Edict of government


Edict of government is a technical term associated with the United States Copyright Office's guidelines and practices that comprehensively includes laws, which advises that such submissions will not be accepted nor processed for copyright registration. It is based on the principle of public policy that citizens must have unrestrained access to the laws that govern them. Similar provisions occur in most, but not all, systems of copyright law; the main exceptions are in those copyright laws which have developed from English law, under which the copyright in laws rests with the Crown or the government.
The concept of an "edict of government" is distinct from that of a work of the United States government, although a given work may fall into both categories. The impossibility of enforcing copyright over edicts of government arises from common law, starting with the case of Wheaton v. Peters, while the ineligibility of U.S. government works for copyright has its basis in statute law, starting with the Printing Act of 1895.
In the UK, the right of the government to prevent printing of the law was established by at least 1820, and formalized by the Copyright Act 1911.

Definition

A definition of an edict of government is given by the United States Copyright Office:

Basis in public policy

The idea that edicts of government cannot be copyrighted in the United States dates to the decision of the Supreme Court in Wheaton v. Peters,. That case concerned the question of copyright in the official reports of cases before the Supreme Court itself, and is best known for refusing the idea of a common law copyright in published works; however, the last sentence of the opinion of the court reads "It may be proper to remark that the court are unanimously of opinion, that no reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by this court; and that the judges thereof cannot confer on any reporter any such right."
In the same case it was argued – and accepted by the Court – that "it would be absurd, for a legislature to claim the copyright; and no one else can do it, for they are the authors, and cause them to be published without copyright … Statutes were never copyrighted." Further, "it is the bounden duty of government to promulgate its statutes in print". "ll countries... subject to the sovereignty of the laws" hold the promulgation of the laws, from whatever source, "as essential as their existence." "If either statutes or decisions could be made private property, it would be in the power of an individual to shut out the light by which we guide our actions." 591, 668 )
This doctrine was developed in a number of cases through the nineteenth century, particularly with regards to the opinions of State courts. Several States attempted to sell the exclusive right to report court proceedings to fund the publication of law reports, but these attempts were struck down by the federal courts. One such case was Banks & Bros. v. West Publishing Co., 27 F. 50, concerning the right to report opinions of the Iowa Supreme Court in the face of an Iowa statute granting exclusive rights to the plaintiff. In finding in favor of the defendant, the circuit court opined:
The Supreme Court confirmed such opinions in Banks v. Manchester,, concerning reports of the Supreme Court of Ohio, and in Callaghan v. Myers,, concerning reports of the Supreme Court of Illinois. Similar cases have disbarred the pretended copyright of State constitutions and statutes: Davidson v. Wheelock, 27 F. 61, concerning the constitution and statutes of Minnesota; Howell v. Miller, 91 F. 129, concerning the statutes of Michigan; and more recently in State of Georgia v. The Harrison Company, 548 F. Supp. 110, concerning the statutes of Georgia. In Building Officials & Code Adm. v. Code Technology, Inc., 628 F.2d 730, the principal was applied to the Massachusetts building code.
In April 2020, the Supreme Court found in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. that the Official Code of Georgia Annotated was not eligible for copyright.
In a submission to the United States Senate, the U.S. Copyright Office summarized the public policy grounds as follows:

Governments adopting copyrighted works as legal standards

An interesting situation arises when a governing body adopts copyrighted works to serve as legal standards. For example, in Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l, 293 F.3d 791, the court determined that once the copyrighted model building codes of the plaintiff had been adopted into law by a municipality, its copyright protections were outweighed by the policies favoring unfettered access by members of the public to republish the laws in any manner they see fit. However, Veeck recognized a distinction between verbatim recitations of copyrighted materials in the law itself, as opposed to mere references in the law which point to copyrighted materials. For example, the 9th Circuit Court of appeals held that a law that instructs physicians to adopt copyrighted standards developed by the American Medical Association to assign codes to medical procedures does not place the copyrighted work in the public domain. Practice Management Info. Corp. v. American Medical Ass'n, 121 F.3d 516, opinion amended by 133 F.3d 1140. These two holdings are not capable of being reconciled, despite the distinguishing facts in each case, since it is apparent that even when a law requires compliance with a copyrighted standard by mere reference, it is no less "the law".
The Colorado Revised Statutes are the codified statutory law of Colorado. The Colorado General Assembly has claimed copyright protection of the C.R.S. under the aegis of the Committee on Legal Services since 1970. The assertion has been called "one of the most aggressive state government uses of copyright". Beginning in 1989, West Publishing began its own distribution, challenging the copyright claim was an impermissible copyright of the public domain and was unconstitutional as a violation of due process, freedom of speech, and prior restraint prohibitions. West settled with the state after the law was changed in 1990 to allow access to the legislative database for a very large fee., the statutory database can be purchased with the annotations or editorial notes for $6,000 per year, or for $2,000 per year without the annotations or editorial notes. However, the requirement to purchase the database was eliminated in April, 2016. The only requirement is to file a request for the database and explaining which parts that the user wants.
Use of the Bluebook, a style guide for legal citations, is mandated by many U.S. federal courts. Its publisher, the Harvard Law Review, has asserted it to be a copyrighted work due to its inclusion of "carefully curated examples, explanations and other textual materials". New York University professor Christopher Jon Sprigman is a notable critic of this position; he has argued that the Bluebook was effectively public domain as an edict of government due to its adoption. After discovering that the copyright of the 10th edition had not been renewed, and that this edition was nearly identical to the most recent release, Sprigman started the Baby Blue project to create a public domain substitute to the Bluebook that was adapted from the text of the 1958 edition.

Royal prerogative under English law

The position under English law is radically different from that developed by the United States courts. As documented by Chitty in his 1820 Treatise on the Law of the Prerogatives of the Crown, the monarch is considered to have a monopoly on the publication of laws:
The prerogative was placed on a statutory footing with the Copyright Act 1911, which instituted the system of Crown copyright for work "prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any Government department". As the 1911 Act was the basis for copyright law throughout the British Empire – not merely in the United Kingdom – it has influenced the laws of the many countries that resulted after decolonization.

Copyright in government works around the world

;Australia: Section 182A of the Copyright Act 1968 provides that Crown copyright in certain "prescribed works" is not breached by making single copies, provided that these copies are not sold for profit. "Prescribed works" include federal and State laws and regulations and the judgements and opinions of federal and State courts.
;Canada: Since 1997, the Reproduction of Federal Law Order allows the reproduction of federal laws and the judgements of federal courts, noting that "it is of fundamental importance to a democratic society that its law be widely known and that its citizens have unimpeded access to that law". The Order requires due diligence to be exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced; the reproduction cannot be represented as an official version.
;New Zealand: Since 2001, a wide range of edicts of government have been exempted from Crown copyright in New Zealand by section 27 of the Copyright Act 1994. As well as Acts of Parliament, regulations and court judgments, the section 27 exemptions include the proceedings of Parliament and the reports of Royal commissions and other inquiries.
;South Africa: South Africa formerly followed British copyright law, but the Copyright Act, 1978 introduced a provision that places "official texts of a legislative, administrative or legal nature", and official translations of such texts, in the public domain.
;United Kingdom: Acts and Measures are protected by Crown copyright under section 164 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 ; secondary legislation and court judgements are also protected by the general regime of Crown copyright. The policy of the UK government in licensing reproductions is described in the 1999 white paper "Future Management of Crown Copyright", which justifies the continued existence of Crown copyright "to prevent misuse and to preserve the integrity of Crown material". Primary and secondary legislation may be freely reproduced for non-commercial use: this only applies to the original versions of legislation, not to the consolidated versions published as Statutes in Force and on the UK Statute Law Database. Commercial republishers are required to "add value" to the material, for example by collecting related legislation in a single volume. There is no general licence for republishing court judgements: the white paper is silent on the specific reasons for this omission, although it notes that there are "certain categories of Crown copyright protected material" that contain information of "a personal or confidential nature".