• 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

Copyright law as applies to drafting laws

Jobsaver

Jobsaver

Registered User
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
851
Location
Central Arkansas (pop. 30,000 - near Little rock)
What is a good rule of thumb for drafting ordinances as pertains to using other municipal ordinances as models. Do copyright laws apply? Should one municipality request permission to freely use the content of posted ordinances when drafting their own ordinances?

I have been charged to draft a new Sign Ordinance for my ahj, and know of several model ordinances posted online I want to "borrow" from, including certain drawings.

Guidelines? Suggestions?
 
The only hang-up that comes to mind right away would be if the model ordinance (including drawings) was prepared by a third party -such as a consulting firm - under contract to the AHJ in question. In that case, the third party may claim a copyright to their intellectual property. Most municipalities I am familiar with don't draft ordinances this way, so it may not be a problem.

I'd give the AHJ a courtesy call and see what they say.
 
I have done that in the past. The easiest thing to do is pick up the phone and call the municipality. Crazy, right?
 
Once they become law, there is no copyright.

Access by the public trumps intellectual property rights when it's law.

Southern Building Code v. Veeck is the case which made it clear.
 
cda......now that's funny. rshuey is right, even if it's not illegal, doesn't hurt to let them know you are "borrowing" from them. Good neighbors and all that crap..........
 
FYI - The Veeck reference is valid, but the decision was not consistent with similar cases in other federal circuits, was not unanimous, and has been widely criticized as flawed. So far, SCOTUS has refused to sort this out. I think this is one that conarb has posted on before (?).

It remains simple enough to call the AHJ in question, and ask your AHJ's legal counsel if there are still questions. My guess is it won't be a problem.

Let us know how it turns out.
 
Is it registered if not oh well it is their loss.

Copyright under the Berne Convention must be automatic; it is prohibited to require formal registration (note however that when the United States joined the Convention in 1988, they continued to make statutory damages and attorney's fees only available for registered works).
 
Brufgers said:
Once they become law, there is no copyright. Access by the public trumps intellectual property rights when it's law.

Southern Building Code v. Veeck is the case which made it clear.
Click to expand...
No, Veeck won in the 5th Circuit (Texas, Louisiana. and Mississippi) and only applies there, a similar case was brought in (I believe) the 8th Circuit ruling for the code writing agencies, the Supreme Court unbelievably refused to grant certiorari, so the situation remains up in the air, but you are right in three states.
 
The problem I am having with asking directly is that folks don't want to say . . . one way or the other. I suspect the question is ending up in the black holes of the various municipal attorneys' offices, (attorneys are well practiced in the art of no response).

Perhaps this is a case of, "It is better to ask forgiveness than permission."
 
The first two laws on my municipalities "Code of Ordinace" are

Small pox vaccinations are required of all residents. (since transferred to state right)

and

Bounty on Coyote is $0.25 submit nose as proof (still on book)

Try and copywrite those.
 
conarb said:
No, Veeck won in the 5th Circuit (Texas, Louisiana. and Mississippi) and only applies there, a similar case was brought in (I believe) the 8th Circuit ruling for the code writing agencies, the Supreme Court unbelievably refused to grant certiorari, so the situation remains up in the air, but you are right in three states.
Click to expand...
Citation for an opinion contrary to Veek?
 
Copyright question, different topic

I routinely cut and paste I-Code language on to construction drawings I am approving.

Could this become a copyright issue?
 
The way I understand the copyright ruling is that ICC retains the copywrite to the IRC but the California Residential Code which is based on the IRC is not copywrited. It has to be adopted by the state or local jurisdiction first. In those jurisdictions that do not adopt any amendments to the IRC that this might be a fine distinction.
 
Brudgers said:
Citation for an opinion contrary to Veek?
Click to expand...
Court decisions are only binding in areas under their jurisdiction, even if there was no contrary decision Veeck would only be binding law in the 5th Circuit. The other case was the First Circuit - Building Officials & Code Administrators v. Code Technology, Inc., 628 F.2d 730 (1980). So as it stands Veeck is binding in Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana, Building Officials is binding in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island. The rest of the Union is on it's own.

What this means is that if you republish the code in Texas and the ICC sues you you win based on the precedent of the 5th Circuit, if you republish the code in Maine and the ICC sues you the ICC wins based upon the precedent of the 1st Circuit, if you republish the Code in California there is no precedent, the courts in California are bound by no authority, if it gets appealed to the 9th Circuit the court will take into account all cases briefed and grant persuasive authority to both Veeck and Builders as well as consideration to all other presented cases, but the 9th Circuit is bound by none of them. A guy has been republishing the codes in California and the ICC hasn't sued him, I speculate that if such a case were brought and gets appealed to the Supreme Court that the ICC fears that the court could no-longer dodge the issue, and they fear losing like they did in Veeck, if that happened the precedent of the Supreme Court would serve as precedent nationwide.

BTW, the reasoning of the judge who refused to grant cert allowing the Supreme Court to hear the case was that the facts of Veeck and Builders were dissimilar: ergo, no conflict in the Circuits, they are bound to take conflicts between the Circuits, one of the few things they are bound to do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IANAL - but as I understand it the dissimilarity was that Veek published the code and referenced it as the enacted law rather than as the model code.

In other words, one can't legally publish the "2009 IBC as published by the ICC," but one can publish the "Building Code adopted by the State Fire Marshal of Alabama."
 
More than likely the AHJ you are borrowing it from borrowed it from another AHJ in the first place!

If the document is posted on the I-net it is public information imo.
 
Mule said:
More than likely the AHJ you are borrowing it from borrowed it from another AHJ in the first place! If the document is posted on the I-net it is public information imo.
Click to expand...
If a car is in the ROW, is it a public car?
 
If the car is a public document and on the I-net then yes it would be a public car!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top