do not enter the public domain to the extent embodied in the adopting laws. However, the Veeck court itself explained that there is no necessary contradiction when SBCCI made the same argument. Specifically addressing both CCC and PMIC, the court observed “[t]his case does not involve references to extrinsic standards. Instead, it concerns the wholesale adoption of a model code promoted by its author, SBCCI, precisely for use as legislation.” Veeck, 293 F.3d at 803–04. As the Veeck court put it, “[i]f a statute refers to the Red Book or to specific school books, the law requires citizens to consult or use a copyrighted work in the process of fulfilling their obligations. The copyrighted works do not ‘become law’ merely because a statute refers to them. … [N]either [plaintiff] solicited incorporation of their standards by legislators or regulators.” Id. at 804–05.[1]
- ↑ The Court notes the CCC court’s observation that “Nimmer argues that the adoption of a private work into law … should not immunize a competitive commercial publisher from liability since this would ‘prove destructive of the copyright interest in encouraging creativity in connection with the increasing trend toward state and federal adoptions of model codes.’” 44 F.3d at 74 n.30. The latest edition of Nimmer’s treatise does not actually adopt this position; it simply notes that “one might argue” the same and then adds that cases since BOCA have considered the matter more fully. See 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 5.12. Because Nimmer does not press the proposition cited in CCC as the better view, and because the CCC court was not actually faced with any model codes, the Court declines to infer that the CCC decision compels a holding contrary to Veeck and BOCA based on this footnote alone.
33
