Can a private publisher claim copyright on NC's General Statutes text, and can the state limit who gets a copy of the digital statutes database?

Plain-English summary

For most of the twentieth century, NC's General Statutes were published in a commercial multi-volume set by the Michie Company (which became part of LexisNexis). Michie copyrighted its annotated set. By 1994, the General Assembly maintained its own electronic statutes database. The database contained chapter titles, part numbers, section numbers, section text, and history notes; it did not contain Michie's footnotes, casenotes, or annotations. The history notes had originally come from Michie tapes but General Assembly staff had been preparing and updating them in-house since 1987. M. Glenn Newkirk, who ran the Legislative Automated Systems Division, asked the AG two questions: (1) does Michie's copyright cover any part of the General Assembly's database? and (2) can his office restrict who buys or uses the database?

Senior Deputy AG Wanda G. Bryant and Special Deputy AG Lorinzo L. Joyner answered no to both.

Michie has no copyright on the statutory text or the state's contributions. The text of the General Statutes, the statutory numbering and classification system, the chapter/part/article titles, the section numbers, and the history notes (since 1987) are all either government edicts (which cannot be copyrighted under longstanding federal doctrine) or original work of the General Assembly's own staff (which belongs to the state, not Michie). Michie's reprints add no original authorship to those components. Michie can claim copyright protection only over original additions it makes, like its annotations, casenotes, and editorial materials. The General Assembly's database contains none of those.

The opinion grounded that conclusion in NC's statutory structure for codifying the laws. The Legislative Services Commission must publish all session laws (G.S. § 120-32(7), § 120-34(a)). The Division of Legislative Drafting and Codification of Statutes is charged with completing and perfecting the General Statutes by inserting amendments, correcting cross-references, and changing section numbers as needed (G.S. § 114-9, § 164-9). All that work is state authorship. A 1991 Memorandum of Agreement between Michie and AG Lacy H. Thornburg reinforced that division of labor: Michie reprints, the state authors.

Third-party use of the database is unrestricted. N.C.G.S. § 132-1 declares public records to be documents received pursuant to law in connection with the transaction of public business. The General Assembly's database fits. § 132-6 gives a right of inspection and copying. Crucially, § 132-1 et seq. does not require persons requesting public records to disclose their purpose or motive. The Legislative Automated Systems Division therefore cannot ask requesters how they intend to use the database or condition access on intended use. A third party can buy a copy, repackage it, sell access to it, integrate it into a competitor product, or do whatever else they want with it.

This was an important opinion in the context of the 1990s shift toward digital legal publishing. It cleared the path for new entrants to compete with Michie/LexisNexis in publishing the NC General Statutes. The opinion is part of the broader edicts-of-government doctrine that later culminated nationally in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 590 U.S. 255 (2020), which held annotated state codes cannot be copyrighted when the annotations are authored by state legislative bodies.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. The federal Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org has substantially clarified the edicts doctrine. NC's General Statutes are currently published electronically by the General Assembly at the ncleg.gov website. The Public Records Act has been amended in various ways since 1994, including refinements to electronic records.

Background and statutory framework

The edicts-of-government doctrine. Federal copyright law has long held that the law itself, including judicial opinions, statutes, and similar government-authored materials, cannot be copyrighted. The doctrine traces to Wheaton v. Peters (1834) and was extended by Banks v. Manchester (1888). The doctrine extends to legislative-staff-authored annotations and history notes when those notes carry state authority.

Michie's historical role. The Michie Company (now part of LexisNexis) was the long-time official publisher of the NC General Statutes Annotated. The 1991 Memorandum of Agreement between Michie and AG Lacy H. Thornburg formalized the arrangement.

The General Assembly's in-house operation. The Division of Legislative Drafting and Codification of Statutes maintains the official text. The Legislative Services Commission publishes session laws. The Legislative Automated Systems Division (Newkirk's office) maintained the digital database.

Statutory codification authority. G.S. § 114-9 and § 164-9 give state staff authority to renumber sections, transfer subdivisions, and make non-substantive corrections. That codification work is original state authorship.

Public records framework. G.S. § 132-1 defines public records broadly. § 132-6 establishes the right of inspection and copying. The Act's silence on purpose-of-use is its central guarantee: anyone can ask, no one has to explain why.

Why "history notes" matter. The history notes at the end of each section ("(1971, c. 542, s. 1; 1983, c. 712, s. 2)") show the legislative trail of each section's text. Since 1987, General Assembly staff prepared and updated them. Treating them as state-authored work was important; otherwise Michie's earlier compilation work could have produced a thin copyright claim.

Common questions

Q: Can a private publisher copyright its annotations of the NC General Statutes?

A: Yes. Original commentary, casenotes, and editorial additions can be copyrighted. The state-authored text itself cannot.

Q: Can someone download the General Assembly's online statutes and republish them?

A: Yes, under both the edicts doctrine and the Public Records Act. The General Assembly website itself may have terms governing automated access (rate limits, etc.); those are operational restrictions, not copyright restrictions.

Q: What about the official paper version of the NC General Statutes? Can I photocopy it for resale?

A: The text is unprotectable, but the printed volume may contain copyrighted Michie material (annotations, indexing). Photocopying only the statutory text is generally fine; reproducing the annotations is not.

Q: Did the General Assembly eventually publish the statutes online directly?

A: Yes. The NC General Assembly's website (ncleg.gov) has free access to the General Statutes, session laws, and bills.

Q: How did this fit with Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org (2020)?

A: This 1994 NC AG opinion reached the same basic conclusion 26 years earlier as the U.S. Supreme Court in Georgia. The Supreme Court formalized the edicts doctrine to extend to legislator-authored annotations; NC had been on that path since at least 1994.

Q: Can a state agency restrict access to public records based on what the requester plans to do with them?

A: No. The opinion makes this clear: § 132-1 et seq. does not require the requester to disclose use, and the state cannot condition disclosure on intended use.

Citations from the opinion

• 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
• N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 12-3.1; 114-9; 120-32(7); 120-34(a); 132-1; 132-6; 164-9
• Memorandum of Agreement to Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg from Philip S. LaMar, the Michie Company, March 4, 1991

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/general-statutes-database-applicability-of-the-michie-company-copyright/

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription assembled from the NCDOJ landing-page excerpts; some intervening passages are not in the scraped capture, indicated by ellipses. The linked landing page is authoritative.

You have requested an opinion form this office on the following questions:

. . .

The Michie company has copyrighted The General Statutes of North Carolina Annotated, a multi-volume publication which includes the laws enacted by the General Assembly of North Carolina.

The General Assembly database does not contain any of the footnotes, casenotes, or annotations that appear in Michie's publication. For each section of the General Statutes, the General Assembly database contains the chapter title, part number, section number, section text, and a history note indicating the various Session Laws that modified the section's text. While the history notes at the end of most sections originally came from the Michie tapes, they have been prepared and updated by General Assembly staff since 1987.

I. Michie does not have a copyright on the text of the General Statutes, the statutory numbering and classification system, the General Statute chapter, part, or article titles, or the history notes at the end of most statutory sections.

We do not know whether Michie purports to have a copyright on any of the items identified in your question. However, it is our opinion that Michie can not have a copyright, enforceable against the State, on any of the specifically identified components in the General Assembly database.

. . .

[N.C. 52, 74 S.E.2d 310 (1953).] At the end of each session of the General Assembly, the Legislative Services commission must publish all laws passed at the session and provide and supply the Secretary of State with bound volumes of the session laws. The actual laws passed by the General Assembly are housed in the Office of the Secretary of State and contain the text of the General Statutes, the statutory numbering and classification system, the General Statute chapter, part, or article titles, part number, section number and section text. G.S. 120-32(7), 120-34(a).

The Division of Legislative Drafting and Codification of Statutes is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the General Statutes. That Division completes and perfects the General Statutes by inserting all amendments in their proper places in sections under the appropriate chapter and subdivisions of chapters. It is also authorized to change the number of sections and chapters, transfer sections, chapters and subdivisions of chapters and make such other corrections which do not change the laws, as may be necessary to make an accurate, clear, and orderly statement of the laws. G.S. 114-9, 164-9. See also, Memorandum of Agreement to Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General of North Carolina, from Philip S. LaMar, the Michie Company, March 4, 1991, Section IV (attached).

It is our opinion that when Michie Company distributes or otherwise makes available copies of the North Carolina General Statutes, it does nothing more than create a reprint or representation of the General Statutes which were enacted by the General Assembly. As such, Michie is reprinting preexisting works. It can claim copyright protection only as to those components of its General Statutes publication that it added, or that are original to the company. It has no original authorship or ownership interest in portions copied from other sources.

. . .

We therefore conclude that the Michie Company can have no copyright to the text of the General Statutes of North Carolina, including the statutory numbering and classification system, the General Statute chapter, part, or article titles, the section number and text, or the "history notes" at the end of most statutory sections which were supplied by the staff of the General Assembly.

. . .

We conclude that the subsequent publication or sale of computer access to any part or all of the General Statutes database obtained pursuant to G.S. 132-6 is not subject to restriction or limitation by your office. Indeed, it is our opinion that a third party's intended use of the information is irrelevant to whether copies of the database may be provided in the first instance. This conclusion is based, in part, upon the fact that G.S. 132-1 et seq. does not require that persons requesting public records disclose the purpose or motive for their requests. And we do not believe that you may require the persons requesting access to the records to divulge the use to which the records will be put.

Lorinzo L. Joyner, Special Deputy Attorney General

Wanda G. Bryant, Senior Deputy Attorney General