Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1150_new_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 12

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

U. S.,  at  253,  it  applies  to  whatever  work  legislators  per-
form in their capacity as legislators.  That of course includes 
final legislation, but it also includes explanatory and proce-
dural materials legislators create in the discharge of their
legislative duties.  In the same way that judges cannot be
the authors of their headnotes and syllabi, legislators can-
not be the authors of (for example) their floor statements,
committee reports, and proposed bills.  These materials are 
part of the “whole work done by [legislators],” so they must
be “free for publication to all.”  Ibid. 

Under our precedents, therefore, copyright does not vest 
in works that are (1) created by judges and legislators (2) in
the course of their judicial and legislative duties. 

B 
1 

Applying that framework, Georgia’s annotations are not 
copyrightable.  The first step is to examine whether their
purported author qualifies as a legislator. 

As we have explained, the annotations were prepared in
the first instance by a private company (Lexis) pursuant to
a  work-for-hire  agreement  with  Georgia’s  Code  Revision 
Commission.  The Copyright Act therefore deems the Com-
mission the sole “author” of the work.  17 U. S. C. §201(b). 
Although  Lexis  expends  considerable  effort  preparing  the
annotations, for purposes of copyright that labor redounds
to the Commission as the statutory author.  Georgia agrees
that the author is the Commission.  Brief for Petitioners 25. 
The Commission is not identical to the Georgia Legisla-
ture, but functions as an arm of it for the purpose of produc-
ing the annotations.  The Commission is created by the leg-
islature,  for  the  legislature,  and  consists  largely  of
legislators.  The Commission receives funding and staff des-
ignated by law for the legislative branch.  Significantly, the
annotations  the  Commission  creates  are  approved  by  the
legislature  before  being  “merged”  with  the  statutory  text