Georgia v. Public.Resource.org: Ending Private Copyright in Public Statutes

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the State of Georgia’s appeal in Georgia v. Public.Resource.org, addressing whether an official version of state statutes can be copyrighted by a private publisher. (In October 2018, the Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of Public.Resource.org that private publishers cannot claim copyright in public law, and this is an appeal of that ruling.)…”

Georgia v. Public.Resource.org: Ending Private Copyright in Public Statutes

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the State of Georgia’s appeal in Georgia v. Public.Resource.org, addressing whether an official version of state statutes can be copyrighted by a private publisher. (In October 2018, the Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of Public.Resource.org that private publishers cannot claim copyright in public law, and this is an appeal of that ruling.)…”

SCOTUS agrees to decide whether annotated state laws can be copyrighted

Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether annotations of the Georgia state code can be copyrighted.

The court agreed to decide Georgia’s appeal in its suit for copyright infringement against open law advocate Carl Malamud. Malamud had bought and scanned 186 printed volumes of Georgia’s annotated code and posted it to his website, Public.Resource.org….”

SCOTUS agrees to decide whether annotated state laws can be copyrighted

Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether annotations of the Georgia state code can be copyrighted.

The court agreed to decide Georgia’s appeal in its suit for copyright infringement against open law advocate Carl Malamud. Malamud had bought and scanned 186 printed volumes of Georgia’s annotated code and posted it to his website, Public.Resource.org….”

H.H. Barschall

In retirement, Barschall took up the cause of the high cost of scientific journals and the detriment to scientists. His research sparked an international legal battle and he was sued by German, Swiss and French publishing houses.

His studies of journal pricing were generally supported by the courts and made him a hero to a generation of research librarians. In 1990, The Association of Research Libraries gave him a special citation for this efforts. See http://barschall.stanford.edu/ for related information….”

Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Wikipedia in Turkey – Wikimedia Foundation

“At the Wikimedia Foundation, we believe that free access to knowledge and freedom of expression are fundamental human rights. We believe that when people have good information, they can make better decisions. Free access to information creates economic opportunity and empowers people to build sustainable livelihoods. Knowledge makes our societies more informed, more connected, and more equitable.

Over the past two years, we have seen governments censor Wikipedia, including in Turkey and most recently in China, denying these rights to millions of people around the world.

Today, we proceed to the European Court of Human Rights, an international court which hears cases of human rights violations within the Council of Europe, to ask the Court to lift the more than two-year block of Wikipedia in Turkey. We are taking this action as part of our continued commitment to knowledge and freedom of expression as fundamental rights for every person….”

Accused of ‘Terrorism’ for Putting Legal Materials Online – The New York Times

“Carl Malamud believes in open access to government records, and he has spent more than a decade putting them online. You might think states would welcome the help.

But when Mr. Malamud’s group posted the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, the state sued for copyright infringement. Providing public access to the state’s laws and related legal materials, Georgia’s lawyers said, was part of a “strategy of terrorism.”

A federal appeals court ruled against the state, which has asked the Supreme Court to step in. On Friday, in an unusual move, Mr. Malamud’s group, Public.Resource.Orgalso urged the court to hear the dispute, saying that the question of who owns the law is an urgent one, as about 20 other states have claimed that parts of similar annotated codes are copyrighted….”

Revisiting controlled digital lending post-ReDigi | Wu | First Monday

This paper looks at the recent Redigi court decision and discusses its impact on controlled digital lending programs (CDL) by libraries. As there are notable differences in facts between Redigi and CDL programs, the decision should have minimal impact on the framework designed to digitize and lend library materials within the United States….”

Predatory Journals on Trial: Allegations, Responses, and Lessons for Scholarly Publishing from FTC v. OMICS | Journal of Scholarly Publishing

Abstract:  On 25 August 2016, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued OMICS Group Inc., iMedPub LLC, Conference Series LLC, and Srinubabu Gedela, all affiliated with open access mega-publisher OMICS International, for deception in their solicitation of journal articles and advertising of conferences. The ongoing lawsuit seeks to stop OMICS’s deceptive practices and disgorge US $50.5 million in ill-gotten gains. OMICS has in turn claimed over $2.1 billion for harm caused by the lawsuit to its business and employees. This article describes the main arguments, counter-arguments, and court decisions in the 5920 pages of pleadings, exhibits, and orders that have been filed through 14 October 2018. The article then evaluates the case to formulate key take-aways for publishers, editors, academics, and universities. Depending on its ultimate outcome, the case against OMICS may be a turning point in the practices of questionable open access online publishers, making this interim case assessment pertinent to all concerned about the future of academic publishing.