Page:National Fire Protection Association v. UpCodes (2021).pdf/11

 did not offer a competing substitute for the original.”, 804 F.3d at 221.

The Court again finds instructive. The court there first noted that in, the D.C. Circuit stated that where a defendant “limits its copying to only what is required to fairly describe the standard’s legal import, this factor would weigh strongly in favor of finding fair use here, especially given that precision is ten-tenths of the law.” 896 F.3d at 452. The court therefore found the accurate copying of I-Codes was fair use. 2020 WL 2750636, at *27.

But the reproduction of the I-Codes Redlines did not favor a finding of fair use because “copying would obviously be excessive if posting the I-Code Redlines is not transformative, or Defendants may have been able to achieve their transformative goals with less than complete reproduction of unadopted model code text.” The court also noted the third factor, as with the second factor, did not carry dispositive weight. The same reasoning applies here, and the Court further notes that the vast majority of what UpCodes has reproduced is the text that has been incorporated by reference into law. On the whole, this factor therefore weights in favor of fair use.
 * 4. Effect on the Potential Market

The fourth fair use factor – “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work,” 17 U.S.C. § 107(4) – “requires courts to consider not only the extent of market harm caused by the particular actions of the alleged infringer, but also ‘whether unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by the defendant … would result in a substantially adverse impact on the potential market’ for the original.”, 510 U.S. at 590 (alteration in original) (quoting 3 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, § 13.05[A][4], at 13-102.61 (1993)).

In evaluating this factor, the court “must take account not only of harm to the original but also of harm to the market for derivative works.”, 471 U.S. at 568. “The Factor Four analysis is concerned with only one type of economic injury to a copyright holder: