Other incentives solve.
Gellis 17 – Intellectual Property and Technology Attorney, J.D. from Boston University School of Law.
Catherine R. Gellis, “Brief of Amici Curiae Members of Congress in Support of Defendant-Appellant and For Reversal,” United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 09-25-2017, https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/regulations.gov.astm.appeal/1694498.pdf
Furthermore, Public Resource’s activity does not harm SDOs’ incentives to create standards. As the Fifth Circuit has said, “. . . it is difficult to imagine an area of creative endeavor in which the copyright incentive is needed less. Trade organizations have powerful reasons stemming from industry standardization, quality control, and self-regulation to produce these model codes; it is unlikely that, without copyright, they will cease producing them.”
Veeck, 293 F.3d at 806 (citing 1 PAUL GOLDSTEIN, GOLDSTEIN ON COPYRIGHT § 2.5.2, at 2:51); see also Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Sony Corp. of Am., 480 F. Supp. 429, 452 (C.D. Cal. 1979), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 659 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1981), rev'd, 464 U.S. 417, (1984) (finding, in a holding ultimately affirmed by the Supreme Court, that non-commercial copying of entire TV programs did not harm the copyright owner’s market because they “exploit their material in many [other] ways”). ASTM and other SDOs similarly benefit from creating industry standards and model codes. They continue to produce new standards, and they profit from training materials. Public Resource’s publication of standards incorporated by reference into law does not interfere with any of the above listed motivations. Thus the fourth factor weighs in favor of Public Resource.