" "[T]he law," whether it has its source in judicial opinions or statutes, ordinances or regulations, is not subject to federal copyright law "
It cites:
From the Supreme Court: Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 668 (1834): "No reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by this Court." Says Veek: "Wheaton held unanimously that "the law" in the form of judicial opinions may not be copyrighted."
From the Supreme Court: Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244, 9 S.Ct. 36 (1888): "The whole work done by the judges constitutes the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen, is free for publication to all, whether it is a declaration of unwritten law, or an interpretation of a constitution or statute." Says Veek: "Given the state law foundation of Banks and its progeny, there is no reason to believe that state or local laws are copyrightable."
From the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: Nash v. Lathrop, 142 Mass. 29, 6 N.E. 559 (1886). Says Veek: "The court in Nash further observed that a legislature likewise could not deny public access to statutes."
Carl Malamud cites Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress in his responses to code takedowns:
https://law.resource.org/rfcs/icc.org.20131226.pdf
Here's the case:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/293_F3d_791.htm
" "[T]he law," whether it has its source in judicial opinions or statutes, ordinances or regulations, is not subject to federal copyright law "
It cites:
From the Supreme Court: Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 668 (1834): "No reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by this Court." Says Veek: "Wheaton held unanimously that "the law" in the form of judicial opinions may not be copyrighted."
From the Supreme Court: Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244, 9 S.Ct. 36 (1888): "The whole work done by the judges constitutes the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen, is free for publication to all, whether it is a declaration of unwritten law, or an interpretation of a constitution or statute." Says Veek: "Given the state law foundation of Banks and its progeny, there is no reason to believe that state or local laws are copyrightable."
From the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: Nash v. Lathrop, 142 Mass. 29, 6 N.E. 559 (1886). Says Veek: "The court in Nash further observed that a legislature likewise could not deny public access to statutes."