Finally, the Court is not persuaded that ICC’s need for economic incentives can outweigh the due process concerns at issue here, especially knowing that ICC will not stop producing its model codes in the event of a contrary holding. (See ICC Reply 11–12.) Even after considering similar incentives arguments from ICC’s predecessors, both the Veeck and BOCA courts strongly suggested that the SDOs could not enforce their copyrights to prevent copying of the model codes as enacted as a matter of law. As noted above, the extensive and comprehensive regulatory nature of the I-Codes heavily implicates the due process concern that the public must know of legally binding obligations that may subject its members to significant administrative or criminal sanctions.
The Court thus concludes that if Defendants are liable for copyright infringement, it will not be for accurate copying of the I-Codes as Adopted. ICC’s development of such thorough regulatory codes is useful and beneficial to the public. But the codes set forth broad and comprehensive regulatory frameworks that may subject members of the public to adverse action upon substantial adoption into law
Savoy, and the codes it adopts appear to apply to its citizens with all the legal force as did those of Anna and Savoy.
54
