The Veeck Case: Why the codes are free to copy

Due to the courage and effort of one person, a court decision has been achieved that verifies that anyone has the right to make copies of the law, even if it is copyrighted. This would apply to many building codes and documents included into them by reference. Although the full effects of this have yet to be settled, I consider this a significant step towards freedom.

Background

Prior to the unification of the building code organizations in the United States, the Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI), a private organization, published the Southern Building Code, which was commonly used in the Southern United States. This model code was commonly adopted into law by governmental jurisdictions. The Texas towns of Anna and Savoy adopted the codes.

In 1997 Peter Veeck acquired the codes in electronic form and placed them on his web site, correctly stating that they were the law in these cities. He was subsequently requested by SBCCI to remove the codes from his site. Veeck filed a declaratory judgment action in Federal court, asking the court to affirm that it is legal to freely copy the law. As there were no facts in dispute, only the interpretation of the law, both parties moved for a summary judgment. The district court ruled in favor of SBCCI.

Veeck filed to have the case heard by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. It was heard by a three judge panel, who ruled in favor of SBCCI (one judge dissented). Realizing the importance of the case, the entire Circuit met en banc to review the case. Many parties filed amicus briefs. The ruling was 9-6 in favor of Veeck, with two judges authoring dissenting opinions.

SBCCI then filed to have the U.S. Supreme Court hear the case. The Court declined to hear it, and the Solicitor General explained why:

"This brief is submitted in response to the order of this Court inviting the Solicitor General to express the views of the United States. The court of appeals reached the correct result in this case, and its decision does not conflict with other decisions addressing significantly different uses of copyrighted material by the government."

"There Is No Conflict In The Circuits"

"The Fifth Circuit understood that Banks stands for a general "understanding that 'the law,' whether articulated in judicial opinions or legislative acts or ordinances, is in the public domain and thus not amenable to copyright.""

"SBCCI contends that the court of appeals' decision is inconsistent with federal statutes and regulations. That contention is wrong."

"Further Development Of This Area Of The Law By The Lower Courts Will Likely Clarify The Effect On Standards Organizations"

Outcome

I commend Mr. Veeck for taking this step to protect our liberties. A society which requires us to obey laws which we are not allowed access to is reminiscent of Kafka. I would not choose to live in such a society. In a scenario reminiscent of Rosa Parks, Veeck, on his own initiative, apparently seeking only to prove a point, using his own finances, took on the giants of government and industry and won a decision which benefits us all.

The current situation, however, is intolerable. A circuit court ruling only applies in the circuit's territory. Here in California, we are in a state of limbo, as even though the Supreme Court has declined to overturn the case, our 9th Circuit may or may not follow this decision. Anyone distributing these codes will likely face harassment by their authors.

I do not see how Federal law can be different in different parts of the country, but that is the situation we are in. The best solution would be to redefine the justice system so that rulings are implemented nationwide and we do not have this dilemma. Lacking this, we need to get this precedent established in all judicial districts. I agree with ANSI's stance that this needs to get settled now.

Another issue is the status of standards referenced by the codes. The building code incorporates, by reference, documents produced by various industry and other groups, which are also copyrighted. The code is incomplete without them, and they also hold the force of law. We also need affirmation that these documents are also free to access and copy.