distribution of both the original and derivative works. 17 U.S.C.§ 106. The question before us is whether Peter Veeck infringed SBCCI's copyright on its model codes when he posted them only as what they became—building codes of Anna and Savoy, Texas—on his regional website. Put otherwise, does SBCCI retain the right wholly to exclude others from copying the model codes after and only to the extent to which they are adopted as "the law" of various jurisdictions? The answer to this narrow issue seems compelled by three sources: the Supreme Court's holding that "the law" is not copyrightable; alternatively, the Copyright Act's exclusion from its scope of "ideas" or "facts"; and the balance of caselaw.
I. The Supreme Court's View
Excluding "the law" from the purview of the copyright statutes dates back to this nation's earliest period. In 1834, the Supreme Court interpreted the first federal copyright laws and unanimously held that "no reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by this Court. . ." Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 668 (1834). of the Court's for The official his reporters Wheaton v. Peters 33.U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 668 (1834). The case arose when one asserting of the Court's official reporters was asserting copyright protection for his annotated compilations of Supreme Court opinions. The Court distinguished between reporter's individual work and the Justices' opinions. The Court's rejection of copyright for judicial opinions paralleled the principle—recognized by attorneys for both parties—that "[s]tatutes were
5
