Page:Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org SCOTUS slip opinion.pdf/3

Rh (Emphasis added.) Georgia’s annotations do not fit that description because they are prepared by a legislative body that cannot be deemed the “author” of the works it creates in its official capacity. Second, Georgia draws a negative inference from the fact that the Act excludes from copyright protection works prepared by Federal Government officials, without establishing a similar rule for State officials. §§101, 105. That rule, however, applies to all federal officials, regardless of the nature and scope of their duties. It does not suggest an intent to displace the much narrower government edits doctrine with respect to the States.

, delivered the opinion of the Court, in which, , , and , joined. , filed a dissenting opinion, in which, joined, and in which , joined as to all but Part II–A and footnote 6. , filed a dissenting opinion, in which, joined.