Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International Inc.

STEWART, Before WIENER and LITTLE, Judges, and District Circuit Judge.* WIENER, Judge: Circuit Plaintiff-Appellant Peter Veeck (“Veeck”) summary judg- appeals from * Louisiana, Little, designation. silting by District of Judge F.A. Jr. of the Western Chiel holding operates nonprofit site, of the district court that he Veeck ment web Defendant-Ap- RegionalWeb, provides known as infringed which in- Texas, formation about North Building Congress pellee including Southern Code (“SBCCI”) building texts of local codes. Several posted when he International towns in North adopted Texas have copyrighted model codes on the SBCCI’s codes, including SBCCI’s the towns of permission. Internet without SBCCI’s Anna and Savoy. attempted to ob- court, Agreeing with the district we affirm.

tain a codes of his Denison, Texas, hometown of after learn- I. ing that Denison had model code as its own. Failing to locate FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Denison’s code at local bookstores libraries, or Veeck ordered from SBCCI nonprofit is a organization SBCCI copies of its codes electronic format.1 develops, promotes, and promulgates mod- Veeck, According ap- he later visited codes, building el such as the Standard proximately twenty Texas, towns in North Code, Code, Plumbing the Standard Gas including Anna and Savoy, an effort to Code, Prevention the Standard Fire and copies codes, obtain of building their local the Standard Mechanical en- Code. SBCCI not all of produced by which had been courages governments local enact its buy SBCCI. Veeck was not able to com- reference, codes into law without cost plete copies at of the cities he visited.2 governmental entity. to the In each of its apparently He never attempted to view or a copyright SBCCI asserts under copy the in any city SBCCI codes clerk’s which it pub- claims the exclusive municipal or other office. reproduc- lish these codes or license their package The containing computer publication. tion and a governmental Once disks that sent to SBCCI Veeck included a unit copies enacts such code into agreement software license inspection by to be made available for data, In disregard notice. of these Veeck enacting government’s in the offices. installed personal comput- the codes on his of public may Members make or obtain and, by “cutting er and pasting,” was able copies of portions of the SBCCI codes put the entire codes on his web site. city from local offices or libraries or specify Veeck’s site did not web purchase copies directly of the codes from SBCCI, codes were written instead and from some SBCCI bookstores as well. simply identifying building them as the Although nonprofit organiza- SBCCI is a Savoy, codes of Anna and Texas. tion, it uses revenue from sales of its mod- el codes to continuing fund its activities. it posted When learned that Veeck had charged copies Non-members are more for site, copies of its codes on his web SBCCI of model order, codes than are members him accusing sent a cease and desist of organization. example, For mem- him of infringing copyrights. Veeck charged copy bers are for a of responded declaratory by filing judg- this $48 code, building SBCCI’s 1994 standard for ment action in an effort to have the district which are charged Copy- nonmembers court rule that he did not violate the $72. clear, completely apparently The record is not but it 2. Some the cities not did have appears attempt did Veeck to view or building the correct version of their code city codes in Denison clerk's available at alternative locations. For in- office. When Veeck received the 1994 codes stance, Sherman, Texas, adopted had SBCCI, he realized that Denison had code, 1997 version of the but the the 1988 version of the library only local had the 1994 version on posted codes. He the 1994 codes on his hand. despite they Internet site the fact that were adopted by not the exact version Denison. if counterclaimed, its resolution A fact issue is material assert-

right Act. SBCCI A of the action.6 affect the outcome could infringement, five counts ing “genuine” fact is dispute about a material breach of competition and unfair as well as permit a reasonable if the evidence would moved for sum- parties contract. Both nonmoving for the jury to return a verdict copyright infringe- on the mary judgment such an issue whether party.7 deciding ment issue. created, view the we must facts has been disputed genuinely In the absence be drawn from them the inferences to facts, granted court material district to the most nonmov- light in the favorable SBCCI, in favor of judgment summary ing party here, Veeck.8 — valid, enforceable it held holding that summary judgment Veeck’s defenses rejecting rights standard misuse, waiver, use, merger, a matter of judgment fair mirrors that for Thus, court found all of The district court must review process. and due law.9 record, in- make no instances but separate five the evidence model separate weigh any for each credibility ev- fringement determinations —one review, on his web published the court must code that Veeck idence.10 In its injunction permanent granted favorable disregard site—and all evidence monetary damages jury required to SBCCI. is not party that the moving believe, appealed.3 give credence to the evi- to and nonmoving party as favoring the dence supporting II. well as to the evidence is uncontradicted moving party that ANALYSIS unimpeached.11 A. Review Standard of Copyright Infringement B. grant of appeal on from

This case is purpose copyright de- core dismissing Veeck’s summary judgment, fair return for an “to granting law is secure judgment action and claratory thereby'“to author’s creative labor” copyright infringement requested SBCCI’s general creativity for the record de stimulate artistic therefore review the relief. We 12 copyright in novo, public good.” establish as the To applying the standard same plaintiff prove must a valid summary fringement, the A district court.4 motion copying by the defendant only if there properly granted judgment is the work that constituent elements of material fact.5 genuine is no issue Inc., Lobby, Liberty 477 U.S. sup- 6. v. Appellate were filed in Anderson amicus briefs 3. 242, 248, 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 106 S.Ct. port of SBCCI the American Medical (1986). Association, National Standards American Institute, Society American of Association 7. Id. Executives, Society Heating, American Conditioning Engi- Refrigerating and Air Houston, City 8. v. 185 Olabisiomotosho Association, neers, Fire Protection National 521, Cir.1999). (5th F.3d 525 League, Municipal and Underwriters Texas Laboratories, support Inc. Briefs Celotex, S.Ct. 2548. 477 U.S. at 106 Malla Pollack Veeck were filed Professor Physicians American and the Association of Products, Plumbing v. 10. Reeves Sanderson Surgeons. & 2097, 2102, Inc., 147 120 S.Ct. 530 U.S. (2000). L.Ed.2d 105 Inc., Moving, Wide v. Covan World Morris (5th Cir.1998). 11. Id. at 2110. Aiken, Catrett, 56(c); Corp. Century Corp. v. 12. Twentieth Music 5. Fed.R.Civ.P. Celotex 151, 156, 317, 322, S.Ct. 45 L.Ed.2d 91 L.Ed.2d 422 U.S. 477 U.S. 106 S.Ct. omitted). (1975) (internal (1986). quotations Here, original.13 question protection there is no adopted by when used or a state copyrights SBCCI holds valid to the build- government. or local We decline to create copied codes and that ing Veeck the codes split by a circuit reaching opposite by placing them on the Internet. Veeck today.16 conclusion seeks to circumvent SBCCI’s however,

protection, under various doc- C. Defenses trines that serve as defenses to 1. Dm Domain Process/Public infringement or otherwise limit copyright Veeck, According public’s holders’ exclusive use of their creations. process due interest free access contends once SBCCI’s mod building codes extinguishes copy el codes are enacted into they law right because the codes enter the copyright protection prin lose their under they domain when are enacted into law. ciples process, of due speech, freedom of outset, At the we note that although Veeck and the affirmative merger, defenses of struggles mightily to raise a fact issue as misuse, waiver, pecu and fair use that are to whether he was denied access to the liar law. The instant case is codes, we agree with the district court that circuit, impression one of first in this but probative there is no evidence that three other circuit courts have examined codes are not publicly available in North the issue of enforcement of copyrights Texas Leaving towns. aside the issues of privately the context of developed codes or bookstores, availability codes’ enacted, compilations that had been libraries, directly SBCCI, from we form, some into law.14 Although the shall assume that requires due at a expressed First Circuit serious doubt that minimum that the codes should be avail privately authored building code inspection able for and copying city at the by the state of Massachusetts could be offices in where distinguished they towns have been uncopyrightable stat adopted judicial by utes and opinions,15neither reference. Veeck has fallen court nor the other two circuit short his genuine courts that efforts to raise a fact have subsequently addressed the issue regarding availability issue such of the have held that copyright codes lose their Savoy.17 codes Anna and Publications, 13. Feist Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. simultaneously expressing but doubt over the Co., 340, 361, 1282, 499 U.S. 111 S.Ct. 113 enforceability copyright given of the that the (1991); L.Ed.2d 358 see also code); Lakedreams v. adopted state had see also 1 Mel- 1103, Taylor, (5th Nimmer, 1107-08 Cir. B. ville Nimmer & David Nimmer 1991). 5.06[C], (2000) ("It Copyright § on at 5-91 questionable process whether due [the clause] Mgt. Corp. See Practice v. American Info. justifies copyright private the denial of to a ("Practice Management"), Med. Ass’n 121 person code.”). group produces or who such a model (9th Cir.1997), denied, F.3d 516 cert. 522 U.S. 339, (1997), 118 S.Ct. 139 L.Ed.2d 263 (9th opinion amended 133 F.3d 1140 Cir. BOCA, 15. See 628 F.2d at 735-36. 1998) (finding that the American Medical As right sociation did not lose the to enforce its 13; Levitt, supra 16. See note see also David S. copyright promulgated coding when use of its Copyright Protection United States Govern- system required by government regula was Computer Programs, ment 40 IDEA 238 tions); CCC Servs. v. Maclean Hunter Info. (2000) (citing "supporting] proposi- cases ("CCC"), (2d Reports, Mkt. Inc. 44 F.3d 61 Cir.1994), privately developed properly tion that and denied, rt. 516 U.S. 116 S.Ct. ce copyrighted material should remain (1995) (upholding copy L.Ed.2d 32 righted material unless the into material falls privately prepared listing of automo judicial opin- the strict definition of statute or required bile values that states insurance ion"). use); companies Building and Officials Tech., ("BOCA"), Adm. Code v. Code Inc. (1st Cir.1980) access, (declining F.2d 17. Had Veeck shown denial we copyright invalidate certainly code created almost would find that a material state, by nonprofit group adopted by precluded summary judgment. fact issue The responsi- organization the service-oriented no facts there are

Inasmuch as updating.”21 actually prevented for its creation was ble showing that Veeck viewing words, from substantially hindered other legal law, poses the claim Veeck’s judicial copyright to denying The rule that de entity question whether was legislative enactments opinions in it may maintain velops a code of the by the end completely settled law. globo that code is once the emer- century. With nineteenth work copyrighted reproductions Not all in the regulatory state of the gence the exclusive domain are “within proliferation century, and the twentieth owner; are in the some new regulations, two of administrative that the requires Due domain.” policy: arose for questions law is so what the have notice of that, attach to texts Should its mand may comply with people that re- privately, have though prepared whether, question is Thus the ates.19 of official action? imprimatur ceived the codes fall CCI’s adopted into SB once regulatory copyright attach to Should domain into its exclusive outside that, by private although drafted codes require by virtue public domain been subsequently have industry groups, process.20 of due ments enacted into law?22 aptly First Circuit described must is the one question The second we today it ex- face when that we quandary today. answer the law is well though that even plained years ago, than 100 Banks More “judicial and stat- opinions established Manchester;23 held Supreme Court not domain and are in the utes are judi- private reporter of the state’s question remains subject copyright,” protect his opinions who desired cial likewise covers principle this “whether copyright for compilation could not assert regula- state-promulgated administrative rested this deter- purpose. The court privately modelled on a tions which are First, judicial grounds. mination on two copyrighted developed code that was shows, however, precluded Given Veeck was that Veeck has not record however, viewing copies of the enacted genuine question as to he or whether raised legal analysis at anyone denied access to the codes is needed. else was further unavailability claims city His such office. Inc., Studios, Texas, City Savoy, Sony Corp. two ex- v. Universal Anna and center on 774, 417, 433, fewer than S.Ct. L.Ed.2d tremely communities with 464 104 78 small U.S. 1,000 (1984). apiece. When Veeck visited residents 574 hall, Savoy's city he was told department, public were at the codes works BOCA, at 734. 19. See Anna, pursue. In af- he did not information absent, he finding city clerk ter twice question parties do not the notion 20. The to view codes. no further effort made they copyrightable if would not be the codes affidavit, Veeck his own indicates See, developed by public had been officials. publicly in both be available codes Manchester, 244, 253, 9 e.g., v. 128 U.S. Banks towns, only avail- stating that "the codes are (1888) (holding judicial 425 S.Ct. 32 L.Ed. during Savoy city halls able at the Anna they uncopyrightable are opinions because city officials available.” times when are those public's by judges paid cof- created any raising simply has not succeeded at Peters, (8 Pet.) fers); U.S. 33 Wheaton genuine process issue than the fact due other (1834) (same). 8 L.Ed. occasionally community may be tiny to by absence to the doors forced staff close (footnote omitted). BOCA, 21. 628 F.2d at 734 hardly violation. city its constitutional hall— Furthermore, fact been un- had Veeck in Goldstein, (2d § ed. Copynght 2.5.2 Paul obtain a of the able to enacted Supp.1999), at 2:47. 1996 & copyright, we of SBCCI’s because codes pro- likely conclude that due would 36, 32 23. 128 9 S.Ct. L.Ed. copyright. U.S. grounds invalidate vides to such (1888). Management, F.3d at 519. Practice See opinions subject are not to be- base average also contained the of each they publicly by (1) cause are owned virtue of vehicle’s valuations in the Red Book judges (2) the fact that the who render them and the NADA Official Used Car Guide Second, paid with funds.24 as a (known “Bluebook”), as the the other lead- public policy, judge’s opinions matter of ing used car valuation separate book. A subject are not to because the market exists for the Red Book/Bluebook by is served free access interest to average “because the laws of certain states the law.25 use that average figure as a minimum for payments upon insurance the ‘total loss’ of applica- ground

The Court’s first is not Banks, a vehicle.”28 The trial court granted sum- ble here: Unlike in this case mary judgment for asserting proprietary part is a viable CCC based on SBCCI legal it created conclusion that interest because the model codes the Red Book fell own, using resources. None- into the domain when it was incor- theless, public policy concern an- porated governmental into regulations.29 nounced Banks remains vexatious. The Second Circuit grant- reversed and There, the declined enforce Court to summary judgment ed for Maclean. The reporter’s copyright judicial opin- state appellate court found it necessary to “bal- “[t]he ions because whole work done ance the conflicts and contradictions that judges expo- constitutes the authentic pervade the law of copyright, and the law, which, interpretation sition of the need, where elements of the copyright law citizen, binding every publica- is free for conflict, determine, policy judg- as a ”26 point tion to all.... This would seem ment, prevails which of its commands over statute, ordinance, apply equally case, the other.”30 In the instant inas regulation that has the force of law CCC, policy judgment indispensable is irrespective authorship. extrapo- But balancing in, our interests on lating generalities broad from such a nar- hand, the one encouraging innovation holding risky. row and, through copyright hand, on the other pub- Second Circuit addressed this ensuring free access to the law. policy lic argument CCC Information do lightly policy We not dismiss Services, Inc. v. Maclean Hunter Market supporting position; considerations Veeck’s Reports, Inc.27 That case involved a yet, limited to the narrow set of facts infringement brought counterclaim us, perceive before we Maclean, the scale of counter- publisher of the “Red vailing policy projections valuations, tipped Book” considerations to be of used car CCC, against competitor enforcing favor of copied copyright.31 computer emphasis Maclean’s valuations into a data- We reiterate for that no court base for sale to contrary.32 customers. CCC’s data- has held to the We are further 24. See id. at 9 S.Ct. 36. Id. at 64. id.; 25. 29. Management, See see also Practice Id. ). (interpreting F.3d at 518 Banks added). (emphasis 30. Id. at 68 Banks, 36; 26. 128 U.S. at 9 S.Ct. see also BOCA, (expressing ("We 628 F.2d at 734-35 doubt prepared 31. See at 74 id. are not to hold private entity developed building that a copyrighted that a state’s reference to a work code was entitled legal to enforce after as a standard for valuation results in the code was enacted into law on the copyright.”). loss of the (1) bases that the the law owns and pays salary legislation, the of those who draft 32. The First Circuit noted in BOCAthat it was (2) "right and the the of to know the persuaded [plaintiff's] "far from virtual subject"). law to which it is authorship of the Massachusetts code copyright monopoly entitles it to enforce (2d when, 1994). where,

27. F.3d 61 Cir. over and how the Massachu- authori- and federal government balancing result and state reaching this in comforted who do leading treatise the United States throughout ties agreement the strip necessary facilities the subject that not otherwise have on the when his work rights safety stan- develop of his these owner and resources would legislature by a state independently.” dards the inter- of “prove destructive comprising this states Each of the three creativity connection encouraging est in to standards statutes that refer circuit has state and trend toward increasing the with Examples of promulgated SBCCI.37 model codes.”33 adoptions of federal in the stat- codes referenced other the analogized Circuit The Second Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi and utes of hypothetical to a rejected it CCC claims (1) manufactured home standards are: their lose holding that schoolbooks American published by adopted with a compliance assigned once (2) Institute;38 National Standards by law.34 We mandated curriculum school National and the Plumbing Code Uniform writing groups like if code believe (3) Code;39 and Plumbing Standard craft and incentives to lose their SBCCI Fire Board of Un- codes of the National pub- cease to codes and thus update model derwriters, National Fire Protection lish, is that state foreseeable outcome Association, Society for and the American fill would have to governments and local As the Ninth Engineers.40 Mechanical resulting in increased directly, void it declined to recently wrote when Circuit as loss of the costs35 as well governmental Medical Associa- find that the American to which standard consistency quality procedure of its medical tion’s glance at aspire. A second codes CPT”) (“the became unenforceable code supporting the amici names of adopted it for use agency after a federal idea of provides case36 an position this forms, claim on Medicaid contrary holding sweep of a potential copyright on invalidating [the AMA’s] could not of model codes that the authors entered the ground CPT in their works once copyrights enforce when Health Care [the domain very for their creation is ultimate reason Financing required Administration] sup- amici state their brief realized. As expose copyrights on a wide use would SBCCI, and stan- “these codes porting privately authored model adopted by range local widely used and dards Executives; ety American So- reproduced and of Association building code is to be setts available,” to rule publicly ciety Heating, Refrigerating but declined and Air-Con- made BOCA,628 the ultimate merit of the case. Society on ditioning Engineers; American at F.2d 735. Engineers; Fire Protec- Mechanical National Inc.; Association, Municipal Texas tion Nimmer, & David 33. 1 Melville B. Nimmer League; Laboratories Inc. and Underwriters 5.06[C], Copyright, § at 5-92 Nimmer on (2000). See, 235.002(c)(1) § e.g., Loc. 37. Tex. Gov't CCC, code); (Vernon 1999) (fire at 74. La.Rev.Stat. Ann. code); 40:1722(B)(3) (West 2000) (building § (Feb. 19, Fed.Reg. 8554-55 See (2000) (building § Miss.Code. Ann. 45-11-73 1998) (Office Management Budget No- code). A-119) (di- tice of Final Revision Circular recting agencies adopt privately de- federal (West § 38. La.Rev.Stat. Ann. 51:911.23 practicable veloped "whenever standards 2000). appropriate” the cost to the "eliminate!] developing its own stan- Government of dards”); 6243-101, § 3 39. Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. Ann. art. Technology National Transfer 2000). 1995, (Vernon Pub.L. No. 104- Advancement Act of 775, (1996). 12(d), § 110 Stat. 783 (Ver- § 113.052 40. Tex. Nat. Res.Code Ann. Association; American 36. American Medical 2000). non Institute; Standards American Soci- National

407 standards, instantly and reference works to invali- copy- denuded the work of words, Nonprofit organizations right protection. dation. that de- In other accord- Veeck, velop ing these model codes and standards there can be only expres- one they will be unable to continue to sion of the law: warn Once government, do so if the codes and standards enter merged model code into adopted by body Therefore, domain when of the law. concludes Veeck, public agency.41 there was no other way correct of, express the building code law for exam- Co.,42 In State Texas v. West Pub. we of Anna, ple, Texas. process could discern no due violation anyone the absence of evidence was circuit, In this that, merger doctrine has actually being denied access to the law. applied been question whether a case, In the instant the district court like- work copyrightable was at the time of its presented wise was with no evidence creation, preventing from at- Veeck or others had been denied vel access taching in the place, first rather than anas thus, question; non to the codes in there infringement focusing merger defense on genuine was no issue of material fact on copying.44 at the time of When we exam- process Veeck’s due claim. Neither does ine SBCCI’s works at the times their this case involve a citizen barred from creation and ask whether at that instant photocopying applicable portions of munic- they merged with the “building idea of codes; ipal contrary, on the ordered codes,” Veeck we expression conclude directly the SBCCI standardized codes merge does not instantly with the idea published express- from SBCCI and those contrary to Veeck’s insistence— because— there ly copyrighted works on the Internet. Be- many ways remain to write model cause under these facts we conclude as a codes, just one.45 As amici matter of law that the codes here at issue note, there are at least two other sets domain, had not entered the Veeck’s building currently compete codes that with of copying infringed act SBCCI’s SBCCI’s, namely, pub- the National Codes rights, and no due or other by Building lished Officials and Code Ad- policy \ infringement. concern excuses that International, ministrators and the Uni- published by form Codes the International Merger Building Conference of Officials. As the merger argument,

In his Ninth rejecting Circuit held in a similar merger argument Manage- contends that SBCCI’s in Practice ment, once enacted reference into be the existence of SBCCI’s expressed only independent came a which can be does not stifle creative ex- fact n way.43 unsupported one He argues, by pression by those who would seek to devel- precedent, adoption op “cQmparative coding systems or better code into law was a lobby[ governments] transformative event ] Data, Inc., Management, Montgomery 41. Practice 121 F.3d v. at 519 44. Mason 967 F.2d (5th Cir.1992) (footnotes omitted). (citing 138 n. 5 Kern River Corp., Gas Transmission Co. Coastal (5th 1990)). F.2d Cir. (5th 1989). 42. 882 F.2d Cir. See, e.g., American Dental v. Delta Ass’n merger 43. The doctrine is based on Ass’n, (7th Dental Plans 102(b), § U.S.C.A. which states: "In no case 1997) (holding Cir. that dental association’s copyright protection original does for an taxonomy original authorship was work of idea, authorship any proce- work of extend to copyright protection stating entitled to dure, process, system, operation, method of descriptions 'merge that "[t]he Code’s don't concept, principle, discovery, regardless with facts’ more than scientific described, explained, the form in which it is illustrated, description butterfly part of a attributes is butterfly”). or embodied in such work.” Act, not merger we conclude prevents simply It them. adopt actors defense for Veeck. sys- a valid existing an copying of wholesale of the existence Neither does tem.”46 3. Additional govern- local prevent copyrights

SBCCI’s Defenses that do not codes adopting ments from Speech Free a. expressive charac- unique share SBCCI’s four additional defens raises Veeck as requirements even the same ter or the first of As we turn to appeal.50 on es codes,47 adopt- in from those contained defense—we First Amendment these —his fromor of the model only parts ing that SBCCI that none contends emphasize ordinance. by them changing copyright to block the attempted to use its municipal of the codes public’s access to convinces us policy also Public Schnapper In Savoy, Texas. Anna and should merger doctrine application of Circuit District of Columbia Foley, behind purpose The here. be withheld not Amendment does held that the First expression of merger concept even in voiding copyright, of a require the pro to ensure with idea is work, absent government-commissioned The doctrine extend to ideas. tection not had been to the work evidence access few or no when there are applies only denied.51 expressing particular ways of other in building codes idea.48 SBCCI’s is further Speech Free defense Veeck’s authors, their opinions first fused with that he did not by the fact weakened codes chosen requirements codes of these two copies obtain detail, level of on the Inter- arrangement, publish then them to their .cities and Instead, purchased directly have addressed style. We grammatical net. by this case of its 1994 Standard policy concerns raised from SBCCI Codes, bearing codes do not arrived determining that the which He never- agreement. once enacted a license domain notice and fall into computer his copied in the that set onto policy imbedded theless into law. web, it posted identifying it separa and he on doctrine is limited merger municipal codes of the containing the expression and is not as bility of idea and possible two courses of Balancing two towns. These applied here.49 appropriately inherently different: The for- keeping action are competing goals copyright’s fair more akin to a citizen’s use Copy- mer is language in mind the firmly needed, for in- reference as Management, F.3d at 520 n. 8. rate them 46. Practice stance, preparing setting project bids or Association, 126 F.3d Dental See American type specifications. That of use is not before at 979-80. here, equated be to the facts us and cannot gratuitous publication en- involving the of an Software, Leadership Kepner-Tregoe,Inc. v. merger doctrine of the tire code. The Cir.1994) Inc., (5th (explain- 12 F.3d applied not be expression and fact should expressed ing idea can be that “when an in this case. defeat protect ways, copyright not very law does few doing expression, because so would con- license, monopoly defense, over the idea. fer a de facto implied was 50. Another expression are said to be such cases idea merged.”). of Ameri amicus Association raised curiae Inc., Surgeons, not Physicians & but was can party by either in the district court addressed global of a code does make 49. The enactment Hence, appeal. we do not address it. or on enacting municipality law of the that code the Indep. Christopher Christi Corpus M. v. See hence, sense, In the real in one a "fact.” Dist., (5th F.2d Cir. Sch. case, world, however, acknowl- this 1991). change analytical edging our this does approach. such as contractors Individuals (D.C.Cir.1981). 51. 115-16 use codes can—and who need to incorpo- applicable provisions or quote do—

409 code;52 pro- pliedly right copyright com- waived its to the latter local his by encouraging municipalities tection to purchaser who assumes prehends adopt by right the intellectu- its codes reference. A such actively disregarding risk of by may and announced waived inaction.55 property rights copyright held be al product. supplier Copyright of a commercial also be waived as the re- act, if particular sult of a even waiver was in its model enforcing copyright In Having not the intended result.56 conclud- codes, stifling not access to or SBCCI is ed that codes are not in the SBCCI’s Amend- the law. The First speech about and that due does domain is not violated here. ment suppression require not SBCCI’s organiza- that the right, we also conclude b. Misuse nothing copyright tion has done to waive defense of equity-based The protection. misuse, culpa prevents which expressly action reserved its prevailing an (cid:127)SBCCI plaintiff ble from in the The district court found- copy of a misused codes. infringement for the “ undisputed the fact the materials to ‘forbids the use right, monop received from “contained or limited Veeck SBCCI an exclusive secure copyright expressions of the Defen- Copyright Office the oly granted by The district court also concluded contrary to dant.” policy and which is ”53 given the fact that had North Management, SBCCI Practice grant.’ Building Inspectors Association the American Carolina Ninth Circuit found publish on the Internet'that permission misused its Medical Association codes, which are modeled coding system to state’s by licensing its does not amount to Financing Administration on on SBCCI Health Care noted, any As the district court agency that the not use waiver. the condition Veeck, contrast, provide entities free access to system.54 “[c]ountless competing materials on the Internet and still retain genuine no issue of material has raised copyrights.” of their SBCCI purported misuse enforcement regarding fact SBCCI’s copyright in its model summary judgment has not waived its copyright. of its orga evidence that the codes. record is devoid of the exclusive use of its

nization mandates cL Fair Use of its other services when codes adopts one of the governmental subdivision his Finally, argues that no evidence of mis codes. There is thus copyrighted material posting SBCCI’s prevent that would enforcement use’ a “fair use.” on the Internet constituted copyright. excepted infringement Congress has specified such copyrighted materials c. Waiver reporting, teaching, and res uses as news are instructed Inferior courts prevail can Veeck on earch.57 Neither fac- Supreme to consider four expressly or im- Court his assertion that SBCCI See, e.g., Trimming, Inc. 56. Norma Ribbon & is discussed fur- 52. Veeck’s fair use defense Little, 1995) (5th 48 ther 51 F.3d Cir. infra. ("Therefore, even if it be assumed that the Techs., Corp. Communications v. DGI 53. DSC copyrightable, the Littles flowers were ribbon Inc., (5th Cir.1996) (quoting 81 F.3d through inadequate have them notice made Am., Reynolds, Inc. v. Lasercomb domain, and Norma Ribbon part of the Cir.1990)). (4th them.”). was free Management, Practice 121 F.3d at 520. (2000). § 57. See 17 U.S.C. 107 Airlines, See, e.g., Sherrod v. American (5th Cir.1998). n. 5 F.3d permission post the on the particular use of codes deciding tors in whether being posting denied. Veeck’s material is a “fair use”: web copyrighted prove on the Internet could the codes (1) and character of the purpose by reducing harmful SBCCI’s market and use, such use is of a including whether socially it income in its depriving used nonprofit for nature or is commercial confecting, promulgating, valuable effort of purposes; educational revising Having and model codes. evalu- (2) work; copyrighted of the the nature copying ated Veeck’s under the four statu- (3) substantiality and the amount factors, potential prevents tory the harm copyright- portion used relation prevailing him from on a fair defense.61 use whole; a and ed work as (4) upon poten- the use the the effect of Infringement D. SBCCI’s Counterclaim copyright- tial market for or value of holds in its copyrights ed SBCCI valid work.58 expressly and Veeck has admitted here, When, activity with Veeck’s them. In the of a copying absence viable copyrighted of a work is noncommer use defense, the court correct in district was cial, defeating requires a fair use defense holding SBCCI established “proof particular use is either circumstances, infringement. Under these harmful, or that if it should become wide we are convinced that the district court’s adversely po affect the spread, it would minimum conclusions and its award of the copyrighted tential market statutory damages on each of the five work.”59 copyright infringement counts of are free put though Even the use to which Veeck Likewise, of error.62 we find no abuse of se, per it SBCCI’s works is not harmful discretion in the district court’s award of market for severely could undermine the attorneys’ fees.63 if were to become those works such use Here, widespread. genuine there is no III. summary dispute, judgment based on the record, meaningful “that some likelihood of CONCLUSION in- future harm exists.”60 This is not an copying ago, stance of mere of the codes for Two decades the First BOCA64 use, personal asking or of SBCCI Circuit wrestled with the serious issues Veeck’s Id.; Music, Campbell 58. were see also v. "transformative” events does not find a Acuff-Rose Inc., 569, 577, Campbell. 510 U.S. S.Ct. home in (1994). L.Ed.2d 500 time, pertinent 62. At 17 U.S.C.A. 504(c)(1) range § statutory damages set Studios, Sony Corp. City 59. v. Universal copyright infringement for each act of at no 417, 451, U.S. 104 S.Ct. 78 L.Ed.2d 574 $20,000. $500 less than or more than A 1999 (1984). $750 amendment has raised those amounts to $30,000, Id.; Digital respectively. Theft 60. Id. Copyright Damages Improve- Deterrence and 106-160, 2(1), § ment Act of Pub.L. No. Music, Campbell 61. In while Acuff-Rose (1999). 113 Stat. 1774 defense, evaluating Supreme a fair use degree paro- Court to which a discussed Int'l, Systems, Hogan Cybresource Inc. v. original. copyrighted dist’s work transforms Inc., (5th Cir.1998) (apply- There, See 510 U.S. at 114 S.Ct. 1164. ing abuse of discretion standard of review parodist making was the one the transfor- case). attorneys' award of fees in contrast, mation. In Veeck admits that he questions Veeck did not brief the of the dis- nothing did more than SBCCI’s model grant permanent injunction trict court’s verbatim; them, fees, codes he did not transform damages attorneys' or award of Therefore, through parody or otherwise. therefore waived them. argument adoption by Veeck's refer- by Savoy ence of SBCCI’s codes Anna 628 F.2d 730. require codes” that it “possible creation of “model only then was by raised what adoption permitting and federal the balance favor of state strike trend” toward wisely left That court model codes.65 creator to continue to en- the model code realities the modern open for evaluation after such a code copyright, force its even codes. regulatory technical surrounding view, adopted my has been into law. wrote, develop groups court As the a “model code” is into law once pub important an codes “serve such model private entity, such as government, function; job they do a better arguably lic SBCCI, may longer publica- no obstruct seeing the state alone than' could the law an tion and transmission of regulations essential complex yet Adoption of uncompensated transferor. drafted, made avail kept up to date and place law the the model code as serves that circuit courts subse The two able.” should, in and it public law the domain challenges similar quently addressed therefore, readily for access be available in also by the First BOCA that considered The should not be by all citizens. access in copyrights invalidate have declined to non-public limited to a commercial estab- under the law.67 works referenced enactment, Similarly, upon the lishment. circuits three of our sister joining In into an “idea” that is no law transforms holding our is emphasize we today, expression, longer distinguishable from its facts and the narrow set of restricted to causing copy- SBCCI’s codes to lose their these, no before us. Under circumstances right protection. my It is belief that re- access to being one is denied reasonable judgment versal of the district court is adopted that have the codes been SBCCI I appropriate. respectfully dissent from neither did globo by governments; local in majority. the decision of the sufficiently specific actions make a Veeck’s slightly fan- use. Even strong case for A. Due Domain Basis Process/Public under different circum different facts majority places great emphasis on The result. might produce a different stances pro- the district court’s conclusion that no adoption pri- Today, the trend toward demonstrating evidence exists bative widespread, vately promulgated codes is publicly in the codes are not available great. from it is and the social benefit conclusion, even Noi’th Texas towns. This countervailing policy balancing of the Our accurate, factually if is not determinative. ultimately in presented this case concerns estimation, my in is not question, on these facts that leads us to conclude citizen, Veeck, any other actu- whether privately authored copyright protection of viewing ally prevented was simply ipso evanesce model codes does not law, private entity a that de- but whether by local adopted when codes are facto private control velops a code maintain rather, they remain enforce- governments; through copyright. that law a able, copying, even as to non-commercial citizenry has reasonable long as as observes, majority correctly As the cum law. For publications access to such copyrighted work are reproductions all reasons, of the district judgment these copy- domain of the “within the exclusive is, respects, in court all owner; do- some are City Corp. v. Stu- Sony AFFIRMED. main.” Universal dios, Inc., 417, 433, 104 464 U.S. S.Ct. LITTLE, Judge, dissenting: District (1984). It well 78 L.Ed.2d opinions and statutes judicial settled majority concludes Today the are not sub- domain and through the generated benefits presumed 516; Management, 121 F.3d Practice Id. al 736. 67.See CCC, 44 F.3d 61. Id. statute, Supreme locality’s ject copyright. As the Court anee. Like a Banks, two inde- enunciated there exist regulations exposition” are “the authentic holding judicial pendent rationales of the which the Banks Court indicat- (and my opinion, opinions and statutes publication ed should be “free for to all.” the realm of regulations), outside Banks, 128 U.S. at 9 S.Ct. at 40. majority I right. agree with While ap- The First Circuit has indicated its first, inapplicability “pub- proval reasoning pre- of this a case rationale,” strenuously disagree lic funds I senting facts similar to those we measure of the sec- majority’s disregard with the ond, BOCA, policy/due process” ratio- “public today. plaintiff, Building adopt nale. I also am unable to mean- Administration Officials Code judicial opinions ingful distinction between (“BOCA”), code-writing organiza- another statutes, regulations and the have tion, copyright protection claimed for its promulgated been into law as code, encouraged model which it binding given on the citizens of a commu- (cid:127) li- adopt through authorities to nity. Today’s holding creates distinction BOCA, censing program. See that cannot be sustained. at 732. The Commonwealth of Massa- Banks, Supreme the Court declined chusetts and a distributed build- reporter’s copyright to enforce the state ing substantially code similar to BOCA’s judicial opinions because whole work “[t]he code, pursuant model to a licensing by judges done the authentic constitutes agreement with id. BOCA. See Massa- law, exposition interpretation and the persons seeking chusetts then referred to which, citizen, every binding is free for purchase copy a of the code to BOCA. Banks, publication to all.” 128 U.S. at defendant, Technology, See id. The Code 40; BOCA, at see also F.2d at S.Ct. (“CT”), private publisher, publish- Inc. a (expressing private 734-35 doubt that a ed, and distributed its own edition of the entity developed building that a code was building Massachusetts code. CT’s edi- copyright entitled to enforce after the code tion was almost identical to BOCA’s edi- public was enacted into law on the basis Relying tion. See id. on Banks and the owns the law because it Wheaton, argued CT because pays salary legisla- the of those who draft adopted by BOCA’s code was the state “right tion and has the to know regulations a set of administrative having Here, subject”). the law to which it is the force of it n SBCCIseeks to had lost its prevent an individual from protection and thus entered the site, posting, copy1 on an internet web a domain. See id. at 733. BOCA retorted regulation. an enacted administrative building judi- that the code differed from regulation, primarily administrative a opinions cial code, and statutes because it was building zoning binding and on the public. may noncompli- by privately entity Sanctions follow written a funded and (6th Cir.1898) majority emphasizes copied (refusing enjoin 1. The publication that Veeck to marked, regulation copy- competing compilation a clearly from a of state statutes code, noting that it would righted not matter if the edition of SBCCI's model rather than, plaintiff's] defendant had “cut presumably, going [the community State]”). general books the laws of [the question, obtaining copy regulation, a retyping scanning that document onto This case raises the issue of the defendant’s website. I view his do not this as material. regard posting conduct with to his the laws of Harlan, sitting justice, As Justice as a circuit Savoy Texas Anna and towns on his website years ago, "any per- stated over one hundred (the majority's attention to the defendant's desiring publish son to the statutes of a Denison, state posting of the laws of Texas notwith- any copy use of such statutes to be found standing). My review of the record below book, printed whether such book be Savoy adopted indicates that both Anna and property property of the state or the of an precise post- version of the "model code” Miller, individual.” Howell v. 91 F. ed Veeck. infringement. public domain defense using government by the case, the Ninth Circuit declined In that id. See funds. “public argument domáin” find that declined to First Although the Circuit publisher’s attempt produce supported a plaintiffs merit of on the ultimate rule coding system own a medical of. grant case, the district court’s vacating by the Ameri- developed copyrighted injunction to a preliminary Association, that had been can Medical holder, “far from it that it was noted Fi- adopted by the federal Health Care au- plaintiffs] virtual persuaded [the for use Medi- nancing Administration the Massachusetts thorship of Prac- care and Medicaid claim forms. See copyright mo- it to enforce a code entitles I note Management, 121 F.3d at 517. tice when, where, and how nopoly over Management, party in Practice re- code is to be Massachusetts private was a challenging publicly available.” and made produced entity seeking to “share AMA’s statuto- reasoned that 735. The court Id. at Had the Ninth ry monopoly.” Id. at 519. just because it the law” not public “owns Management been in Practice Circuit write the of those who pays the salaries pre- to that with a situation similar faced because judicial opinions, but statutes private individual sented here —where the law.” are the authors of citizens “[t]he publish gratuitously law sought to The court also determined Id. at 734. citizens, other rather than an for use to the law guarantees access due company sought private instance where legal obli- requires it notice of because com- invalidate a for its own doubt expressed id. It then gations. See decided dif- purposes may have mercial —it process would allow that due ferently. copyright limit access under the entity to the Practice apparent It is also when, where, decide for itself and to chary apply court to Management was reproduced was to be and how the code copy- a rationale to defeat public domain id. at publicly See and made available. that invalidat- on the concern right based to de- ultimately declined 735. The court expose copyright ing the AMA’s “would issue, however, remanding to cide privately range a copyrights on wide proceedings. See court for further district standards, codes, and ref- model authored analysis Finding at 736.2 the BOCA id. The Id. works to invalidation.” erence privately a de- compelling, I conclude that “ vitiate ‘[t]o warned that Ninth Circuit entitled to veloped longer code is no circumstances, could, in copyright, such public it enters the protection once prove de- adequate justification, without domain. in en- copyright interest structive to to majority contends that refusal particu- The creativity,’ a matter of couraging copyright would result enforce SBCCI’s in this context because significance lar of our prior from the decisions and fed- departure increasing trend toward state ‘the ” inspection of circuits. close codes.’ Id. at adoptions sister On of model eral 5.06[C], cases, § no other at 5-92 appears it to me that 1 Nimmer (citing those (1996)). substantively Similarly, simi- CCC circuit has addressed Information Services, to today. declined to the one before us the Second Circuit lar situation not, therefore, to invali- concept employ public be domain The result I favor would system of a car valuation of our sister with the decisions date discord into some states’ been did not that had Management Practice circuits. The insurance codes. CCC viability public of a reject, outright, Information at we think BOCA should regulatory the rule Circuit noted that 2. The First "since position fully on argue its opin- allowed to protection judicial least be denying copyright to BOCA, evidentiary record.” the basis of an grew a much different and statutes out of ions F.2d at 736. these technical of circumstances than do set ruling Merger based its on a B. and the Idea/Expression Services court policy-based concern for the ramifications Dichotomy holder should the holder reasoning implemented in the due up every give be forced to its process/public domain section of this dis- adopted or refer- instance where the state sent is sufficient to bolster reversal. Re- Servs., enced its work. See CCC Info. another, predicated versal also be could on disregard F.3d at of the 73-74. Utter equally potent basis. Veeck has asserted majority’s, as as the Second and well Circuits’, adopted, expressed trepidation Ninth re- once SBCCI’s codes become garding viability standards-writing protected facts that are not under the organizations lightly employed.3 is not Further, Act. Copyright because the exact Circuit, Neither the Second nor the Ninth language is critical to an enacted law’s however, presented with a situation was meaning, the “idea” embodied in the law private sought pub- where a individual merges expression. with unique purpose lish the of sharing law for the sole case, In that becomes una- it with other citizens. The factual scenario vailing to its owner. SBCCI retorts that brought before this court leads me to eval- produce citizens are able to their own ver- uate the domain rationale in a light sion of the information contained in the different that utilized these Cir- only particu- model codes and that it is protection cuits. When I balance the expression protected lar by the original protection works versus the Copyright rejected Act. The district court interest, public’s due I come down merger argument, finding Yeeck’s that the public’s ability in favor of the to access the subject of building open codes is to multi- private law without constraints. ple expression. forms of The majority has The extent of SB control CCI’s over affirmed this conclusion. regulation binding on the further fortifies Veeck’s assertion that a matter, preliminary As a copyright pro- entity gatekeeper should be the sole facts, tection is not proce- extended public’s here, despite laws the fact that dures, processes, operation, methods of copies were city available individuals at information domain. See 17 hall or local libraries. The transformation 102(b); Publications, § U.S.C. Feist Inc. privately of SBCCI’s created work into a Co., 350, v. Rural Tel. Serv. 499 U.S. at public provides law grounds to invalidate 1290; 111 Harper S.Ct. at & Row Publish- copyright SBCCI’s to the extent that its ers, Enters., 539, Inc. v. Nation 471 U.S. code is enacted into Following along law. 547-48, 2218, 2223-23, 105 S.Ct. 85 the lines of the of reasoning the First (1985); L.Ed.2d Kepner-Tregoe, 588 Inc. BOCA, Circuit in I conclude that the due Inc., v. Leadership Software, 12 F.3d public concern for access to the (5th Cir.1994). 533 Similarly, copyright a private entity law forbids a from exerting ideas, protects expression the of not the public sole control over a law through a ideas themselves. Kepner-Tregoe, See 12 copyright. enacted, Consequently, once protect F.3d at 533. order “[I]n to the portions the of SBCCI’s codes that become immunity of ideas ownership, law enter the domain and are no longer entitled to copyright protection. expression when the essential to the is. pal This concern is not without According majority, merit. It is codes. undisputed spends that SBCCI governmental considerable loss would result in "increased codes, developing provides time its and thus consistency costs as well as the loss of the governments valuable service to local quality aspire.” to which standard codes I adopt disagree. choose to either charge price in whole or SBCCI could a fair to asserts, however, part. majority The city preparation, that a city for code which a could copyright refusal to enforce compare prepara- SBCCI’s could then to the cost of in-house result in a loss of incentive to create munici- tion.

415 how, idea, jority explain to once model expression also fails of the statement to insure free either in whole or so as code is unprotected, bewill of the idea.” to the discussion of part, way access there exists other Servs., an 44 at 68. Where F.3d expressing CCC the law.4 CCC Info. Information only to one form susceptible is Services, idea the Second Circuit declined to applies doctrine merger expression, plaintiffs copyright invalidate the interest protected not be expression will and the in its Red Book car valuation that had 102(b); § 17 Act. U.S.C. Copyright See adopted into the state’s insurance been 533; v. 12 at Mason F.3d Kepner-Tregoe, code, explicitly acknowledged that the but Inc., Data, 967 F.2d Montgomery “is not easi merger argument defendant’s Cir.1992). (5th “idea/expres- This 138-40 ly rebutted.” Id. at 68. The Second Cir a definitional bal- dichotomy *strike[s] sion rejected merger doc ultimately cuit the First Amendment ance between need, on “the where elements trine based com- by permitting Act free Copyright determine, conflict, law to of the protecting an of facts while still munication of its com policy judgment, as a which Row, & expression.’” Harper author’s Id. The prevails mands over the other.” (citing, at 105 S.Ct. 471 U.S. at prin fundamental concluded that the court Circuit’s discus- approval, the Second with authors ciple copyright' granting law of to protection afforded sion writings out rights exclusive to their & expression Harper an idea versus its policy preserving weighed the benefit Enters., Publishers, v. Nation Inc. Row to id. at 68-72. public access ideas. See (2d Cir.1983)). is There F.2d Here, policy I that the benefit conclude determining for whether bright-line no test preserving unfettered access to expres- distinguishable from its an idea is permitting outweighs law the interest it, be lack of should merger, sion. of a a “model code” the holder the facts of the case. based on determined copyright subsequent to maintain Slicks, City ’N Inc. Country Kids See adoption into law. the code’s Cir.1996). (10th Sheen, 1280, 1285 nature, en- incorpo- By very an enacted law the court to its appropriate It concrete, defi- analysis, realm as policy merger choices into its ters rate only in free ac- one accurate public’s interest There is including nite fact/idea. Servs., 44 consistently the law. CCC express cess to See a law. Courts way Info. matter, that, F.3d at 68. preliminary as a stress inter- govern of a statute exact words majority prior agree I with the See, Kennedy v. Texas pretation. e.g., municipalities, adoption by local Cir.1999) (5th Utils., F.3d pro model codes are entitled (“ interpreting a starting point for ‘The deci Although no court has held tection. it- of the statute language statute is the doctrine be sively merger ” Safety Prod. (citing self.’ Consumer private a a used to invalidate Inc., 447 U.S. Sylvania, v. GTE Comm’n law, developed code that is enacted into ly 2051, 102, 108, L.Ed.2d 766 64 100 S.Ct. argument there is merit to Veeck’s (1980))); v. Pub. Util. City Sherman enacted, a fact the codes do become once (Tex.1983) Comm’n, 684 643 S.W.2d idea, only is one accurate that there meaning [of (“Generally the intent The ma way express to an enacted law. who purpose, such as "contractors acknowledges ticular majority “[t]he 4. While the building codes.” It is difficult need to use global a code does make that enactment of distinguish this use and between enacting municipality and indeed to code law of the ” 'fact,' hence, sense, beyond peradventure that It is steadfastly that of Veeck. a it in one building posted codes on the inter- by be saved that Veeck’s use cannot maintains would, general public, a to the site as a service merger majority net doctrine. The however, include contractors class which harmless certain individuals hold par- home builders. quoting sections of the law for certain 416 I

legislature] primarily agree is obtained from the would with Veeck that once (citing Magnolia adopted, the statute” model language of SBCCI’s code becomes Walker, Petroleum Co. v. Tex. 88 concrete fact that is outside the realm of (Tex.1935))). 102(b) impor- copyrightable S.W.2d works under section Feist, precise examining language Copyright tance of of of the Act. See 499 U.S. 356, 111 glean meaning (explaining a statute in order to its at S.Ct. at 1293 102(b) concrete, “universally demonstrates the inflexible na- section is to understood facts”). prohibit it language any copyright ture of a statute’s once is This concept ap- into law. The same same enacted consideration convinces me that once plies regulation, by to an administrative such SBCCI’s code is into enacted reference attempt- as a code. An individual the “ideas” embodied the law ing creation, gain merge to access code of with original SBCCI’s only Savoy, causing Anna or Texas has one the model code to lose its choice—it view the enacted right protection. must version of This is a SBCCI’s model code. case where spends SBCCI thousands of hours de- the merger especially appropri- doctrine is veloping providing a valuable ate expressing because other methods of governments service to to choose the idea are Testing foreclosed. See Educ. adopt the model codes as their own. The (3d Katzman, Servs. v. 793 F.2d majority arguments has embraced the set Cir.1986) (citing Apple Computer, Inc. v. forth SBCCI that its economic future Computer Corp., Franklin citizens, compromised will be if such as (3d Cir.1983)). An wishing individual Veeck, post copies are able to of copy- publish develop to the text of a law cannot righted codes argu- on the internet. This own, his unique publish version and still an ment merit. points lacks As SBCCI itself copy. authoritative out, private already permitted citizens Moreover, copy it is antithetical to our na- to municipali- SBCCI’s code from the concept public participation such, tion’s ty City for a at Hall. As citizens are able private entity monopolize having buy to avoid SBCCI’s codes laws. generally Kepner-Tregoe, See organizations by from the viewing copy F.3d at 533 (justifying merger doctrine government at a local library. office or It on the given basis no one should be illogical is argue SBCCI to that its via- idea). monopoly an Congress bility over could private is threatened if a individual not have intended for a organiza- copy is able to the law to share with tion to given be the exclusive just others because these others could ability control others’ easily and distrib- access the information from the lo- ute an enacted law. Even government the towns them- cal arousing without apparently keep selves portions protestation. relevant The minute burden that the SBCCI code as the might official version. standards-writing organi- befall the zations because of the actions of Veeck I am not applying merg- dissuaded from and others like him outweighed by er this case the Second Circuit’s benefit of Veeck’s act of enhancing unfet- opinion in CCC Services. Information tered access to the law. discuss, detail, That court did with the issue of whether a copyrighted discussion, work Based on foregoing I would merge underlying with its idea when would hold that once a “model code” is Instead, enacted into law. the court was into law government, concerned with SBCCI, whether the ideas entity, ex- such as no pressed compilation in a longer of informational assert a over the law’s content, matter were entitled to copyright protec- for the law enters the do- Here, contrast, tion. our focus is on the main readily and should be available for adoption copyrighted Further, work into upon law. access all citizens. en- actment, into an “idea” law transforms from its longer distinguishable

that is no codes to lose causing SBCCI’s

expression, For these rea- copyright protection.

their

sons, judgment of the I would reverse the court.

district majori- from the respectfully

I dissent contrary conclusion.

ty’s Individually PATTERSON, & as

Ozan Representative on be

Rule 23 Class similarly in situated

half of all other

dividuals; Ballenger, Individual John Representative

ly & as Rule 23 Class similarly of all other situat

on behalf individuals, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

ed CORPORATION; Forum

MOBIL OIL Co.; Corp.; Glenda

Insurance Mobil

Matouse, Individually Agent for & Corporation; Robert Gron

Mobil Oil Individually Agent

waldt, for & as Corporation; National

Mobil Un Oil Company Pitts Fire Insurance

ion Co.;

burgh, PA; National Ins. AIG Inc.; Management, Ameri

AIG Risk Incorporat Group International

can

ed; American Home Assurance Com Company

pany; Insurance Pennsylvania, Defendants-

State

Appellants.

No. 00-40086. R. (argued), Larry Craig Smyser R. Veselka, M. Waggoner, M. Asim Justin Appeals, States Court of United Veselka, Bhansali, Kaplan & Smyser, Fifth Circuit. Jr., TX, Adams, Houston, Law Gilbert T. 5, 2001. Feb. Beaumont, Adams, T. Offices of Gilbert

TX, Plaintiffs-Appellees. Edward Thomas (argued),

David J. Beck Secrest, Ganucheau, Beck, Redden & Heartfield, Houston, TX, Thaddeus Jude McGinnis, Beaumont, TX, & Heartfield Simon, Howrey, Arnold Wegener, Mark D.

Case Details

Case Name: Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International Inc.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Feb 2, 2001

Citation: 241 F.3d 398

Docket Number: 99-40632

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.