# official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature

> copyright determination method

**Wikidata**: [Q61002900](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q61002900)  
**Source**: https://4ort.xyz/entity/official-text-of-a-legislative-administrative-or-legal-nature

## Summary  
An **official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature** is a government‑issued document such as a law, regulation, decree or official translation that is produced by a public authority. Under most copyright regimes it is treated as a *government work* and is **ineligible for copyright protection**, placing it in the public domain so anyone may copy, distribute, or adapt it.

## Key Facts  
- **Aliases** include *government edict*, *edict of government*, *official text of a legal nature*, *official text of an administrative nature*, *official text of a legislature nature*, and simply *law*.  
- **Instance of**: a *condition*, a *legal term or legal concept*, a *copyright determination method*, and a *heuristic for determination of copyright status of a creator*.  
- **Subclass of**: *governmental work*, *public domain*, and *edict* (official, public‑authority).  
- **Main subject**: the *copyright of official texts*; the prerequisite author is a *public authority*.  
- **Different from**: the *work of the federal government of the United States* (a separate legal category) and from *valid subject matter for copyright*.  
- **Main regulatory text**: the *Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works* (Article 2(4)), which leaves protection of official texts to individual national legislation.  
- **Effect in jurisdictions**:  
  - *Ineligible for copyright protection* in the Republic of Abkhazia (Art. 8), United States (edict of government doctrine, Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org), and Albania.  
  - *Public domain* because not covered by copyright law in Japan (Art. 10, 13), Germany, South Korea (Art. 7), Taiwan (Art. 9), and the People’s Republic of China (Art. 5).  
- **Applies to jurisdiction**: e.g., Republic of Abkhazia since 1 July 2006 (Law on Copyright and Related Rights, Art. 8).  
- **Facet of**: copyright law in many countries (Abkhazia, Albania, United States, Japan, South Korea, Republic of China, People’s Republic of China, etc.).

## FAQs  
### Q: What qualifies as an official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature?  
**A:** Any document issued by a public authority that enacts, interprets, or implements law—such as statutes, regulations, decrees, or official translations—fits this definition.  

### Q: Is an official text protected by copyright?  
**A:** Generally **no**. Most jurisdictions deem these works *ineligible for copyright protection* or place them directly in the *public domain*, allowing unrestricted reuse.  

### Q: How does the Berne Convention treat official texts?  
**A:** Article 2(4) of the Berne Convention does not grant automatic protection; it leaves the decision to individual countries, which commonly exclude official texts from copyright.  

### Q: Are there any exceptions where official texts can be copyrighted?  
**A:** Only where national law expressly provides protection; the listed jurisdictions (e.g., United States, Albania, Abkhazia) treat them as non‑copyrightable, while others (e.g., Japan, Germany) consider them public domain.  

### Q: Why is the “author” prerequisite a public authority?  
**A:** Because the status of a work as an official text depends on its origin; only texts authored by a *public authority* qualify for the ineligible‑for‑copyright treatment.

## Why It Matters  
Official texts form the backbone of a society’s legal and regulatory framework. By placing them in the public domain, governments ensure that citizens, businesses, and scholars can freely access, reproduce, and disseminate the law without legal barriers. This openness promotes transparency, democratic participation, and legal certainty. Moreover, the classification of these texts as *government works* underpins the “edict of government doctrine” in the United States and similar doctrines worldwide, shaping how courts interpret copyright exceptions. In the digital age, unrestricted reuse enables the creation of searchable legal databases, open‑source compliance tools, and educational resources, all of which enhance the rule of law and support innovation.

## Notable For  
- **Berne Convention reference**: First international treaty to explicitly leave protection of official texts to national legislation (Art. 2(4)).  
- **Edict of government doctrine**: U.S. case law (e.g., *Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org*) that applies the ineligibility principle to federal statutes and regulations.  
- **Cross‑jurisdictional consensus**: A majority of national copyright laws treat official texts as non‑copyrightable, creating a de‑facto global public‑domain status.  
- **Foundational heuristic**: Serves as a core *copyright determination method* used to assess whether a creator’s work is eligible for protection.  
- **Distinct legal category**: Differentiated from “work of the federal government of the United States,” which has its own statutory treatment.

## Body  

### Definition  
- An official text is a *government‑issued* document that creates, modifies, or explains legal rules.  
- Typical examples: statutes, administrative regulations, judicial opinions, official gazettes, and certified translations of such texts.  

### Legal Classification  
- **Instance of**: legal concept, condition, and copyright determination method.  
- **Subclass of**: governmental work → automatically placed in the public domain in many jurisdictions.  
- **Prerequisite author**: must be a *public authority* (e.g., legislature, executive agency, court).  

### International Framework  
- **Berne Convention Art. 2(4)**: “It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the protection to be granted to official texts…”.  
- This clause empowers each nation to decide the copyright status, leading to the widespread *ineligible‑for‑copyright* stance.  

### Jurisdictional Treatment  
| Jurisdiction | Legal Effect | Reference |
|--------------|--------------|-----------|
| Republic of Abkhazia | Ineligible for copyright (Art. 8) | Law on Copyright and Related Rights |
| United States | Ineligible (edict of government doctrine, *Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org*) | U.S. case law |
| Albania | Ineligible for copyright | Albanian copyright law |
| Japan | Public domain (Art. 10, 13) | Copyright Act (Japan) |
| Germany | Public domain (no copyright coverage) | German law |
| South Korea | Public domain (Art. 7) | Copyright law of South Korea |
| Taiwan | Public domain (Art. 9) | Copyright Act of the Republic of China |
| People’s Republic of China | Public domain (Art. 5) | PRC copyright law |

### Relationship to Copyright Determination Method  
- The *heuristic for determination of copyright status of a creator* uses the official‑text classification as a decisive factor: if the work is an official text authored by a public authority, the method concludes **no copyright protection**.  

### Related Concepts  
- **Government work (U.S.)** – a separate statutory category covering works created by U.S. federal employees.  
- **Edict of government doctrine** – legal principle that official texts are not subject to copyright.  
- **Public domain** – the status resulting from the ineligibility rule, allowing unrestricted reuse.  

## Schema Markup  
```json
{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "Thing",
  "name": "Official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature",
  "description": "A copyright determination method referring to texts produced by public authorities such as laws, regulations, and official edicts, which are generally ineligible for copyright protection.",
  "additionalType": "LegalConcept"
}

## References

1. [Source](https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/283698)
2. Law of The Republic of Abkhazia on Copyright and Related Rights