model codes in full, including even their copyright pages. Defendants also oppose ICC’s Motion as to this copying, replying that they also identified jurisdictions that adopted the model codes by reference, such that the text of the model codes and the identified jurisdictions’ laws were substantially identical (excepting minor differences such as the copyright notices). (See Gratz Opp. Decl. Ex. 2.) Defendants argue that because the law constitutes either a fact or idea, their posting of the model codes under these circumstances is protected by the copyright doctrine of merger. The Court ultimately agrees with Defendants’ framing of the law, and ambiguities in the factual record again preclude summary judgment on ICC’s Motion. However, these ambiguities similarly prevent the Court from concluding that Defendants’ alleged copying of the I-Codes as model codes is fully protected by merger with the law.
Section 102(b)of 17 U.S.C. provides that “[i]n no case does copyright protection … extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.” Instead, only the expression of the idea or fact is protectable. See N.Y. Mercantile Exch., Inc. v.
61
