• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

copyright warning

ICE

MODERATOR
Staff member
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
13,897
Location
California
I have all of our codes in a laptop. They were provided by my employer. Today I attempted to post 11B 609.3 in a thread and I got this warning in the middle of the text:

Copyright © 2016 by, or licensed to, ICC (ALL RIGHTS RESERVED); accessed by XXXXXXXXXXXXX, Department of Public Works Building and Safety pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized. ANY UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION IS A VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL COPYRIGHT ACT AND THE LICENSE AGREEMENT, AND SUBJECT TO CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES THEREUNDER.

Additionally, the text of the code was somewhat jumbled. So I can type the code but I can't copy and paste without the risk of CRIMINAL PENALTIES.
 
Last edited:
Interesting,

Same old arguments of why you should be able to and why you should not.

Anyway.

The copyright police I hear are not nice, they take away your Post Toasties
 
A basic tenant of a functioning democracy is access to information and, in particular, access to the law. Everyone should be able to read the law, understand it, and discuss it. It seems reasonable that if we expect everyone in our country to follow the law, they should be able to access it. Not only does such a policy contribute to informed citizenry, but it also seems to be linked to a very basic due process issue.
Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that the law is in the public domain and not subject to copyright protection. In fact, there is a specific provision in our copyright law that states that there is no copyright protection for works of the United States government. Federal statutes, regulations, and judicial opinions are all in the public domain. Makes good sense, right?
While making the law available seems like a basic tenet of democracy, many laws — whether they are statutes or judicial decisions — are not easily or freely accessible to the general public, and there have been various efforts by individuals to promote greater availability of public information. Such initiatives should be praised, and yet there have been several court cases dealing with the question of whether all laws are in the public domain and whether individuals who post such laws are actually in violation of copyright.
Public.Resource.Org has tried to address the issue of lack of public access to government documents and laws by publishing legal material on its website. Some of the materials include regulations that have become law through “incorporation by reference,” such as those developed and created by standards organizations (for example, building codes) and incorporated into the law at the federal, state, and local levels. Because they are incorporated by reference, their actual text may not be available or easily accessible. One of Public Resource’s projects included copying laws that were incorporated by reference and posting them on its website.
The fact that they are part of the law, whether by text or incorporation by reference, should mean that they are in the public domain and the public is entitled to access. However, the industry groups that develop these standards argue that they own copyright in the provisions that they developed (and later lobbied for adoption as part of the law). It seems absurd that private organizations can claim ownership over the law and effectively control what price must be paid, or even whether a citizen can access it. However, several federal district courts have ruled against Public Resource’s actions in posting the incorporated building code laws, finding in favor of the industry groups’ claims to copyright. Not only did these courts find that industry associations held a valid copyright, but also that posting the laws was not a fair use. These cases are now before the Eleventh Circuit and D.C. Circuit.
While not binding — and not addressing an identical fact pattern — the Fifth Circuit addressed the issue several years ago. In Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress, the court found that “a continuous understanding that ‘the law,’ whether articulated in judicial opinions or legislative acts or ordinances, is in the public domain and thus not amenable to copyright.” Veeck validated the idea that publishing laws and making them accessible to society is a public service.
Ultimately, and as the Veeck court noted, industry groups do not rely on copyright protection as an incentive to create model laws. They produce these codes in hopes that they will be adopted into law because they are crafted in a way to benefit their industry, including through standardization.
Should the Eleventh or D.C. Circuit find against Public Resource, the opinion could result in a circuit split from the Fifth Circuit and would be ripe for Supreme Court review. Hopefully it won’t even get that far, and the circuit courts will agree that no matter who writes a draft law, once it is incorporated into actual law, it should be freely and open available to all.
https://abovethelaw.com/2017/10/can-you-copyright-the-law/
 
When adopting code, many jurisdictions look at what others are doing, which has helped increase the use of ICC’s code. But codes still vary between cities and states, with the Economist reporting in 2017 that American counties and municipalities use a combined total of 93,000 different building codes, and are updated frequently, adding another layer of complexity to the compliance process.

Scott and Garrett Reynolds, however, say that the ICC appears to have healthy revenue. In its 2016 annual report, the ICC said its consolidated revenue in 2015 was $66 million, an increase of $4.3 million compared to 2014, and that it “consistently records over $1 million in sales per month” through its online store. Then from 2015 to 2016, ICC’s revenue increased by $12 million, according to a report presented by chief executive officer Dominic Sims at an annual meeting. (The ICC did not disclose an amount for consolidated revenue in its 2017 annual report, and hasn’t released its 2018 annual report yet.)¹


¹ https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/09/can-the-law-be-copyrighted/
 
Back
Top