LawMeme LawMeme Yale Law School  
LawMeme
Search LawMeme [ Advanced Search ]
 
 
 
 
Can You Post Online the Text of Model Codes?
Posted by Steven Wu on Monday, December 02 @ 20:50:03 EST Copyright
As posted on SCOTUSBlog, the Supreme Court has asked the Solicitor General to submit briefs on Southern Building Code v. Veeck. SCOTUSBlog's brief summary of the case: "In Veeck, the Court will review a decision of the Fifth Circuit, en banc, that a website operator did not violate copyright laws by posting verbatim the text of model building codes." The three-judge Fifth Circuit decision is available here. Thanks to an anonymous commenter, the en banc panel's decision is here.

Read more inside for a brief summary of the facts of the case, as well as some thoughts.

The Facts

Southern Building Code Congress International Inc. (SBCCI) is a nonprofit organization that develops model building codes. SBCCI allows local governments to enact these model codes into law without a fee. Once a model code is ineacted into law, a copy of the code is made available for public inspection in the appropriate government's offices. SBCCI also makes its model codes available for sale.

Veeck operates a nonprofit web site that includes the text of local building codes. He tried to get model codes for several towns in Texas, but, failing to find complete versions of any of these building codes, ordered some copies from SBCCI. He then posted the SBCCI's codes online, labeling them as building codes from the appropriate towns.

Three-Judge Panel's Discussion

The Fifth Circuit straightforwardly admits that "[i]n the instant case . . . a policy judgment is indispensable to our balancing of the public interests in, on the one hand, encouraging innovation through copyright and, on the other hand, ensuring free access to the law" (emphasis added).

The public interest that is served by enforcing the copyright: "if code writing groups like SBCCI lose their incentives to craft and update model codes and thus cease to publish, the foreseeable outcome is that state and local governments would have to fill the void directly, resulting in increased governmental costs as well as loss of the consistency and quality to which standard codes aspire."

As to the free-access argument, the Fifth Circuit concludes that public access is sufficiently free: the codes are available for viewing in public offices, they can be photocopied there, or they can be ordered online (for $72). They are also, in some cases, available in public libraries.

(An interesting argument about merger that I won't reproduce.)

As for the argument that Veeck's online posting constitutes fair use, the Fifth Circuit says, "[T]hough the use to which Veeck put SBCCI's works is not harmful per se, it could severely undermine the market for those works if such use were to become widespread. . . . Veeck's posting of the codes on the Internet could prove harmful by reducing SBCCI's market and depriving it of income used in its socially valuable effort of confecting, promulgating, and revising model codes." This is not just idle speculation: the Fifth Circuit points to the district court's finding that "some meaningful likelihood of future harm exists."

En Banc Panel's Discussion

The en banc panel reversed the three-judge panel's ruling.

By long-standing precedent, "The law [including judicial decisions and legislative acts] . . . is in the public domain and thus not amenable to copyright."

The court rejects SBCCI's claim that judges are not "authors" of their decisions because judges are paid by the public, and hence have no need for the incentives of copyright law. (Had SBCCI prevailed in this claim, they would have argued that their [SBCCI's] relationship to their work is different from the relationship between judges and their work, since SBCCI requires copyright law for incentives.) Instead, the court argues, the reason judicial decisions are not amenable to copyright is that judicial decisions constitute "the law," and the law should be free for publication to all.

The court also rejects the argument that there is adequate public access to the law in this case to override the need to leave such works un-copyrighted. The law is passed by public bodies, with public input (often from private actors); as such, the public owns the law. This principle implies that the law is in the public domain "for whatever use the citizens choose to make of it." There is no such thing as "minimum public availability" of laws. The court explicitly rejects an utilitarian balance between the good of public access and the good of proprietary ownership of model codes.

After addressing several other issues, the en banc panel concludes that the model code is not copyrighted to the extent that it is adopted wholesale into legislation (in contrast to extrinsic standards or model codes that are only referred to in legislation). All the provisions of the model code not so incorporated are, of course, still copyrighted.

Questions about the Three-Judge Panel

One salient fact that immediately jumped out at me was that Veeck bought the model code from SBCCI and then posted that code onto the Internet. Would this case have come out differently if Veeck had simply posted the building codes of his Texas towns, perhaps not knowing that the material in them was copyrighted by SBCCI? The Fifth Circuit makes some noise about this in rebutting Veeck's argument that enforcing SBCCI's copyright violates free speech: "Veeck's Free Speech defense is further weakened by the fact that he did not first obtain copies of the codes of these two cities and then publish them on the Internet. Instead, Veeck purchased directly from SBCCI a copy of its 1994 Standard Codes, which arrived bearing a copyright notice and a license agreement. He nevertheless copied that set onto his computer and he posted it on the web, identifying it as containing the municipal codes of the two towns. These two possible courses of action are inherently different: The former is more akin to a citizen's fair use of his local building code; the latter comprehends a purchaser who assumes the risk of actively disregarding the intellectual property rights held and announced by the supplier of a commercial product." (The en banc panel wouldn't seem to care--so long as the code that is posted online in fact is present in the actual law, it doesn't matter whether Veeck pulled the text from the SBCCI or from city hall.)

The ALI's Restatements and the UCC are undoubtedly copyrighted--if they weren't, I'm sure free copies would be available at every law school in the country. But a brief glance at the history of the ALI doesn't seem to suggest that these founding fathers would have refrained from restating the law (or proposing model commercial codes) if they couldn't profit from their work. Now obviously this may not be true of SBCCI--but if it were true of the ALI, and somebody wanted to post all the Restatements online, would the Fifth Circuit decide that case differently from this one? (The en banc panel addresses just this concern under "IV. Policy Arguments". Quoting from Goldstein's treatise on copyright, the court notes, "it is difficult to imagine an area of creative endeavor in which the copyright incentive is needed less. Trade organizations have powerful reasons stemming from industry standardization, quality control, and self-regulation to produce these model codes; it is unlikely that, without copyright, they will cease producing them.")

I wonder how much of the three-panel decision would have been different if the judges had been heavy Internet users. An implicit part of the judges' argument is that it just isn't so burdensome for a concerned citizen to get up from his sofa, drive down to city hall, and bother the clerk for a look at the city's codes. And part of what underlies this sentiment is that that's the way things have alway been done before the Internet came around. Now, though, we're dealing with kids (myself included) who would rather look up a word online than grab the dictionary on my bookshelf, or look up a fact on Google rather than trek to the living room for the Encyclopedia Britannica. I wonder if the standards for what constitutes an impermissible burden will change as the level of permissible minimum convenience changes. (This of course becomes irrelevant in the en banc panel's decision, which rejects any utilitarian balancing.)

Anyway I may be completely off here--your thoughts are welcome.

(Note: These questions were based on the three-judge panel, and I've tried putting in some parentheticals after my quick skim of the en banc panel's decision.)

 
Login
Nickname

Password

If you don't have an account yet, you can register here.
Related Links
· SCOTUSBlog
· available here
· here
· ALI
· the history of the ALI
· look up a word online
· Google
· More about Copyright
· News by Steven Wu


Most read story about Copyright:
Top Ten New Copyright Crimes

Options

Printer Friendly Page  Printer Friendly Page

Send to a Friend  Send to a Friend
"User Login" | Login/Create an Account | 7 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold
  
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

Re: Can You Post Online the Text of Model Codes? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Monday, December 02 @ 22:07:34 EST
The posted link is for the 3-judge panel. Here is the opinion [www.contracts.ogc.doc.gov] of the en banc panel.

It seems to me that if Veeck commited copyright infringement then the whole state legislature commited it. Since SBC didn't sue the legislature, I would argue they ought to have some get some a "sorry, too late". On the other hand, it does seem like a "taking" if a legislature can just pass a law to remove copyright protection for a work.

Judge Jones argues that "In performing their function, the lawmakers represent the public will, and the public are the final "authors" of the law." That may be true, but they only represent that portion of the public that they have jurisdiction over. It would seem that had the US Congress passed the codes, it would be a valid argument to say "the people" revoke copyright and place this work in the public domain. Congress could, of course, do this as an ordinary part of the Copyright Act. The Supremacy clause and the Copyright preemption clause both should not allow a state lawmaking body to remove copyright from a work.

If Veeck did commit copyright infringement, then I would argue that the law passing the codes must be struck down too for violating due process. Perhaps this is the best result, because it would permanently solve the problem: no legislature could simply copy a set of codes into the law. It seems a clear violation of due process of law to allow a law to remain in force that is copyrighted by a private individual.


[ Reply to This ]

That link is to the wrong decision (Score: 1)
by MurphysLaw on Monday, December 02 @ 22:29:56 EST
(User Info | Send a Message)
The decision linked above affirmed the District Court and ruled against Veeck. The 5th C then heard the case en bank and issued this decision [www.ca5.uscourts.gov] ruling for Veek.

Also the author above seems to imply that there was something wrong with Mr. Veeck taking his text from the SBCCI CD. This inference of wrongdoing was addressed by the 5th Circuit in a footnote appearing in the decision noted above.


To sum up this section, we hold that when Veeck copied only "the law" of Anna and Savoy, Texas, which he obtained from SBCCI's publication, and when he reprinted only "the law" of those municipalities, he did not infringe SBCCI's copyrights in its model building codes. The basic proposition was stated by Justice Harlan, writing for the Sixth Circuit: "any person desiring to publish the statutes of a state may use any copy of such statutes to be found in any printed book . . ." Howell v. Miller, 91 F. 129, 137 (6th Cir. 1898).


Should CDs have some special status not shared by "any printed book"?


[ Reply to This ]

Re: Can You Post Online the Text of Model Codes? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 03 @ 23:21:34 EST
I am Peter Veeck's attorney. As you may know, we oppose the application for supreme court
review because we think the 5th Circuit opinion is correct. Statistically, the grant of cert is
a strong indication that the court will reverse the lower court's decision (I understand that
it does that in 75% of the cases it reviews). However, its request for comment by the
Solicitor General is not entirely negative.

The SG's brief in Eldred cites the 5th Circuit's opinion for its position that courts correctly apply the "idea/expression" merger doctrine "generously" to protect 1st Am. speech and the SG will have to defend Compendium of Copyright Office Practices (Compendium II) section
206.01, which concludes that

"Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative
rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official
legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public
policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or
local as well as to those of foreign governments."



[ Reply to This ]

"User Login" | Login/Create an Account | 7 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold
  
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.


Leges humanae nascuntur, vivunt, moriuntur
Human laws are born, live, and die

Contributors retain copyright interests in all stories, comments and submissions.
Everything else copyright (c) 2002 by the Information Society Project.

This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions
set forth in the Open Publication License, v1.0 or later.
The latest version is currently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/.

You can syndicate our news with backend.php