Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1150_new_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 31

10 

GEORGIA v. PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC. 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

precedents.3  Specifically, there are four indications in the 
text  of  the  Copyright  Act  that  the  OCGA  annotations  are 
copyrightable.  As an initial matter, the Act does not define 
the word “author,” 17 U. S. C. §101, or make any reference
to  the  government  edicts  doctrine.    Accordingly,  the  term
“author” itself does not shed any light on whether the doc-
trine covers statutory annotations.  Second, while the Act 
excludes from copyright protection “work[s] prepared by an
officer or employee of the United States Government as part 
of that person’s official duties,” §101; see also §105, the Act 
contains no similar prohibition against works of state gov-
ernments or works prepared at their behest.  “Congress’ use
of explicit language in one provision cautions against infer-
ring  the  same  limitation”  elsewhere  in  the  statute.   State 
Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, 
580 U. S. ___, ___ (2016) (slip op., at 7) (internal quotation 
marks  omitted);  Pacific  Operators  Offshore,  LLP  v.  Val-
ladolid, 565 U. S. 207, 216 (2012).  Third, the Act specifi-
cally  notes  that  annotations  are  copyrightable  derivative 
works.  §101.  Here, again, the Act does not expressly ex-
clude from copyright protection annotations created either 
by the State or at the State’s request.  Fourth, the Act pro-
vides that an author may hold a copyright in “material con-
tributed” in a derivative work, “as distinguished from the 
preexisting  material  employed  in  the  work.”    §103(b);  see
also Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 
499 U. S. 340, 359 (1991).  These aspects of the statutory
text, taken together, further support the conclusion that the 
OCGA annotations are copyrightable.

For all these reasons, I would conclude that, as with the 

—————— 

3 As the majority explains, ante, at 9, the annotations were created as 
part of a work-for-hire agreement between the Commission and Lexis. 
See  17  U. S. C.  §201(b).    Because  no  party  disputes  the  validity  of  the
contract, I express no opinion regarding whether the contract established 
an employer/employee relationship or whether the Commission may be 
considered a “person” under §201(b).