because it “puts a heavy thumb on the scale in favor of an unrestrained ability to say what the law is. Thus, when an incorporated standard sets forth binding legal obligations, and when the defendant does no more and no less than disseminate an exact copy of it, three of the four relevant factors -- purpose and character of the use, nature of the copyrighted work, and amount and substantiality of the copying -- are said to weigh ‘heavily’ or ‘strongly’ in favor of fair use.” Id. at 458–59 (Katsas, J., concurring).
Here, the Court likewise concludes that if Defendants’ accurate posting of the I-Codes as Adopted was not already covered by the law of the public domain, it would be a fair use as a matter of law. The Court nevertheless addresses the I-Codes as Adopted in the following four-factor analysis in order to fully set forth the reasons for its conclusion. The Court also analyzes, not to be forgotten, the I-Code Redlines. Unlike its ruling relating to the I-Codes as Adopted, the Court does not hold that copying of the I-Code Redlines was a fair use as a matter of law. Nevertheless, because the parties raise genuine disputes of
76
