that they might help educate members of the public regarding their legal obligations, the redlines are also arguably direct substitutes for ICC’s derivate works. Similarly, while the third factor need not weigh against Defendants if use of the I-Code Redlines is truly transformative, the significant copying of unadopted model code text tends to cut against a finding of fair use. Finally, the numerous factual disputes regarding how much Defendants’ copying harms ICC’s markets for the I-Codes and derivative works are both genuine and material in this context. While the Court could confidently conclude that copying of the I-Codes as Adopted is protected given the strong implications of public domain law, the same cannot be said of the I-Code Redlines. Again, the parties’ genuine dispute regarding whether copying of the I-Code Redlines was a fair use requires resolution in favor of the non-movant. The Court must consequently deny ICC’s Motion for this reason too.
F. Collateral Estoppel
Defendants finally argue that the doctrine of collateral estoppel should bar ICC’s suit and warrant a declaratory judgment in Defendants’ favor because the Veeck case is dispositive of Defendants’ claim. Because the
93
