Journal of Intellectual Property Law Volume 24 | Issue 1 Article 7 October 2016 Official Code, Locked Down: An Analysis of Copyright as it Applies to Annotations of State Official Codes Shellea Diane Crochet Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/jipl Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Shellea D. Crochet, Official Code, Locked Down: An Analysis of Copyright as it Applies to Annotations of State Official Codes, 24 J. Intell. Prop. L. 131 (2016). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/jipl/vol24/iss1/7 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Intellectual Property Law by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. Please share how you have benefited from this access For more information, please contact [email protected]. Crochet: Official Code, Locked Down: An Analysis of Copyright as it Applie OFFICIAL CODE, LOCKED DOWN: AN ANALYSIS OF COPYRIGHT AS IT APPLIES TO ANNOTATIONS OF STATE OFFICIAL CODES Shellea Diane Crochet* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 133 II. COPYRIGHT LAW PERTAINING TO STATE PRIMARY LAW .................. 135 III. COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ARGUMENTS ................................................ 138 A. SILENT PERMISSION ............................................................................ 139 B. ECONOMIC INNOVATION ARGUMENT ............................................ 142 C. AVAILABILITY OF UN-ANNOTATED CODE ...................................... 143 D. HISTORICAL CONSISTENCY/PROGRESS ARGUMENT ..................... 144 IV. PUBLIC ACCESS ARGUMENTS ................................................................... 145 A. SILENT PROHIBITION .......................................................................... 146 B. FAIR USE DOCTRINE ............................................................................ 147 C. DUE PROCESS ........................................................................................ 149 1. Copyright Misuse .............................................................................. 150 2. Introduction of Substantive Due Process ............................................ 150 D. PRIMARY PURPOSE ARGUMENT ......................................................... 151 E. WORK-FOR-HIRE VERSUS STATE ACTION ........................................ 151 V. GETTING TO THE FUNDAMENTAL ARGUMENT ................................... 152 VI. WHAT IS THE LAW? .................................................................................... 153 A. TEXTUALISM ......................................................................................... 153 1. Applying Textualism to Annotated Codes ........................................ 155 2. Equal Protection Clause ................................................................... 157 B. FIT AND JUSTIFICATION ..................................................................... 158 VII. ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 159 A. DEFINING “THE LAW” ........................................................................ 159 B. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS .............................................................. 160 * J.D. Candidate 2017, University of Georgia School of Law; B.A., University of Georgia, 2014. 131 Published by Digital Commons @ Georgia Law, 2016 1 Journal of Intellectual Property Law, Vol. 24, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 7 132 J. INTELL. PROP. L. [Vol. 24:131 VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 163 https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/jipl/vol24/iss1/7 2 Crochet: Official Code, Locked Down: An Analysis of Copyright as it Applie 2016] OFFICIAL CODE, LOCKED DOWN 133 I. INTRODUCTION In 2015, for the first time in history, a party filed a counterclaim challenging state-held copyright protection of annotated codes in court.1 The annotations of state codes are specifically grouped portions of judicial decisions relating to a specific code section that identify how courts have interpreted the statutory text in practice. To state supporters (supporters of copyright protection), copyright protection ensures the integrity of invaluable legal research aids by assuring compensation for those creating annotations. For challengers (public access supporters), prohibiting public access to annotated codes is a violation of a basic constitutional right to knowledge of the law. At the center of the two arguments is one fundamental issue: what makes up the law? Notably, in May 2016, both parties to the aforementioned Georgia suit filed for summary judgment on the notion that there is no genuine issue of material fact.2 If the court determines the issue the way my research leads me to believe that it will, both motions should be rejected. To accept that there is no genuine dispute of material fact is to ignore the central issue of this case: whether the annotations are “the law.” The parties disagree on this central element and should have the chance to take their case to a Judge or Jury. The parties are awaiting the court’s decision in spring of 2017. If the court rules that one of the two motions be granted, then I assert that the court has erred in the sense that it will have essentially foregone due process for efficiency. This is a case that should go before the court for the fact-finder to determine whether the annotations are part of “the law.”3 If the substantive case reaches the court and the supporters of copyright protection win in the current Georgia case, more than half of the States will be affected and could face future litigation. While states will be judged on a case- by-case basis, the decision in the pending Georgia case can drastically influence the future of state-held copyright to annotated codes. 1 Answer to Amended Complaint and Counterclaim of Defendant Public Resource.Org, Inc., Code Revision Comm’n v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 1:15cv2594 LEXIS, at *1, Doc. 16 (N.D. Ga. 2015). 2 See generally Defendant Public.Resource.Org, Inc.’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment, Code Revision Commission v. Public.Resource.Org, 1:15cv2594 LEXIS, at *1, Exhibit 4, Doc. 29-2 (N.D. Ga. 2015); Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment, Code Revision Commission v. Public.Resource.Org, 1:15cv2594 LEXIS, at *1, Exhibit 4, Doc. 30-1 (N.D. Ga. 2015). 3 Bill Donahue, Georgia Law Annotations Copyrightable, LAW360 (Mar. 27, 2017, 1:52 PM), https:// www.law360.com/articles/906378/georgia-law-annotations-copyrightable-court-says. Published by Digital Commons @ Georgia Law, 2016 3 Journal of Intellectual Property Law, Vol. 24, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 7 134 J. INTELL. PROP. L. [Vol. 24:131 As of 2011, approximately twenty-eight states required courts to reference copyrighted official codes.4 As of 2014, two states alone, Montana and Illinois, had state statutes outlawing the copyright protection of state primary code material.5 After legislative hearings in Oregon, cases regarding primary materials in California, and constitutional analysis, the Supreme Court ultimately held that states may not hold the copyright to their statutory codes.6 However, many states still hold copyrights to their official codes by asserting that the annotations of the codes are subject to copyright protection. There are two ways states hold copyright to annotated codes. First, state legislators or staffers may create the annotations granting the author, the state, the copyright. Second, the state may create a work-for-hire contract with a private company, such as LexisNexis or Westlaw. A work-for-hire contract is a written contract by which the private company gains profits for their work in exchange for the state holding the copyrights to the annotations. Notably, there are areas other than annotated codes where states have been granted copyright protection of government-created and work-for-hire products. For example, the State of Florida holds the copyrights to Florida.Org, a government-created website that helps individuals find particular agencies or online government services.7 Additionally, in County of Suffolk v. First American Real Estate Solutions, the Second Circuit found that counties, like states, can hold the copyright to their tax maps created in a work-for-hire contract.8 This Note seeks to identify whether states can constitutionally hold copyright to annotated codes either as authors or through work-for-hire contracts. First, this Note will review the background of copyright law as it applies to copyright of state primary law. Second, this Note will analyze the arguments set out by supporters and rejecters of copyright protection for state annotated codes. Third, this Note will delve into the ideological question at hand and why defining the term “law” is the root of the entire issue. Following, this Note will explain different theoretical approaches to defining “the law.” 4 National Conference of State Legislature, State Statutes/Code: Holder of Copyright (Mar.–July 2011), http://www.ncsl.org/documents/lsss/Copyright_Statutes.pdf (surveying and explaining that out of the thirty-two states that responded to the survey, twenty-eight had copyrighted official codes, many of which likewise held official code annotations subject to copyright). 5 CoCommonLaw, States Who Assert a