-
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
- Thread starter Jobsaver
- Start date
conarb
Registered User
I think the Supreme Court wants to stay away from building codes as far as they can, if forced to address them, and a conflict in the Circuits should be the force that does that, they want as narrowly focused situation as possible. The codes are constitutionally limited to the police power to promote the health, safety, and welfare (the word "general" was never there, but broadening utilitarian language). In 1927 the court addressed zoning in Gorieb v. Fox, 274 U.S. 603, 604 (1927), never touched the issue again fearing that they would invalidate zoning nationwide, then readdressed zoning in the 80s in two California Coastal Commission cases.
If the ICC brought an action against the California guy republishing codes it could go to the 9th Circuit, a famously liberal Circuit and the most overruled Circuit in the nation, this would probably bring in the ACLU with an amicus curiae brief (the ACLU famously supported the right of the Nazis to march in Skokie Illinois even though both the ACLU membership and the population of Skokie were heavily Jewish), with codes expanding well-beyond their purported police power they may well throw them all out, like they did with racial quotas when forced to address in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)¹.
Social engineering codes like Green Codes and Energy Codes go beyond protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the Supreme Court wants to stay away from even going near them in even a narrowly tailored case, or they may end up with another Bakke throwing everything out when even narrowly tailoring their decision. Look where zoning has gone after Gorieb in 1927, but who knows what they would do, just look at what is considered a conservative court did in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)², granting cities the right to condemn private property for the public good defined as increased city tax revenue!
¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke
² http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
If the ICC brought an action against the California guy republishing codes it could go to the 9th Circuit, a famously liberal Circuit and the most overruled Circuit in the nation, this would probably bring in the ACLU with an amicus curiae brief (the ACLU famously supported the right of the Nazis to march in Skokie Illinois even though both the ACLU membership and the population of Skokie were heavily Jewish), with codes expanding well-beyond their purported police power they may well throw them all out, like they did with racial quotas when forced to address in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)¹.
Social engineering codes like Green Codes and Energy Codes go beyond protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the Supreme Court wants to stay away from even going near them in even a narrowly tailored case, or they may end up with another Bakke throwing everything out when even narrowly tailoring their decision. Look where zoning has gone after Gorieb in 1927, but who knows what they would do, just look at what is considered a conservative court did in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)², granting cities the right to condemn private property for the public good defined as increased city tax revenue!
¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke
² http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
Copying portions for plan reviews comments or part of an educational or news article are okay
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
- The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
- The nature of the copyrighted work
- The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
- The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
Papio Bldg Dept
Platinum Member
nice one J! best of luck with this.Jobsaver said:
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
I e-mailed this question to ICC Publishing they called me back today with the answer and then somerighter101 said:
You may copy and past as many specific code sections as needed in prepairing your plan review comments. One reason I-Quest came about.
You may copy code sections for use in letters, handouts, drawings and other similar documents.
You may copy up to 5 pages of a code to be used by a homeowner, contractor or tradesman. Example would be providing the pages related to safety glazing in the IRC.
Do not put the codes on a website.
If in doubt contact ICC Publishing for written permission.
conarb
Registered User
Wow, I copy and paste codes here and other websites all the time. I doubt that they are going to take us to court for doing it, they haven't taken that California guy to court who has post the last two complete cycles.Mountain Man said:
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
She was reffering to the an entire code on a web site
Agree however the majority of goverments do not "publish" their building code building code laws they are adopted by reference,
There is a difference between ICC's position and what is allowed by copyright law. What ICC is saying is this is where they draw the line. I see ICC getting worried enought to take action only when either it arguably impacts code sales or when there is some misrepresentation of what is being published that they see as impacting them.
From a practical point of view I believe that an individual would have to be pretty far over the line before ICC would take any action.
I suggest that the existance of the ICC web site http://publicecodes.citation.com/st/index.htm is a recognition that they could not prevent a state such as California from putting the adopted code on thier web site. This web site makes the code availible while making it difficult to use thus encouraging individuals to purchase an official copy. This allows the states to claim the code is availible to the public without cutting into ICC's sales.
From a practical point of view I believe that an individual would have to be pretty far over the line before ICC would take any action.
I suggest that the existance of the ICC web site http://publicecodes.citation.com/st/index.htm is a recognition that they could not prevent a state such as California from putting the adopted code on thier web site. This web site makes the code availible while making it difficult to use thus encouraging individuals to purchase an official copy. This allows the states to claim the code is availible to the public without cutting into ICC's sales.
righter101
Gold Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 604
Do you have a copy of their letter including your question specifically that you could share??mtlogcabin said:
Thanks for checking on this with ICC
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
My question was;
Under the "fair use doctrine" codified in Section 107 of the copyright laws (title 17, U S Code) what does ICC consider "fair use" of the documents you publish?
I cut and paste code sections on my plan review comments. Is this Okay?
I will copy and give to homeowners/contractors pages from the code to use. Example ANSI A117 or IRC potal frame garage sections. Is this okay?
I did not get a written response. We spoke on the phone for about 15 minutes and she was quite helpfull in giving me examples and flexibility as it relates to doing our jobs. The limit of 5 pages is not cast in stone but a guide to remember when copying things for other people.
Under the "fair use doctrine" codified in Section 107 of the copyright laws (title 17, U S Code) what does ICC consider "fair use" of the documents you publish?
I cut and paste code sections on my plan review comments. Is this Okay?
I will copy and give to homeowners/contractors pages from the code to use. Example ANSI A117 or IRC potal frame garage sections. Is this okay?
I did not get a written response. We spoke on the phone for about 15 minutes and she was quite helpfull in giving me examples and flexibility as it relates to doing our jobs. The limit of 5 pages is not cast in stone but a guide to remember when copying things for other people.
watch out the icc police may be watching youView attachment 944
View attachment 441
View attachment 441
/monthly_2011_05/photo.JPG.0d081147c8ba10f4eb12f84f6356763d.JPG
View attachment 441
View attachment 441
/monthly_2011_05/photo.JPG.0d081147c8ba10f4eb12f84f6356763d.JPG