The pages of Ars Technica are littered with stories in which owners of copyrights are suing others for exploiting those works without permission. Think of the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, to name but two of the key litigants. Whether groups like the MPAA and RIAA are being overbearing about it depends on where you line up on the debate.

The same can be said about the latest entrant into the Copyright War—the state of Georgia.

While they aren't even suing over a music recording or motion picture, the Peach State's complaint (PDF) can be seen as equally nitpicky. Georgia claims that a legal rebel, Public.Resource.org, is publishing and making it easy for others to copy the physical text and accompanying annotations of Georgia's state law—the Official Code of Georgia Annotated.

"We had a similar showdown with Oregon but no court case," Carl Malamud, a Californian and the man behind the site, told Ars. "They did the civilized thing and held hearings and then decided that the law belongs to the people."

Here is how the complaint—filed in US District Court in Atlanta last week—begins:

This action for injunctive relief arises from Defendant’s systematic, widespread, and unauthorized copying and distribution of the copyrighted annotations in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (“O.C.G.A.”) through the distribution of thumb drives containing copies of the O.C.G.A. and the posting of the O.C.G.A. on various websites. Defendant has facilitated, enabled, encouraged, and induced others to view, download, print, copy, and distribute the O.C.G.A copyrighted annotations without limitation, authorization, or appropriate compensation. On information and belief, Defendant has also created unauthorized derivative works containing the O.C.G.A. annotations by re-keying the O.C.G.A. in order to make it possible for members of the public to copy and manipulate the O.C.G.A., thereby also encouraging the creation of further unauthorized derivative works. The copyrighted annotations include analysis and guidance that are added to the O.C.G.A. by a third party publisher of the O.C.G.A. as a work for hire. These annotations include synopses of cases that interpret the O.C.G.A., summaries of Opinions of the Attorney General of Georgia, and summaries of research references related to the O.C.G.A. Each of these annotations is an original and creative work of authorship that is protected by copyrights owned by the State of Georgia. Without providing the publisher with the ability to recoup its costs for the development of these copyrighted annotations, the State of Georgia will be required to either stop publishing the annotations altogether or pay for development of the annotations using state tax dollars. Unless Defendant’s infringing activities are enjoined, Plaintiff and citizens of the State of Georgia, will face losing valuable analysis and guidance regarding their state laws.

The state's Code Revision Commission maintains that PublicResource.org is not entitled to reproduce the annotated version of Georgia’s code. Annotations are summaries of the law's meaning and those summaries are contracted to a third party to write:

In order to create judicial summaries, LexisNexis selects and reads relevant judicial decisions. LexisNexis then distills each relevant decision down to a single paragraph. The succinctness and accuracy of the judicial summaries are in large part what make them valuable to attorneys and others researching the Code. Accordingly, the text of the judicial summaries of the O.C.G.A. must be and is carefully crafted by LexisNexis in order to illustrate and interpret the Code sections of the O.C.G.A. These judicial summaries, along with notes and other original and creative works added by LexisNexis to the Georgia statutory text, are prepared as works made for hire for the State of Georgia and are protected by copyright (“Copyrighted Annotations”). The Copyrighted Annotations are created by LexisNexis for the State of Georgia pursuant to the state’s Code Publishing Contract with LexisNexis. Accordingly, each of Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Annotations, as to which infringement is specifically alleged below, are original works of authorship protected by copyright, and exclusive rights under these copyrights are owned by Plaintiff. These copyrights have been registered with the United States Copyright Office, or have an application for registration pending with the United States Copyright Office.

So what Georgia is essentially saying is it is not OK to copy and distribute the texts of the state's laws if those texts are accompanied with the state-owned summaries of what the law actually means. Keep in mind, it remains totally kosher to distribute and copy the actual text of the state's laws. Again, it depends on where you line up on the debate.

Listing image by Mike Seyfang