according its Takings Clause concerns particularly great weight. See infra Section II.C.7. A simple comparison of the number of ICC employees dedicated to code development and field staff dedicated to helping state and local governments understand and adopt model codes helps illustrate the point. (ICC SUMF ¶ 62; Defs. Resp. ¶ 62; Defs. SUMF ¶ 28, 31; ICC SDF ¶ 28, 31.) Even if ICC did not expect that its encouragement of government adoption would prevent it from enforcing its copyrights as to the I-Codes as Adopted, that legal consequence flows from the federal law of the public domain rather than from unjust action by the state or local jurisdictions. Far from coercing ICC to give up its copyrights, the jurisdictions are following ICC’s advice that the I-Codes would protect their citizens better than would the jurisdictions’ trying to draft complex technical codes from scratch.
That many jurisdictions sign licensing agreements respecting ICC’s copyrights does not compel a different result. ICC certainly retains its copyrights in its model codes as model codes, and the Court will not construe state or local adoption of the I-Codes to suggest otherwise. But the licensing agreements reflect little about the extent to which the referenced model codes have become part of laws
43
