Their attorneys must be laughing all the way to the bank

[ICE]

Gosh Glenn did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed that you share with ICC? Given that your online school is promoted by ICC, it is not a leap to question your alignment with the ICC in it's dispute with UpCodes.

You certainly had a strong reaction to the term "in bed with".... Perhaps sharing a website makes you cousins.

 

[Glenn]

ICE: I am responding so you can be aware that I have seen your absurd desperation. You should feel stronger now and more powerful. I'm happy to give that feeling to you. You are welcome to respond again with more demonstrations, but this is my last response.

 

[ICE]

I'm happy to give that feeling to you.

Thanks Glenn. It is nice to know that I can count on you.

 

[steveray]

I align mostly with Glenn....I have to say that I am disappointed that the CT amended codes are already "published" on upcodes and we can't get them through ICC, but I understand that legal process as well...If I am going to pay anyone, it will be ICC...At least until we see how much they are trying to cut us out of the process with the IECC....

 

[tmurray]

I think UpCodes founders knew exactly what they were exploiting for profit. This is my opinion and from this opinion I think it was an unethical business idea from the beginning. I therefore do not support that business. I have no judgement on those that do. I have always worked very hard to be respectful in my republishing of code sections in my educational products and keeping it well within "fair use" and always citing and promoting the complete source of the I-Codes, ICC.

Do I and and did I agree with how ICC has handled every aspect of their codes? That's a different subject and does not affect my above opinions.

As someone that puts my hard work and investment on the internet as copyrighted material, I know what its like when its stolen from you and I know how important it is for it not to be. Just because a government once took my work and published in in their handout, doesn't mean it now belongs to the public to resell. In the same way that a government adopting a code by reference doesn't make it available to the public to resell. I'm no lawyer. These are my ethics.

I think it is easy to separate what a company like yours does from a company from UpCodes does. If copyright applies to the work quoted in educational material, it certainly would be subject to fair use provided the added commentary about application and intent added materially to the reproduction. However, I do not feel that fair use would even apply in this case. ICC would need to demonstrate a functional copyright on the specific code sections reproduced and as I said earlier, they likely do have a copyright on the compilation of the code, but not individual sections.

their presumption must be driven home to their conscience - until they thoroughly understand at last that it is immoral to say 'what is right for one is proper for another.'

Friedrich Netzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

The world would be a boring place indeed if we all believed the same things and acted the same ways. We should celebrate these differences of opinions and seek to understand other people's positions so that we may understand each other and ultimately ourselves a little better. Reasonable people can have different opinions and continue being reasonable people.

 

[bill1952]

Read the disclosure you signed. I had to agree to sign over any copyright.

All submitters give up any rights to copyright when they submit their proposals.

Attached is what I agree to. Doesn't seem I've given away my rights to my words.

 

[code-fiend]

"when its stolen from you"

Respectfully, I disagree that the law can be stolen. I believe that to be in the same way that you can't "steal" the constitution or any other law which I must abide by as a citizen. That's the bottom line, at least how I see it.

"doesn't mean it now belongs to the public to resell"

I don't believe UpCode is selling the codes, although maybe I missed that part.

 

[tmurray]

The area of law related to reproducing codes and standards is all but settled law. The organizations that produce these documents have copyrights that have been recognized by the courts and while the courts did require the organizations to allow some free access to these documents that have been adopted by law, the courts have consistently prohibited third parties from reproducing these documents. Courts were relatively cautious in these decisions, lest they create a precedent where government officials can require free access to documents simply by referencing them in a law, they delineated these documents by recognizing that the organization's intention of these documents is to be regulatory standards and adopted by law. Thus they should be available for free to the general public. However, the courts did not indicate how the free access must be provided.

You don't need to be profiting from reproducing copyrighted works for it to be a violation of the copyright. Simply reproducing it would be enough.

In this specific case:
If the courts find that ICC has a copyright on the compilation of the code (likely as precedents on this are already set)

-AND-

If the courts find that the version of the code contained in UpCode's software is sufficiently similar to the original copyrighted works,

They would be found guilty of copyright violation. Just those two conditions need to be true. Nothing else really matters.

 

[Glenn]

where government officials can require free access to documents simply by referencing them in a law

This is the heart of what I was trying to say, but perhaps you've said it better.

ICC owns the I-Codes. A government "references" them via adoption as information they would like as local law. If anything, you can say it's that governments responsibility now to make their local law available. In the past, governments had to foot the bill to have codes or find someone else that would. I study history of codes, and the cost of creating and publishing codes has always been an issue. Codes used to sell advertising in the pages of the code. The NBFU funded codes early on.

As someone that regularly searches code adoptions and amendments from localities across the country, that's the real problem with access to local codes. Many adoptions and amendments are so incredibly difficult to find that builders are left to the mercy of the inspector and whatever they say. Sometimes when you find the document, the code amendments are buried in legal text that few of us can sift through.

If the governments are going to adopt and amend codes to regulate their communities, it's first and foremost their responsibility to make them available and useful to the community. If a government does not adopt codes for their community, codes are not their responsibility.

 

[tmurray]

Yes, the current issue is accessibility and it really shouldn't be. With the internet, it should be relatively simple to publish easy to access materials, but without anything mandating how something is to be published, local jurisdictions are left to decide what is best for them and all too often what they decide is best is what is easiest for them. Having a physical copy at the office that someone can come into the office and look at is far from accessible, but it is the easiest. So this is often what we are left with.

Sometimes I feel there is a significant lack of objective oriented thinking. Instead of what just barely meets the legal requirements, we should be thinking of what best serves our communities. We complain that contractors do not meet minimum code, but have we made codes accessible to them? When there are changes to the codes are we engaging with them to discuss what the implications are? What tools are we offering contractors to support code compliance?

I know there are many here who do these things, but we are outnumbered by the "not my job" people. But, the "job" is efficient code compliance. I don't see how it is better to keep running into the same code compliance issues over and over when most issues could be avoided in the first place with proactive education.

 

[bill1952]

we should be thinking of what best serves our communities.

Does the development of the best codes possible figure into this, or only easy access to the texts?

 

[tmurray]

Does the development of the best codes possible figure into this, or only easy access to the texts?

I think so and it is another large issue. Local officials codifying their preference rather than relying on science should not be permitted. Nor should officials be permitted to eliminate provisions simply because they disagree with them.

I do accept that officials should apply some discretion towards their interpretation of the code. For instance, in our code a landing can be omitted at the top of a flight of stairs in a dwelling unit if the door swings away from the flight. The intent statements say that the door swinging away functionally creates the landing when it is opened. Now what about pocket or barn doors? They don't swing away from the stairs, but when they are opened, the same level of safety is provided. Contrast this with a door swinging over the stairs, which creates an obvious safety risk and should have a landing. Do pocket in barn doors create the same hazard as a door swinging over the stairs? Not at all. The risk is much more similar to the door swinging away from the stairs, so we include them in the exception. I did submit a code change proposal on this and I am still waiting to see it incorporated into the code. In the meantime, we will continue to allow this as there is no apparent safety risk.

Discretion is necessary because the codes are always playing catch-up. Canadian codes standardize this process as an "alternative solution". You don't have to meet the code, you just need to show me what you want to do is just as safe as the baseline of the code.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

We complain that contractors do not meet minimum code, but have we made codes accessible to them? When there are changes to the codes are we engaging with them to discuss what the implications are? What tools are we offering contractors to support code compliance?

One of the factors that landed me in the role of a building inspector mid-life was the desire to construct my own dwelling, using some non-traditional approaches. I had a hell of a time finding up-to-date and relevant information on simple things like joist span and beams...
Which is a roundabout way of saying that you're absolutely correct. We (as inspectors and code officials) have to acknowledge that the flow of information has been a trickle at best, even with the fact Canada allowed free downloads of *some* codes.
I'm a firm believer in the power of education as an alternative to enforcement. It's better to show people how to do things right before they frig things up.

 

[Mark K]

Too many side issues being discussed.

The Basics are:

• Our laws cannot be copyrighted otherwise private individuals could own our laws.
• Building codes are laws.

ICC can have a copyright on the IBC and IRC as originally published. But once a government entity has adopted it as part of a statute or regulation the resulting law has no copywrite. There is a difference between the original model code and the building code that is based on the model code. To repeat the adopted laws cannot be copyrighted.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Are the codes law as created by the legislature and signed into the law by the governor?
Or are they referenced rules adopted by a department within the state and never codified into the state laws?

I can see both sides of the issue. When a state creates new laws they are codified and published and if you want a complete set you have to buy them from the publisher. That is the way it used to be. today I guess the courts will settle it someday.

 

[Mark K]

Laws include statutes adopted by the state Legislature (statutes), local ordinances adopted by local cities and counties, and administrative regulations adopted by state agencies. Regulations are a delegation of power by the Legislature and are constrained by the scope of this delegation.

Laws are not adopted by local building departments although the departments may have influence on the ordinances adopted by the local legislative body. There is a common problem where local building departments enforce underground regulations, not formally adopted.

In California the state has preempted the adoption of building regulations and local jurisdictions are only allowed to adopt local modifications when the Legislature has explicitly provided for it. Local ordinances are in general subordinate to state laws. In California the exceptions do not apply to building regulations. Such local modifications must be adopted by the local legislative body and submitted to a state agency before they can be enforced.

The point is that the local building department cannot do whatever it wants.

Yes the laws of your state may be different but the copywrite laws are Federal laws not subject to state laws.

On a related point the state or local jurisdiction cannot delegate to a nongovernmental entity, such as the publisher of a model code the ability to adopt laws. This means that the legislature cannot say that the latest version of the IBC is law. On the other hand, the Legislature can incorporate a specific version of the IBC as part of the laws.

While the easiest way to get a complete set of state laws is to purchase them from a publisher there is no copywrite associated with these laws so multiple publishers could publish copies. The published state laws typically only include the statutes adopted by the Legislature and not the administrative regulations.

Once a model code such as the IBC or IRC is adopted as part of a law the resulting law has no copyright. So if you copy the model code there is a copywrite but if you refer to the building code of a jurisdiction that incorporates the model code there is no copyright.

A case could be made that when the model code is incorporated into the building code that there is a regulatory taking and the publisher of the model code could demand to be compensated as required by the US Constitution. I doubt that they will do this because this would discourage jurisdictions from adopting their model code which was developed so that it would be adopted.

The courts have decided the basic issues, they just have not explicitly stated that these court rulings apply to building codes but this does not mean that the court opinions do not apply to building codes.

 

[tmurray]

Too many side issues being discussed.

The Basics are:

• Our laws cannot be copyrighted otherwise private individuals could own our laws.
• Building codes are laws.

ICC can have a copyright on the IBC and IRC as originally published. But once a government entity has adopted it as part of a statute or regulation the resulting law has no copywrite. There is a difference between the original model code and the building code that is based on the model code. To repeat the adopted laws cannot be copyrighted.

Can you cite the case you are referencing?