection
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

UMG v. DistroKid: When AI Becomes A Consumer Protection Issue

Universal Music Group's lawsuit against DistroKid raises a critical question about AI disclosure in consumer markets: when does the use of artificial intelligence become material information that must be disclosed to consumers? The case centers on allegations that DistroKid distributed mass-generated AI music while creating the impression it was created by legitimate human artists, potentially violating existing consumer protection laws even without specific AI disclosure requirements.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

Selling Company Data For AI Training: What To Know Before You Say Yes

AI developers are seeking new sources of training data, including internal operational data like Slack messages, emails, and company documents. Companies are now receiving offers to sell their workplace data, but such transactions raise complex legal questions around data rights, privacy commitments, employee protections, and long-term competitive risks that require careful evaluation before proceeding.
United StatesPrivacy
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

California Legislation: End-Of-Session Check-In

California's legislature has sent a comprehensive package of privacy, AI, and advertising bills to Governor Newsom's desk, with decisions due by September 30, 2026. The legislation addresses sensitive personal information protections, data broker obligations, AI-powered chatbot regulations, and digital replica rights, potentially reshaping how businesses handle consumer data and automated decision-making systems. Will these bills become law and set new national standards for technology regulation?
United StatesPrivacy
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

Update Your App (Again): California's Digital Age Assurance Act Takes Effect January 1, 2027

California's Digital Age Assurance Act (DAAA) is set to fundamentally reshape how operating system providers and app developers handle age verification, with its January 1, 2027 effective date rapidly approaching. The law creates a comprehensive system where operating systems collect age information and provide age-band signals to developers, effectively eliminating the ability for companies to claim ignorance about whether their users are children.
United StatesPrivacy
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC