codes that has been adopted enters the public domain, though SDOs may still sue for infringement if a defendant copies their model codes as model codes or indiscriminately mingles the enacted portions of the model codes with portions not so enacted.
- a. ICC’s Motion
Under the standard articulated above, ICC cannot successfully sue for copyright infringement based only on accurate copying of the I-Codes as Adopted. As to the first of the five enumerated considerations above, there can be no genuine dispute that ICC intends and encourages the adoption of its model codes into law; even if adoption into law is not the sole reason ICC produces the I-Codes, it is clearly one of the most significant reasons, if not the most significant reason, that ICC does so. (See, e.g., Defs. Resp. ¶ 25; Gratz Opp. Decl. Ex. 19 at 123:11–15; id. Ex. 24 at 90:13–18; id. Ex. 12 at 68:18–23, 107:13–16.) In particular, the very first exhibit attached in support of ICC’s Motion emphasizes ICC’s intent that the I-Codes serve to lessen the burdens of government through adoption of the codes into binding regulations. (See Johnson Decl. Ex. 1 at ICC00082961, -2970.) That ICC prefaces its model codes with sample legislation and ordinances for their adoption into
50
