conception. At least in the Second Circuit, courts need not ignore changes that transpire between a work’s initial creation and its alleged infringement, particularly because the manner in which people use or rely on that work may fundamentally change in the interval.
While not expressing binding Second Circuit precedent, the most analogous case is yet again Veeck. The Veeck court declared that the enacted building codes of Anna and Savoy were “facts” for the purpose of copyright law, and that they were “the unique, unalterable expression of the ‘idea’ that constitutes local law.” 293 F.3d at 801. Though the model codes themselves could have been drafted in many ways, after Anna and Savoy adopted those codes in full, “Veeck could not express the enacted law in any other way.” Id. at 802. Echoing its conclusions that the codes at issue were in the public domain, the Veeck court stated that “in continuing to write and publish model building codes, SBCCI is creating copyrightable works of authorship. When those codes are enacted into law, however, they become to that extent ‘the law’ of the governmental entities and may be reproduced or distributed as ‘the law’ of those jurisdictions.” Id.
67
