Talk:Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

"Copyrightable" versus "uncopyrightable"

I looked at both links:

Full docket document, and
Question presented, which is referenced from the link in Reference #17 (as of this writing)

Both say "[...] extends to -- and thus renders uncopyrightable -- works that [...]". But the lead section uses "copyrightable" instead of "uncopyrightable" in the question presented before the SCOTUS. So I decide to fix that. I hope I did that correct. Feel free to revert, and explain why here. Thanks! --TheBlueWizard (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Your edit seems correct. BD2412 T 01:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. and the public policy argument

I have started a discussion relevant to this "subject", though not so much this article itself, at Talk:Edict of government#Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. and the public policy argument. Commentators welcome. :) Jarnsax (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]