540:
180:
laws of Rome were written on tablets and posted, that all might read, and all were bound to obedience. The act of that emperor who caused his enactments to be written in small letters, on small tablets, and then posted the latter at such height that none could read the letters, and at the same time insisted upon the rule of obedience, outraging as it did the relations of governor and governed under his own system of government, has never been deemed consistent with or possible under ours.
606:. 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".
155:
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." (
598:"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
316:, 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002), 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,
164:
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
154:
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
366:
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. As of August 2013, 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
320:
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
179:
t is a maxim of universal application that every man is presumed to know the law, and it would seem inherent that freedom of access to the laws, or the official interpretation of those laws, should be co-extensive with the sweep of the maxim. Knowledge is the only just condition of obedience. The
265:
to remove copies of the Oregon code from its website, citing that the particular publication of the law, as distinguished by features like introductory paragraphs and page numbers, was copyrighted. Following negative media attention, the state issued a special waiver promising not to enforce the
150:
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
110:
Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are
Federal, State, or local as well as to those of
473:
provides that Crown copyright (including any prerogative right or privilege of the Crown in the nature of copyright) in certain "prescribed works" is not breached by making single copies, provided that these copies are not sold for profit (that is, for a price higher than the costs of copying).
396:
was effectively public domain as an edict of government due to its adoption. After discovering that the copyright of the 10th edition (published 1958) had not been renewed, and that this edition was nearly identical to the most recent release, Sprigman started the
427:, the King has the right of promulgating to the people all acts of state and government. This gives the King the exclusive privilege of printing, at his own press, or at that of his grantees, all Acts of Parliament, proclamations, and orders of council.
526:
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
301:
58:
290:
such material as the laws and governmental rules and decisions must be freely available to the public and made known as widely as possible; hence there must be no restriction on the reproduction and dissemination of such
45:
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
367:
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.
594:(CDPA); secondary legislation and court judgements are also protected by the general regime of Crown copyright (s. 163, CDPA). The policy of the UK government in licensing reproductions is described in the 1999
323:
139:
443:
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
212:
191:
415:
131:
863:
37:'s guidelines and practices that comprehensively includes laws (in a wide sense of that term), which advises that such submissions will neither be accepted nor processed for
146: (1834). 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
312:
783:
354:
began its own distribution, challenging the copyright claim was an impermissible copyright of the public domain and was unconstitutional as a violation of
834:
681:
616:
591:
583:
359:
321:
developed by the
American Medical Association to assign codes to medical procedures does not place the copyrighted work in the public domain.
989:
962:
1120:
388:, has asserted it to be a copyrighted work due to its inclusion of "carefully curated examples, explanations and other textual materials".
305:
271:
175:
in the face of an Iowa statute granting exclusive rights to the plaintiff. In finding in favor of the defendant, the circuit court opined:
702:
510:. As well as Acts of Parliament, regulations and court judgments, the section 27 exemptions include the proceedings of Parliament (
717:
276:
121:
1055:
500:
to be exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced; the reproduction cannot be represented as an official version.
481:
266:
copyright against Justia or Public.Resource.org, but did not change its policies regarding the accessibility of its laws to others.
506:
Since 2001, a wide range of edicts of government have been exempted from Crown copyright in New
Zealand by section 27 of the
575:
474:"Prescribed works" include federal and State laws and regulations and the judgements and opinions of federal and State courts.
350:
since 1970. The assertion has been called "one of the most aggressive state government uses of copyright". Beginning in 1989,
310:
An interesting situation arises when a governing body adopts copyrighted works to serve as legal standards. For example, in
167:
86:
In the UK, the right of the government to prevent printing of the law was established by at least 1820, and formalized by the
103:
34:
787:
470:
347:
1102:
1089:
409:
The position under
English law is radically different from that developed by the United States courts. As documented by
1040:
621:
1036:
401:
project to create a public domain substitute to the
Bluebook that was adapted from the text of the 1958 edition.
343:
223:
896:
864:"The Volokh Conspiracy: Opinion: The new (and much improved) 'Bluebook' caught in the copyright cross‑hairs"
603:
460:
687:
120:
The idea that edicts of government cannot be copyrighted in the United States dates to the decision of the
810:
1004:
938:
924:
A Treatise on the Law of the
Prerogatives of the Crown; and the Relative Duties and Rights of the Subject
485:
216:
202:
195:
135:
1017:
283:
247:
147:
80:
1071:
722:
632:
389:
186:
507:
489:
432:
385:
335:
207:
172:
87:
392:
professor
Christopher Jon Sprigman is a notable critic of this position; he has argued that the
985:
958:
871:
718:"The Colorado Revised Statutes: A Glimpse at the State's Obligation—Past, Present, and Future"
254:, 628 F.2d 730 (1st Cir. 1980), the principal was applied to the Massachusetts building code.
157:
126:
71:
496:
be widely known and that its citizens have unimpeded access to that law". The Order requires
626:
517:
351:
226:. Similar cases have disbarred the pretended copyright of State constitutions and statutes:
731:
1125:
1059:
1052:
635:, a nonprofit which has been involved in litigation on American edict of government issues
440:
398:
363:
339:
62:
17:
436:
91:
660:
553:
Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.
75:(1834), while the ineligibility of U.S. government works for copyright has its basis in
587:
451:– it has influenced the laws of the many countries that resulted after decolonization.
448:
444:
381:
219:
198:
143:
1114:
859:
497:
493:
410:
42:
327:, 121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997), opinion amended by 133 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 1998).
286:, the U.S. Copyright Office summarized the public policy grounds as follows:
65:). The impossibility of enforcing copyright over edicts of government arises from
979:
952:
922:
595:
377:
355:
76:
47:
835:"Legal minds differ on whether The Bluebook is subject to copyright protection"
171:, 27 F. 50 (C.C.D. Minn. 1886), concerning the right to report opinions of the
579:
66:
1039:, s. 27. Section 27(1) came into force on 1 April 2001 through the
875:
231:
51:
38:
27:
United States legal doctrine that edicts of government are not copyrightable
419:, the monarch is considered to have a monopoly on the publication of laws:
230:, 27 F. 61 (C.C.D.Minn. 1866), concerning the constitution and statutes of
372:
239:
302:
American Society for Testing and Materials et al. v. Public.Resource.Org
512:
346:
has claimed copyright protection of the C.R.S. under the aegis of the
262:
258:
57:
The concept of an "edict of government" is distinct from that of a
590:) are protected by Crown copyright under section 164 of the
61:, although a given work may fall into both categories (e.g., an
629:, a nonprofit which seeks to expand access to American case law
533:
484:
allows the reproduction of federal laws and the judgements of
384:, is mandated by many U.S. federal courts. Its publisher, the
246:, 548 F. Supp. 110 (N.D.Ga. 1982), concerning the statutes of
703:"Oregon: Publishing our laws online is a copyright violation"
431:
The prerogative was placed on a statutory footing with the
252:
Building Officials & Code Adm. v. Code Technology, Inc.
757:
755:
753:
324:
Practice Management Info. Corp. v. American Medical Ass'n
296:
Governments adopting copyrighted works as legal standards
238:, 91 F. 129 (6th Cir. 1898), concerning the statutes of
102:
A definition of an edict of government is given by the
786:. Office of Legislative Legal Services. Archived from
784:"Republishing Information – Colorado Revised Statutes"
488:, noting that "it is of fundamental importance to a
416:
Treatise on the Law of the Prerogatives of the Crown
1041:
Copyright Act Commencement Order 2000 (SR 2000/245)
716:Brown, Douglas G.; Pike, Charles W. (June 1997).
421:
288:
177:
108:
50:, under which the copyright in laws rests with
455:Copyright in government works around the world
313:Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l
41:registration. It is based on the principle of
1084:
1082:
1080:
809:Sprigman, Christopher Jon (October 6, 2014).
686:, U.S. Copyright Office, 1984, archived from
184:The Supreme Court confirmed such opinions in
8:
984:, Cambridge University Press, p. 249,
897:"'Bluebook' Critics Incite Copyright Clash"
269:In April 2020, the Supreme Court found in
978:Burrell, Robert; Coleman, Alison (2005),
954:The History of the Legal Deposit of Books
761:
744:
668:, U.S. Copyright Office Study No. 33
439:. c. 46), which instituted the system of
981:Copyright exceptions: the digital impact
654:
652:
650:
648:
617:Accessibility of United States state law
244:State of Georgia v. The Harrison Company
168:Banks & Bros. v. West Publishing Co.
33:is a technical term associated with the
644:
592:Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
222: (1888), concerning reports of the
201: (1888), concerning reports of the
683:Compendium of Office Practices II
584:General Synod of the Church of England
165:the federal courts. One such case was
7:
1103:Future Management of Crown Copyright
1090:Future Management of Crown Copyright
306:Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.
272:Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.
59:work of the United States government
1018:"Reproduction of Federal Law Order"
951:Patridge, R. C. Barrington (2008),
580:devolved Parliaments and Assemblies
405:Royal prerogative under English law
277:Official Code of Georgia Annotated
25:
482:Reproduction of Federal Law Order
161:, 33 US (8 Pet) 591, 668 (1834))
538:
279:was not eligible for copyright.
957:, Read Books, pp. 154–55,
680:"206.01 Edicts of government",
1005:Act No. 63 of 1968, as amended
104:United States Copyright Office
35:United States Copyright Office
1:
1053:Copyright Act, No. 98 of 1978
662:Copyright in Government Works
69:, starting with the case of
1121:United States copyright law
773:Colorado S. 90-1222 of 1990
730:(6): 97–102. Archived from
622:Copyright of official texts
348:Committee on Legal Services
1142:
659:Berger, Caruthers (1959),
458:
299:
151:reporter any such right."
18:Government edicts doctrine
547:This article needs to be
344:Colorado General Assembly
332:Colorado Revised Statutes
224:Supreme Court of Illinois
1101:Paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2,
1088:Paragraphs 5.1 and 7.8,
1105:, Cm. 4300, March 1999.
1092:, Cm. 4300, March 1999.
921:Chitty, Joseph (1820),
901:The Wall Street Journal
604:UK Statute Law Database
582:) and Measures (of the
461:Official text copyright
282:In a submission to the
242:; and more recently in
1037:Public Act 1994 No 143
939:1 & 2 Geo. 5 c. 46
862:(February 11, 2016) .
576:Westminster Parliament
429:
293:
182:
116:Basis in public policy
113:
927:, London, p. 239
762:Brown & Pike 1997
745:Brown & Pike 1997
516:) and the reports of
203:Supreme Court of Ohio
790:on 27 September 2013
520:and other inquiries.
469:Section 182A of the
447:– not merely in the
425:executive magistrate
284:United States Senate
228:Davidson v. Wheelock
148:common law copyright
111:foreign governments.
81:Printing Act of 1895
79:, starting with the
868:The Washington Post
723:The Colorado Lawyer
633:Public.Resource.Org
390:New York University
187:Banks v. Manchester
54:or the government.
31:Edict of government
1058:2011-06-16 at the
508:Copyright Act 1994
490:democratic society
471:Copyright Act 1968
433:Copyright Act 1911
386:Harvard Law Review
208:Callaghan v. Myers
173:Iowa Supreme Court
88:Copyright Act 1911
991:978-0-521-84726-1
964:978-1-4437-2545-3
600:Statutes in Force
568:
567:
518:Royal commissions
360:freedom of speech
334:(C.R.S.) are the
158:Wheaton v. Peters
127:Wheaton v. Peters
72:Wheaton v. Peters
16:(Redirected from
1133:
1106:
1099:
1093:
1086:
1075:
1069:
1063:
1050:
1044:
1034:
1028:
1027:
1025:
1024:
1014:
1008:
1002:
996:
994:
975:
969:
967:
948:
942:
936:
930:
928:
918:
912:
911:
909:
907:
893:
887:
886:
884:
882:
856:
850:
849:
847:
845:
831:
825:
824:
822:
820:
815:
806:
800:
799:
797:
795:
780:
774:
771:
765:
759:
748:
742:
736:
735:
713:
707:
706:
705:. 17 April 2008.
699:
693:
691:
677:
671:
669:
667:
656:
627:Free Law Project
563:
560:
554:
542:
541:
534:
480:Since 1997, the
437:1 & 2 Geo. 5
236:Howell v. Miller
92:1 & 2 Geo. 5
21:
1141:
1140:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1100:
1096:
1087:
1078:
1074:, ss. 163, 164.
1070:
1066:
1060:Wayback Machine
1051:
1047:
1035:
1031:
1022:
1020:
1016:
1015:
1011:
1003:
999:
992:
977:
976:
972:
965:
950:
949:
945:
937:
933:
920:
919:
915:
905:
903:
895:
894:
890:
880:
878:
858:
857:
853:
843:
841:
833:
832:
828:
818:
816:
813:
808:
807:
803:
793:
791:
782:
781:
777:
772:
768:
760:
751:
743:
739:
715:
714:
710:
701:
700:
696:
679:
678:
674:
665:
658:
657:
646:
642:
613:
564:
558:
555:
552:
543:
539:
531:
463:
457:
441:Crown copyright
407:
382:legal citations
364:prior restraint
352:West Publishing
340:law of Colorado
308:
298:
257:In April 2008,
118:
100:
63:act of Congress
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1139:
1137:
1129:
1128:
1123:
1113:
1112:
1108:
1107:
1094:
1076:
1064:
1062:, s. 12(8)(a).
1045:
1029:
1009:
997:
990:
970:
963:
943:
931:
913:
888:
860:Post, David G.
851:
826:
801:
775:
766:
749:
737:
734:on 2015-09-12.
708:
694:
672:
643:
641:
638:
637:
636:
630:
624:
619:
612:
609:
608:
607:
588:Welsh Assembly
572:
571:United Kingdom
566:
565:
546:
544:
537:
529:
528:
524:
521:
504:
501:
486:federal courts
478:
475:
467:
459:Main article:
456:
453:
449:United Kingdom
445:British Empire
406:
403:
297:
294:
117:
114:
99:
96:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1138:
1127:
1124:
1122:
1119:
1118:
1116:
1104:
1098:
1095:
1091:
1085:
1083:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1068:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1054:
1049:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1033:
1030:
1019:
1013:
1010:
1006:
1001:
998:
993:
987:
983:
982:
974:
971:
966:
960:
956:
955:
947:
944:
941:, s. 18.
940:
935:
932:
926:
925:
917:
914:
902:
898:
892:
889:
877:
873:
869:
865:
861:
855:
852:
840:
836:
830:
827:
812:
805:
802:
789:
785:
779:
776:
770:
767:
764:, p. 99.
763:
758:
756:
754:
750:
747:, p. 98.
746:
741:
738:
733:
729:
725:
724:
719:
712:
709:
704:
698:
695:
690:on 2011-02-11
689:
685:
684:
676:
673:
664:
663:
655:
653:
651:
649:
645:
639:
634:
631:
628:
625:
623:
620:
618:
615:
614:
610:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
581:
577:
574:Acts (of the
573:
570:
569:
562:
559:December 2017
550:
545:
536:
535:
532:
525:
522:
519:
515:
514:
509:
505:
502:
499:
498:due diligence
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
476:
472:
468:
465:
464:
462:
454:
452:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
428:
426:
420:
418:
417:
412:
404:
402:
400:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
374:
368:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
328:
326:
325:
319:
315:
314:
307:
303:
295:
292:
287:
285:
280:
278:
274:
273:
267:
264:
260:
255:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
218:
214:
210:
209:
204:
200:
197:
193:
189:
188:
181:
176:
174:
170:
169:
162:
160:
159:
152:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
128:
123:
122:Supreme Court
115:
112:
107:
105:
97:
95:
93:
89:
84:
82:
78:
74:
73:
68:
64:
60:
55:
53:
49:
44:
43:public policy
40:
36:
32:
19:
1097:
1067:
1048:
1032:
1021:. Retrieved
1012:
1000:
980:
973:
953:
946:
934:
923:
916:
904:. Retrieved
900:
891:
879:. Retrieved
867:
854:
842:. Retrieved
838:
829:
817:. Retrieved
811:"HLR letter"
804:
792:. Retrieved
788:the original
778:
769:
740:
732:the original
727:
721:
711:
697:
688:the original
682:
675:
661:
599:
556:
548:
530:
523:South Africa
511:
430:
424:
422:
414:
413:in his 1820
408:
393:
371:
369:
331:
329:
322:
317:
311:
309:
289:
281:
270:
268:
256:
251:
243:
235:
227:
206:
185:
183:
178:
166:
163:
156:
153:
125:
119:
109:
101:
85:
70:
56:
30:
29:
839:ABA Journal
602:and on the
596:white paper
586:and of the
578:and of the
503:New Zealand
378:style guide
370:Use of the
356:due process
77:statute law
48:English law
1115:Categories
1072:1988 c. 48
1023:2023-02-20
1007:, s. 182A.
640:References
338:statutory
300:See also:
291:documents.
98:Definition
94:. c. 46).
67:common law
876:0190-8286
794:19 August
492:that its
466:Australia
399:Baby Blue
275:that the
232:Minnesota
205:, and in
52:the Crown
39:copyright
1056:Archived
906:21 April
881:March 1,
844:21 April
819:21 April
611:See also
394:Bluebook
373:Bluebook
336:codified
240:Michigan
549:updated
527:domain.
513:Hansard
248:Georgia
1126:Edicts
988:
961:
874:
477:Canada
411:Chitty
362:, and
342:. The
263:Justia
261:asked
259:Oregon
142:)
138:(Pet.
814:(PDF)
666:(PDF)
318:Veeck
250:. In
215:
194:
134:
986:ISBN
959:ISBN
908:2016
883:2016
872:ISSN
846:2016
821:2016
796:2013
380:for
376:, a
330:The
304:and
217:U.S.
196:U.S.
136:U.S.
494:law
423:As
220:617
213:128
199:244
192:128
144:591
124:in
1117::
1079:^
899:.
870:.
866:.
837:.
752:^
728:26
726:.
720:.
647:^
358:,
234:;
211:,
190:,
132:33
130:,
106::
83:.
1043:.
1026:.
995:.
968:.
929:.
910:.
885:.
848:.
823:.
798:.
692:.
670:.
561:)
557:(
551:.
435:(
140:8
90:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.