• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

UpCodes is being sued by ICC

I was wondering who upcodes were?

Anyway if in violation

If they did the crime.

They must do the time.
 
If they Bros get away with it, why would we need to order $1,500.00 of related code books. I think the ICC is in their right to protect the "Family Business", I'd go to mattress!

These young-ins want it easy, take something that a group worked hard on for several years and sit in their PJ's with a laptop and profit off it?

IMHO , the Bros should be sued for copyright theft. If the ICC looses, why buy code books, CD's or prescriptions? How will the ICC manage the next code cycle, where does the funds come from?

Is this similar to the big newspapers losing paper readers and having to provide internet content? Doesn't the ICC have the same rights? If a reporter writes a story, can you take it and put it on your website and sell it as yours, I don't think so..

Very...very .. interesting, and why would this need to be heard by the supreme court? Isn't It just theft?
 
I guess three bad things

ICC put all thier base codes online for anyone to see

Some cities have it in thier web sites to see

Our city and maybe state require a copy avaiable for anyone to see and can copy sections and maybe the whole book
 
Our state and city ordinance requires a copy for anyone to access at City Hall. Was not sure you could put it on line due to Copyright issues. NFPA is also on line with some hoops, think you have to sign up?

Does Upcodes have NFPA codes?

I never heard of Upcodes until this thread
 
Codes are law. Should law be copyrighted?

Man, that's an ugly fuzzy line.
I thought this was settled in the US. You have to provide free access. I thought ICC already does this. I know NFPA does.

Ultimately, whether you agree with the sharing aspect or not, ICC has a copyright on the codes. It is required to protect this copyright or it risks loosing it.
 
If UpCodes was a search and read only not an issue but because you can cut and paste into other documents then I can see ICC and other code and standard publishers concerns.
Codes are law when adopted and we always had to provide access to them when required. In the old print only days we had a copy and provided a copy to the public library which considered them reference books along with all the other law books they had that you could read or copy a few pages but never check out of the library.
In today's digital internet world we provide the link to ICC and IAPMO to see and read the codes we have adopted

I just checked them out and they include our state amendments right in the ICC code sections. It is a powerful website. I think they should work together and ICC and other publishers that sign get a royalty per subscriber. Problem solved
https://up.codes/building-codes-online

Our IAPMO plumbing code with amendments is not included neither is the IFC
 
I'm sorry, that's not right charging a fee for something they shoplifted off an organization of many.

As far as supplying code books to the local library, that's where the contractors go to shoplift the code books. Once went to the library to give the library girls the lasted adopted code books. Went to see the section where the books are store :eek: and the only code book left was the IMC. Guess the mechanical guys aren't that cleaver or they have some morals, not sure which.:confused:
 
Everybody knows my opinion I think, but here it is again:

ICC has a copyright on their codes, all the way up until the time I adopt it as law (and by I, I mean any state, city, county, etc). Once it is a law, it cannot be protected and must be accessible by/to anybody.

Think of the ADA: what if Congress had put a copyright on it when they passed it, and forbid any copying/pasting/printing/etc of the rules associated with it? Would that be right/legal? If you answer no, then you can't also argue that ICC is in the right on this.
 
around we go again
The Commish is right, we went through this about 2000, the 5th circuit (Texas, Louisianan, Mississippi) ruled that once adopted into law the codes were free to all, two other Circuits ruled that publication was a copyright violation, it went by appeal to the Supreme Court and they, unbelievably, refused to hear the case, one of the few areas that the Supremes always take are conflicts between the Circuits, so as it stands they are legal within the 5th Circuit, illegal within some other Circuits, and in about half the country the issue is undecided, just shows you how important the Supreme court thinks our codes are.
 
Good to hear from you conarb, thought you were on vacation or a Pelosi fund raiser event?;)

Do you think UpCodes has any liability?
 
Good to hear from you conarb, thought you were on vacation or a Pelosi fund raiser event?;)

Do you think UpCodes has any liability?


Oh Nancy, elected by San Francisco voters, I guess those lying on the streets. Yes this will be litigated again, maybe this time the Supreme Court will hear the case and determine it once and for all.
 
The legal precedent is that you cannot copyright the law. So once a jurisdiction or state adopts a model code the content of the adopted building code which incorporates the model code has no copyright.

The publishers of the model code still has a copyright on the model code but not on the same content when it is incorporated in a properly adopted building code. Note that an adopted building code is a law.

It could be argued that when the state or local jurisdiction adopts a model code without permission from the original publisher that this is a taking and in accordance with the 10th amendment of the US constitution must be compensated. How the cost should be apportioned to the many jurisdictions adopting building codes is a messy situation that needs to be sorted out but it does not change the fact that the model code content that is incorporated into a properly adopted building code does not have a copyright. Any other interpretation is an affront to our Constitution and the rule of law.

This means that while ICC can argue that it needs to be recompensed for its costs they will no longer be able to make a profit on the sale of building codes.

ICC is using the threat of litigation to promote the concept that they can copyright the adopted laws that incorporate the content they created. ICC is acting as a bully. ICC is fighting a loosing battle by intimidating individuals who are only exercising their rights.

There is a little hypocrisy on the part of ICC in that they claim a copyright on the content of their model codes when most of the content is produced by other organizations and individuals who must give up their copyright in order for the content to be included in the model code. Is ICC just a profit maximizing company claiming to be a non-profit?

This is not the end of the world but it does mean that the economics of ICC will change and as a result the organization will change.

It also needs to be appreciated that much of the content of the model codes is not developed with the intent of making a profit. Just look at the steel standards produced by AISC which they make available for free in PDF format on their web site.

Also note that ICC's membership dues are on the low side when compared to other professional and trade organizations. It is suggested that ICC keeps dues low so that many building officials will join giving ICC the appearance of legitimacy so they can make larger profits by selling the model codes to individuals who must comply with the adopted building codes.

Are you in favor of being able to exercise your constitutional rights or are you in favor of a corporation having a monopoly over our laws?
 
There is a little hypocrisy on the part of ICC in that they claim a copyright on the content of their model codes when most of the content is produced by other organizations and individuals who must give up their copyright in order for the content to be included in the model code. Is ICC just a profit maximizing company claiming to be a non-profit?

Well, duh.




:D
 
Every non-profit has to make money or rely on donations to keep the doors open and operate.
If ICC or any other code or standard publisher operating exceed their revenue then they will go bankrupt.
I agree all laws should be as easily accessible as technology can make it. However the building codes are not written by government elected officials or employees who are paid to write laws. I can see both sides of the issues.
 
Every non-profit has to make money or rely on donations to keep the doors open and operate.
If ICC or any other code or standard publisher operating exceed their revenue then they will go bankrupt.
I agree all laws should be as easily accessible as technology can make it. However the building codes are not written by government elected officials or employees who are paid to write laws. I can see both sides of the issues.
Don't let the term non-profit influence you, no organization is more profitable than a non-profit because they don't have to pay taxes, all monies that would normally go to taxable profit can be retained within the corporation as retained earnings, a non-profit does have to pay reasonable taxable salaries to their employees and officers, but they can push the envelope on overhead expenses like fancy rents (like the ICC) or in many corporate jets, limos, etc. The IRS does have tough rules that have to be followed religiously, but only 7% of those retained assets has to be donated to charity on a yearly basis, and 7% is one Hell of a lot less than income taxes. The Clinton Foundation has broken every rule in the book as far as I can see and I've been waiting to see them prosecuted to see how far a non-profit can stretch the IRS regulations. I looked into it several years ago because here we have to pay either enormous affordable housing fees to the AHJ along with the permit, or build affordable housing along with what we set out to build, in one case I paid a $67,000 affordable housing fee for a million dollar room addition. One affordable housing builder I know has 7 differing non-profit corporations, the president pays himself a $100,000 a year salary out of each non-profit, so he does pay personal income taxes on $700,000 a year but his non-profits pay nothing,
 
Every non-profit has to make money or rely on donations to keep the doors open and operate.
If ICC or any other code or standard publisher operating exceed their revenue then they will go bankrupt.
I agree all laws should be as easily accessible as technology can make it. However the building codes are not written by government elected officials or employees who are paid to write laws. I can see both sides of the issues.

Not to just be argumentative, but: very few Congressmen/Senators have ever written a bill that later becomes law by themselves, either. So, say their staffer writes a bill - should that staffer copyright the language in that bill before it is passed and becomes a law, and then be able to charge a fee for anyone to access it once it's codified? Or; I write a few ordinances/zoning clauses/etc for the City I work for. They're approved by the bosses, the attorney, and then get voted on by our Council. Can I copyright those ord's/clauses, and then charge the City and/or the residents to read/copy/paste them?

Same thing.....
 
There are approximately 50 non-profit referenced standard groups in the IBC alone. I will bet many of them are not as financially sound as ICC or NFPA or UL or have other significant means of income to rely upon. These referenced standards are just as much a part of the code as the ICC code yet they are not all available online Free.
Depending on the outcome of this case especially if it reaches the Supreme Court can drastically change the way codes are created. Courts base their decisions on law. I believe it is in everyone's best interest to work this out with out the courts being involved.
I can see this as a win win for this company if they paid the various code and standard writing organizations a monthly royalty/fee since they are charging to use their site. This company could grow to be "Google" search engine for all codes
and standards around the world if the would partner up instead of the way they got started and are currently operating.
 
Much of the discussion is about what should be. The reality is that it is established that you cannot copyright the laws. Should we change the laws of the country so that ICC can continue to make a hefty profit.

I am a member of a professional organization that while it does not write any standards spends considerable resources in trying to influence the building codes. In addition the members of the organization donate considerable time in support of these efforts.

The reality is that standards will not go away if it is universally recognized that building codes do not have a copyright. The motivation to create and maintain building standards is not about the income from copyrights but rather is driven by the desire to influence the use of particular materials and products. This is clearly the motivation for the steel standards developed and maintained by AISC.

One option would be for the adopting agency to pay a licensing fee when they adopt a standard. The jurisdiction could then add a charge to all building permits. The problem will be that many organizations that have been developing standards and allowing them to be freely used will be tempted to ask reimbursement of costs that they have preciously absorbed.

If ICC were to raise the dues of jurisdictions then they would not be dependent on the income from selling copies of the standards. Remember if ICC did not publish the IBC the jurisdiction would spend considerably more money in developing a local building code.
 
Top