Banks v. Manchester
1888 U.S. LEXIS 2216, 128 U.S. 244, 9 S.Ct. 36 (1888)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
As a matter of public policy, judicial opinions and other materials prepared by judges in their official capacity are in the public domain and cannot be copyrighted. A state cannot, therefore, hold a valid copyright in such materials, as judges have no proprietary interest to assign.
Facts:
- Ohio statutes provided for a state reporter to secure a copyright 'for the use of the State' for each volume of the Ohio Supreme Court's decisions.
- The Ohio Secretary of State entered into a two-year contract with H. W. Derby & Co., granting them the 'sole and exclusive right to publish such reports, so far as the State can confer the same.'
- H. W. Derby & Co. assigned all their rights under the contract to the firm of Banks & Brothers.
- E. L. DeWitt, the official Reporter for the Ohio Supreme Court, obtained a copyright for the State of Ohio on advance sheets of decisions that would appear in Volumes 41 and 42 of the Ohio State Reports.
- The copyrighted materials, including the syllabi, statements of the case, and the opinions themselves, were prepared exclusively by the judges as part of their official duties.
- G. L. Manchester subsequently published verbatim copies of these judicial opinions, which had been copyrighted by DeWitt, in his own publication, 'The American Law Journal'.
Procedural Posture:
- Banks & Brothers (plaintiffs) filed a bill of complaint against G. L. Manchester in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio, seeking an injunction for copyright infringement.
- Manchester filed an answer to the complaint.
- The case was heard upon the bill and answer, which meant the court accepted the factual allegations in Manchester's answer as true for the purpose of its ruling.
- The Circuit Court entered a decree dismissing the bill of complaint, finding for Manchester.
- Banks & Brothers (appellants) appealed the Circuit Court's decree to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state hold a valid copyright in the text of judicial opinions, including the syllabi and statements of the case, prepared by judges in the course of their official duties?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Blatchford
No. A state does not hold a valid copyright in materials prepared by judges acting in their official capacity. Copyright protection in the United States is purely a creation of federal statute, which grants rights to an 'author' or 'proprietor.' A judge who prepares an opinion, syllabus, or statement of the case in their judicial capacity is not an 'author' or 'proprietor' in the statutory sense; they receive a public salary for their work, and the fruits of their judicial labor belong to the public. Because the judges have no personal proprietary interest to assign, the state cannot acquire a valid copyright as their assignee. The authentic exposition of the law is binding on all citizens and, as a matter of public policy established in cases like Wheaton v. Peters, must be free for publication by all.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes that the work product of judges acting in their official capacity is uncopyrightable public domain material. It prevents states from creating a government-sanctioned monopoly over the dissemination of primary legal sources. The ruling reinforces the public's right of access to the law, ensuring that case law can be freely published and distributed, which fosters competition among legal publishers and promotes widespread legal knowledge. This precedent is fundamental to the structure of modern legal publishing in the United States.
