Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1150_new_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 17

14 

GEORGIA v. PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

merits deference under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 
134 (1944).  That means we must follow it only to the extent 
it  has  the  “power  to  persuade.”  Id.,  at  140.   Because  our 
precedents answer the question before us, we find any com-
peting guidance in the Compendium unpersuasive. 

In any event, the Compendium is largely consistent with
our decision.  Drawing on Banks, it states that, “[a]s a mat-
ter of longstanding public policy, the U. S. Copyright Office 
will not register a government edict that has been issued by
any state, local, or territorial government, including legis-
lative  enactments,  judicial  decisions,  administrative  rul-
ings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal ma-
terials.”  Compendium  §313.6(C)(2)  (rev.  3d  ed.  2017) 
(emphasis  added).    And,  under  Banks,  what  counts  as  a 
“similar” material depends on what kind of officer created
the material (i.e., a judge) and whether the officer created
it in the course of official (i.e., judicial) duties.  See Compen-
dium §313.6(C)(2) (quoting Banks, 128 U. S., at 253, for the 
proposition  that  copyright  cannot  vest  “in  the  products  of
the labor done by judicial officers in the discharge of their 
judicial duties”).

The Compendium goes on to observe that “the Office may 
register  annotations  that  summarize  or  comment  upon 
legal materials . . . unless the annotations themselves have 
the  force  of  law.”  Compendium  §313.6(C)(2).    But  that 
broad  statement—true  of  annotations  created  by  officials
such as court reporters that lack the authority to make or
interpret the law—does not engage with the critical issue of 
annotations created by judges or legislators in their official 
capacities.  Because the Compendium does not address that
question and otherwise echoes our government edicts prec-
edents, it is of little relevance here. 

Georgia also appeals to the overall purpose of the Copy-
right  Act  to  promote  the  creation  and  dissemination  of 
creative  works.    Georgia  submits  that,  without  copyright 
protection, Georgia and many other States will be unable to