• 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

Supreme Court Ruling on Building Codes

CodeWarrior

Registered User
Joined
May 18, 2016
Messages
116
Location
Hong Kong
You have to wonder why they do not have NFPA up on their site since they refer to NFPA in the article. This will have implications on the referenced standards also such as ASTM and ANSI are the big ones. Do those become free access also?
 
In a fair world, absolutely....Which I believe is why I heard that NFPA is not doing digital versions "anymore", just subscription....To try to slow the inevitable I guess...
 
As clear as mud, 2 or more lawyers more than 2 different answers, depend on the lawyer clients point of view
 
The way the article reads to me is that the "code is law" and unprotected, but the notes or commentary are off limits....But obviously without all of the facts of the case it is tough to say...
 
The way the article reads to me is that the "code is law" and unprotected, but the notes or commentary are off limits....But obviously without all of the facts of the case it is tough to say...

So... someone at ICC rights a "Significant Changes" book, that would be copyright protected? The codes become law, so no copyright protection. Is that the conclusion?
 
So... someone at ICC rights a "Significant Changes" book, that would be copyright protected? The codes become law, so no copyright protection. Is that the conclusion?
That sounds right, and makes sense too. The code is free, if you want a guide book, cliffs notes, explanation of changes ... send money.
 
For me the free view only codes from either the NFPA or ICC are cumbersome at best. I think that is by design. They would rather you buy the really convenient version of things...and I don't blame them, they have bills to pay. The consensus opinion that codes must be provided but other associated documents can be copyrighted makes me a little concerned that the code making bodies will make their codes more vague to encourage the sale of the documents that could explain them. I'm already in the commentary enough just trying to figure out what the code means, I don't need more vagueness.
As to whether a different organization can co-opt the intellectual property of the ICC for their own profit, right or wrong I don't blame ICC for their actions.
 
For me the free view only codes from either the NFPA or ICC are cumbersome at best. I think that is by design. They would rather you buy the really convenient version of things...and I don't blame them, they have bills to pay. The consensus opinion that codes must be provided but other associated documents can be copyrighted makes me a little concerned that the code making bodies will make their codes more vague to encourage the sale of the documents that could explain them. I'm already in the commentary enough just trying to figure out what the code means, I don't need more vagueness.
As to whether a different organization can co-opt the intellectual property of the ICC for their own profit, right or wrong I don't blame ICC for their actions.
I don’t find where ICC or any of the other SDOs are forward thinking enough to realize there are opportunities for promoting the use and comprehension of codes that won’t originate always from themselves. They would benefit more from considering their own limitations and lack of imagination and allow others that have the ability to take it to next level. The SDOs benefit by using licensing for more immediate compensation and if these 3rd parties create successful products making the codes more accessible, Code sales may increase also. A win -win and much more effective than spending millions filing lawsuits.
 
In this new world we need to appreciate the difference between the model code and the code adopted by a legal entity. The local or state code, which may contain content from a model code, has no copyright. The model code by itself does have a copyright. This may appear to be a matter of semantics but from a legal perspective it is an important difference.

For example when a local jurisdiction obtains a copy of the IBC for the purpose of adopting it as the basis for their building code that copy of the IBC is copyrighted. But when the legislative body adopts that volume as the basis of their building code the content in the IBC does not have a copyright in the context of the local building code. The adoption of a law or regulation can change the status of that document.

It is the content of the document that has the copyright not the physical pages on which the content is located.

Since the standards referenced in the model code are part of the adopted regulations they would have no copyright in the context of the adopted regulations.

Commentary and notes produced by a private entity can be copyrighted unless the production and use of the commentary and notes was supported and endorsed by the legislative body.

AISC is an interesting example. They make their codes and standards freely available but they publish a copyrighted manual, that they charge an excessive amount for. So the charts and tables and the commentary in the manual are copyrighted but the standards included in the manual would not be copyrighted if considered as part of the regulations adopted by a specific entity.
 
In Mass, we adopt some of the ICC codes by reference, which in my opinion protects the ICC Copywrite, protects Mass for claiming authorship of the ICC codes, then publishes amendments to the reference code.

If Mass was to copy the ICC code, add in their amendments then publish it as one volume, IMHO the Commonwealth would be in violation of the ICC Copywrite.

In the instance of the SCOUS ruling Georgia Al. v. Public.Resources.Org, Inc. the Georgia acts (publish document) of the legislators are not copywritable.

Whether Georgia (or another jurisdiction) has obtained a license for the use of the ICC code is not contemplated by the SCOUS decision, it seems to me if Georgia ( or other jurisdictions) have obtained a license for use of the ICC codes, that licenses would only apply to the terms of the license agreement and not pass through to another party.
 
In this new world we need to appreciate the difference between the model code and the code adopted by a legal entity. The local or state code, which may contain content from a model code, has no copyright. The model code by itself does have a copyright. This may appear to be a matter of semantics but from a legal perspective it is an important difference.

For example when a local jurisdiction obtains a copy of the IBC for the purpose of adopting it as the basis for their building code that copy of the IBC is copyrighted. But when the legislative body adopts that volume as the basis of their building code the content in the IBC does not have a copyright in the context of the local building code. The adoption of a law or regulation can change the status of that document.

It is the content of the document that has the copyright not the physical pages on which the content is located.

Since the standards referenced in the model code are part of the adopted regulations they would have no copyright in the context of the adopted regulations.

Commentary and notes produced by a private entity can be copyrighted unless the production and use of the commentary and notes was supported and endorsed by the legislative body.

AISC is an interesting example. They make their codes and standards freely available but they publish a copyrighted manual, that they charge an excessive amount for. So the charts and tables and the commentary in the manual are copyrighted but the standards included in the manual would not be copyrighted if considered as part of the regulations adopted by a specific entity.

To expand on this, the very first requirement of the code is that "it shall be known as the" (pick a code) "of [name of jurisdiction] and shall be cited as such"

So it seems once adopted and so named, it might lose it's protection since it is now adopted by a legislative authority.

Funny thing, I always cite a reference for a comment or violation but I have been citing the IBC (IRC etc). It never occurred to me that I should be citing the renamed code. I need to check our municipal code to see exactly what it says.
 
When I Cite an amended code section I use the NMAC title & section #'s for that exact reason. Un-amended sections I use NMCBC OR NMRBC then the code section.
 
In this new world we need to appreciate the difference between the model code and the code adopted by a legal entity. The local or state code, which may contain content from a model code, has no copyright. The model code by itself does have a copyright. This may appear to be a matter of semantics but from a legal perspective it is an important difference.

For example when a local jurisdiction obtains a copy of the IBC for the purpose of adopting it as the basis for their building code that copy of the IBC is copyrighted. But when the legislative body adopts that volume as the basis of their building code the content in the IBC does not have a copyright in the context of the local building code. The adoption of a law or regulation can change the status of that document.

It is the content of the document that has the copyright not the physical pages on which the content is located.

Since the standards referenced in the model code are part of the adopted regulations they would have no copyright in the context of the adopted regulations.

Commentary and notes produced by a private entity can be copyrighted unless the production and use of the commentary and notes was supported and endorsed by the legislative body.

AISC is an interesting example. They make their codes and standards freely available but they publish a copyrighted manual, that they charge an excessive amount for. So the charts and tables and the commentary in the manual are copyrighted but the standards included in the manual would not be copyrighted if considered as part of the regulations adopted by a specific entity.

The code publishers should think about shifting away from a internally generated revenue model to one to partially relies more on public and private sources of funding. That way they can preserve their code development processes and make them financially viable. Focus on greater use of codes, not one with strings attached.
 
Adopting a standard by reference does not make it any less of a law adopted by the jurisdiction. Thus adopting a standard by reference means that in the context of that jurisdictions code there is no copyright.

Whether the jurisdiction has obtained a license from the publisher does not make a difference regarding the copyright status. ICC could make a claim that by adopting the model code the jurisdiction has taken their property and thus sue the jurisdiction for the loss.

By treating these adoptions as a taking the publisher should be able to recoup their costs but I suggest that they would not make any profits .
 
Some more information on the status of public domain vs.copyright. The copyright defenders have probably spent so much on legal fees that any financial gains from codes sales will take years to make up.

 
The above article documents the fact that ICC is motivated by profit to pay management outlandish salaries and not by any desire to promote safety.

ICC cannot own our laws.
 
This is probably a good way to put building codes out of business.

Anybody have a replacement idea?
 
Top