codes with portions not adopted. As noted below in Section II.C.7.b., this happenstance may be the case as to erroneous intermingling of model code text with enacted text. Beyond those errors, though, analyzing whether Defendants have actually infringed the I-Codes requires consideration of the legal doctrines of merger and fair use.
- b. Defendants’ Motion
The preceding test largely tracks Defendants’ position, and they would be entitled to partial summary judgment if Current UpCodes actually posts only text of the law. ICC disputes this proposition through various arguments. One contention raised by ICC is that Defendants’ posting of the law is underinclusive, because they do not post other statutory provisions that might affect the enacted model code text. As an example, ICC notes that the building laws of South Holland, Illinois include many divisions besides the IBC 2012, but Defendants nevertheless identify the IBC 2012 as the Building Code of South Holland. (ICC SDF ¶ 1; ICC Supp SUMF ¶ 39; Wise Opp. Decl. Ex. U.) In a similar vein, ICC and Defendants dispute whether UpCodes should display definitional statutes that apply to the model codes adopted by Wyoming or integrate
56
