See SBCCI vs Veeck. Here, first link I could find: http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/Veek_vs_Southern_Bldg_Code.htm http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/Veek_vs_Southern

See SBCCI vs Veeck. Here, first link I could find: http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/Veek_vs_Southern_Bldg_Code.htm http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/Veek_vs_Southern_Bldg_Code.ht... >Today the majority concludes that the presumed benefits generated through the creation of "model codes" require that it strike the balance in favor of permitting the model code creator to continue to enforce its copyright, even after such a code has been adopted into law. In my view, once a "model code" is adopted into law by the government, a private entity, such as SBCCI, may no longer obstruct publication and transmission of the law by an uncompensated transferor. Adoption of the model code as law serves to place the law in the public domain and it should, therefore, be readily available for access by all citizens. The access should not be limited to a non-public commercial establishment. Similarly, upon enactment, the law transforms into an "idea" that is no longer distinguishable from its expression, causing SBCCI's codes to lose their copyright protection. It is my belief that reversal of the district court judgment is appropriate. I respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority. edit: later noticed btilly's link to SBCCI vs Veeck http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5214449 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5214449 at http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/293_F3d_791.htm http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/293_F3d_791.htm