So you're saying this part
> the annotated version became the authoritative copy
is wrong?
Either way, you're describing a situation where the state cheaped out in a way that deprives its residents of their right to know what law governs them. I still call that obvious.
Here is an example (reckless driving): https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2020/title-40/chapter-6...
The first part, subsections (a) and (b) is the actual law. That’s the only legally operative part that defines what reckless driving is. In most states, that is the only thing that is published.
The following sections are explanatory notes that don’t have the force of law and are not law. For example, it cross references relevant case law. In other states private companies will create these annotated versions of the legal code with these cross references, and those are definitely copyrightable.
Here in Scandinavia it seems the governments and other legislative authorities publish laws and rules on their home pages and it is then up to the publishers to keep track of what to put in the law book. Or not, because there are too many laws so a selection has to be made as it won't fit in a single volume. Different publishers then have different selections and annotations.
It might also lead to the terrible situation where states just give up on building codes, but insurance companies continue to require them, creating de facto law through the backdoor of involuntary contracts.
If they're commissioned by Georgia, it would make more sense for them to be bound to explicit terms that require their work to go into the public domain. Shame on Georgia for not demanding/negotiating it that way upfront. IMO if their work becomes the text that legislators ultimately consult when considering new legislation, that deliberation should be public. If LexisNexis can't do it under those terms and no one else bids, Georgia should fund the work themselves.
Though I think it would be really excellent for the federal government to fund commercial open source software projects to satisfy the needs of state and local governments. So many of them have such uniform operations that you could accomplish a great deal by optimizing for the majority case.
Well i believe they did, but it really comes down to if the annotations where needed to understand the law.
There are only 2 options here
1. The full public code including the annotations needed to understand the code is freely accessible to the public
2. Ignorance of the law becomes a valid defense
This is why the ruling by the court was the correct one
To bring it back to the Law, the official code was the Annotated Version which means that is what Judges, and Prosecutors would be referencing when looking at if you broke the law, what sentence you have, etc.
> The Commission entered into a work-for-hire agreement with Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., a division of the LexisNexis Group, to prepare annotations
Allowing the private company to keep the copyright was basically a way for the legislature trying to get this work done on the cheap. After all if the legislature had told LexisNexis that the work would be public domain, it probably would have had to pay (or pay more) for LexisNexis to do the work.
This is typical. There’s myriad ways where the government can get some product or service for less money, or less money up front, by giving up some public right of privilege. The number of people who care about this sort of open government stuff is, unfortunately, pretty limited. I don’t think I know a single person outside HN who mentioned this case when it was pending or decided. And I work in Supreme Court practice! Also, this sort of thing is kinda Georgia’s MO. It attracts residents and businesses from Illinois and New York by having lower taxes. That often means cutting corners on things like this.