You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
" "[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."
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
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."
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: