Supreme Court decides, 5-4, that those public courts aren’t so public after all.

From the L.A. Times:

By a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court kept in place Wednesday its order blocking video coverage of the trial of California’s Proposition 8, with a conservative majority ruling that defenders of the ban on same-sex marriage would likely face “irreparable harm” if the proceedings were broadcast to the public.

“It would be difficult — if not impossible — to reverse the harm of those broadcasts,” the court wrote in an unsigned opinion. The witnesses, including paid experts, could suffer “harassment,” and they “might be less likely to cooperate in any future proceedings.” The high court also faulted U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker for changing the rules “at the eleventh hour” to “allow the broadcasting of this high-profile trial” that will decide whether gays and lesbians have a right to marry in California.

Though the opinion is unsigned, it clearly speaks for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. . . .

The majority cited newspaper accounts from the last year to bolster its contention that opponents of same-sex marriage have been “subject to harassment,” including “confrontational phone calls and e-mail messages” and even “death threats.” Under the court’s rules, the justices do not intervene in pending cases unless they are convinced that the appealing side has a strong legal claim as well as evidence of “an irreparable harm” if the court fails to act.

[Justice] Breyer [in the dissenting opinion joined in by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor] scoffed at the notion that the witnesses in this case would face harm, because they have gone on television in the past to advocate their views. “They are all experts or advocates who have either already appeared on television or Internet broadcasts, already toured the state advocating a ‘yes’ vote on Proposition 8,” he said.

Here’s legal innovation: YouTube Broadcast of the Proposition 8 Trial. But will it happen? Stay tuned.

There are few more important and timely issues concerning innovation and law than the impact of the internet on courts. Courts have always been considered public institutions anyone could walk into to see court proceedings or to look themselves at court files. But now making something “public” means making it available to anyone at his or her own computer, and the inherent resistance to change that resides in any well-established institution makes courts and those who don’t want their legal stands exposed to the brightest possible public lights reluctant to embrace this new notion of public access.

So, as CNN reports, controversy and legal wrangling has erupted over the decision by “the federal judge who is hearing appeals of California’s Proposition 8 this week ruled that the proceedings could be shown — albeit in delayed fashion — on YouTube.”  But opponents of same-sex marriage, outlawed by Proposition 8, appealed the judge’s order and yesterday the Supreme Court postponed the online broadcasts at least until tomorrow (when, it is hoped, the Supreme Court will rule on the issue).

Jon Davidson, legal director of the pro-gay rights Lambda Legal, argued that opponents of same-sex marriage want to keep the trial as much out of the public eye as they can because public debate on same-sex marriage actually increases support for it. In addition, he argued that the risks of true public access to the proceedings is way overblown:

“One of the things we find on the marriage issue, but really on all issues in response to gay rights, is that the more discussion there is — the more conversation, the more people learn — the more likely it is that gay people are going to do well,” Davidson said.

Davidson said posting the trial on YouTube wouldn’t increase the potential for witnesses to be harassed, saying that anyone can read news reports after the fact to find out who spoke and what they said.

Besides, any effort to block new-media coverage of the hearings is already too late, Davidson said. He said people in the courtroom for opening arguments Monday were posting live updates to Twitter throughout.

Oregon Attorney General is rethinking his copyright claim; I’d advise him to back off.

In Oregon, there’s an interesting and seemingly misbegotten effort by the state’s attorney general to assert the right to enforce a copyright in the state’s official documents. As the Oregonian reports, “Oregon Attorney General John Kroger met with a group of journalists in July and pledged to review the state’s public records act to make sure that it’s working properly. Kroger told the group the work would take some time but that it is “very important for me to get this right.” The review was provoked by a law professor who has posted to a web site a scanned copy of the Attorney General’s Public Records and Meetings Manual on his web site. “But the attorney general sells the 326-page book for $25 a pop, mostly to law firms and other state agencies. Kroger’s spokesman, Tony Green, says that’s how the AG’s office makes back the cost of producing the book.”

I suspect the Attorney General’s review will result in the state taking no action. According to L. Ray Patterson and Craig Joyce, in “Monopolizing the Law: the Scope of Copyright Protection for Law Reports and Statutory Compilations,” 36 UCLA L. Rev. 719, 723 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court in 1834 held that “opinions of the Court are not copyrightable, and that holding remains the law. Subsequent cases and the present copyright act reinforce and expand upon the point: the law, whether in court opinions or statutes, cannot be reduced to property through copyright, whether by individuals or by the government itself.” (footnotes omitted)

ADDENDUM: William Patry writes in his treatise on copyright, Patry on Copyright, Secton 4:59, that

[J]judges, legislators, and by extension all government employees are paid by the public for performing their duties. Having paid the salaries, the public is deemed to own the fruits of the employees’ labors, a kind of work for hire. To grant copyright to employees for works created in the course of performing their duties would result in double payment. Moreover, having received their salaries, government employees do not need the additional incentive that copyright provides; the same logic applies at the institutional level. (footnotes omitted)