of the law and the status of the law. This is because, users may directly access court decisions themselves to understand the above. Inability to access the OCGA, therefore, only deprives readers of these additional functions and not the underlying legal information itself. Textual Grounds The decision also questions the origins and the validity of the government edicts doctrine. They highlight four indications within the text of the Copyright Act to support their reading of the precedents: First, the Act does not define the word "author" and neither does it make any reference to the government edicts doctrine. Second, while the Act excludes protection for works prepared by an officer or employee of the Government, the Act does not prohibit protection to works of state governments or works prepared at their behest. Third, the Act notes that annotations are copyrightable derivative works. Fourth, the Act provides that an author may hold a copyright in “material contributed” in a derivative work, “as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work.” Policy issues The opinion also highlights the difficulties in implementing the decision of the majority since nearly all States with annotated codes contract with private parties to make annotations who are almost invariably under the supervision of the legislative or judicial branch officers. It states that disallowing copyright would result in the creation of an "economy-class" or sub par version of the Code, that would not contain these important annotations. This is because without the means of recuperating the resources spent on research for the annotations, this mechanism of contracting third parties to make annotations available at a fraction of a cost would cease to exist. It highlights the fact that the majority's decision fails to provide clarity on whether the factors which it used to classify the Commission as adjunct to the legislature (membership, funding etc) are exhaustive or illustrative and whether some factors possess more weightage when deciding whether to deem an oversight body a legislative adjunct. Justice Ginsburg joined by Justice Breyer The opinion notes that not every work produced by legislators is ineligible for copyright protection and that the government edicts doctrine shields only works that are (1) created by judges and legislators (2) in the course of their judicial and legislative duties. While observing that annotations created by judges are not copyrightable while those created by legislators are, she highlights the difference between the roles