4 ms·
Although it's absurd, it's been claimed many times before. For example, municipalities incorporate model building codes as law, which publishers objected to be
by jbronn 14y ago
Although it's absurd, it's been claimed many times before. For example, municipalities incorporate model building codes as law, which publishers objected to being placed online. In 2002 this issue bubbled up to the 5th circuit which held that the laws were not subject to copyright protection. The case is Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress, 293 F.3d 791:
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/293/293.F3d.791.99-40632.html https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/293/293.F3d.791.99...
This is compelling precedent if the copyright dispute ever reaches the federal district court in DC.
- brudgers 14y agoI was thinking of Veek as I was reading the article. <IANAL> But my understanding is that model codes can by protected by copyright, but that once they are adopted as law, they cannot be. On the other hand, lack of public access is due to the particular option DC chose - Municode.com has been around for at least twelve years. We used it as the reference for city employees when I worked in city government. http://www.municode.com/Library http://www.municode.com/Library
- mapt 14y agoI would argue that if a "law" is not fully in the public domain, it is formally unconstitutionally vague. If the information within is legally a secret, something I cannot acquire without pursuing a commercial arrangement with a private party on a voluntary basis, then the courts cannot reasonably expect me to understand that information, and the legislature has failed to bind me to obey those rules in the eyes of the due process clause of the Constitution. I don't see it as requiring a special prohibition of "copyrighting laws", it stems directly from the fact that 'not public domain' is a variably mitigated example of 'secret'.