Public laws not a part of public domain

[Argyle]

What is the name of your state? Washington
In my State and County the Universal Building Codes are adopted by reference. They are not published with the rest of the codes. You can not search them as with the rest of the codes. The reference is to copyrighted material. Aren't Public laws a part of the public domain that can be freely copied and disseminated?

 

[racer72]

Building codes are not laws. I can obtain all the building codes along with state and local revisions at my nearest public library. They do charge 10 cents a page to make copies though but the information is free.

 

[Argyle]

The definition of the word code is 'A systematically arranged and comprehensive collection of laws.' The laws of my state are the Revised Code of Washington. The laws of my county are the Kitsap County Code. Both have adopted the Uniform building code by reference making them law. My question is if you adopt copyrighted material and make it in to law does it now become a part of the public domain that can be copied and reprinted in it's entirety?

 

[Veronica01]

The publisher of a book “Code” owns the copyright of his publication. You cannot reproduce it in the format in which it is printed. You could go to a public library and get the text of the laws of your state assembled in a the format of the government printing office, copy those, sell the copies, print them in a format different than the format used by the other publisher. The copyright is on the printing format, not on the content. You could, if you wish, get a published Code, regardless of who is the publisher, retype it and print it in a format of your like. However, if the publication is annotated by the publisher, you cannot reproduce the annotated material.

 

[Argyle]

This book 'Code' was not written by a legislature or county council. It was written by a private entity and it's content is also copyrighted. Goverments do not reprint this part of their code, they only refer to the original publication. Aren't public laws a part of the public domain and shouldn't I be able to reprint them in their entirety? Do you see the dilemma?

 

[Veronica01]

Check a public library, or the Legislature archives.

 

[Argyle]

With all due respect Veronica01, there are many copyrighted books available in my library, you are missing the legal paradox I present. Much like a goverment can claim eminent domain over land (private property) for a freeway, haven't they in essence declared eminent domain over copyrighted material (intellectual property) by making it law? Thus, making it a part of the public domain. Shouldn't I be able to reprint this section of 'code' (Public law) in it's entirety?

 

[racer72]

Copyrighted material cannot be made part of the public domain until the copyright has expired. In the US, that is 75 years. The state does not own the copyrighted material, therefore it cannot be made part of the public domain. There is a huge difference between states rights as they apply to public and private property and copyrighted property. Copyrights laws are maintained at the federal level and these laws give the copyright owner specific rights, one is that no government entity can take this information without compensation. When state and local government adopt copyrighted building codes, they are paying for this information but the copyright holder still owns it. Federal and state condemnation laws do apply to private property for the good of the people, these laws do not apply to copyrighted and published material.

 

[Argyle]

I understand what you say. State law (adoption) cannot superceed a federal law (copyright). There are no laws of eminent domain concerning intellectual property in my state, but I would suggest that the result of 'adoption' is a declaration. I do not see how monies were paid for this information and compensation for such is not a part of my questions here. Obviously I am not an attorney. I am only applying common sense to something I think is wrong. For the sake of debate let me take things to an extreme. Hypothetically, A copyright holder of 'code' could issue a new edition get it 'adopted' and make it only available via mail order (or whatever) from them. Thus, any citizen wanting to see the code which they are bound to obey, would have to pay them whatever price asked. This is not public law but private law. Shouldn't a citizen of a free State (under the broad definition i.e. Federal State) have the right to free access to the laws by which they are governed? Including the right to distribute these laws in part or whole to their neighbors who are governed by the same? In essence, adoption of copyrighted material into law, has given one individual or company the exclusive right to decide how a public law is dessiminated, if at all. Which right would you think is paramount, Federal copyright laws or a Federal citizens right to free unrestricted access to the laws by which they are governed?