Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1150_new_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 41

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

3 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

only  after  lawmaking  ends.    This  sets  the  OCGA  annota-
tions apart from uncopyrightable legislative materials like 
committee reports, generated before a law’s enactment, and
tied tightly to the task of law-formulation. 

Second,  the  OCGA  annotations  are  descriptive  rather
than prescriptive.  Instead of stating the legislature’s per-
ception of what a law conveys, the annotations summarize
writings in which others express their views on a given stat-
ute.  For  example,  the  OCGA  contains  “case  annotations”
for “[a]ll decisions of the Supreme Court of Georgia and the
Court of Appeals of Georgia and all decisions of the federal 
courts in cases which arose in Georgia construing any por-
tion of the general statutory law of the state.”  Id., at 403. 
Per the Code Revision Commission’s instructions, each an-
notation  should  “accurately  reflect  the  facts,  holding,  and 
statutory  construction”  adopted  by  the  court.  Id.,  at  404. 
The  annotations  are  neutrally  cast;  they  do  not  opine  on 
whether the summarized case was correctly decided.  See, 
e.g., OCGA §17–7–50 (2013) (case annotation summarizing 
facts and holdings of nine cases construing right to grand
jury hearing).  This characteristic of the annotations distin-
guishes them from preenactment legislative materials that
touch  or  concern  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  legisla-
ture’s work. 

Third, and of prime importance, the OCGA annotations 
are “given for the purpose of convenient reference” by the 
public,  §1–1–7  (2019);  they  aim  to  inform  the  citizenry  at 
large, they do not address, particularly, those seated in leg-
islative chambers.2  Annotations are thus unlike, for exam-
ple, surveys, work commissioned by a legislature to aid in 

—————— 

2 Suppose  a  committee  of  Georgia’s  legislature,  to  inform  the  public, 
instructs a staffer to write a guide titled “The Workways of the Georgia 
Legislature.”  The  final  text  describing  how  the  legislature  operates  is
circulated  to  members  of  the  legislature  and  approved  by  a  majority. 
Contrary to the Court’s decision, I take it that such a work, which entails
no lawmaking, would be copyrightable.