Their attorneys must be laughing all the way to the bank

[CodeWarrior]

Just published yesterday. I thought ICC and UpCodes were already battling each other. Anyway, many find UpCodes to be easier to use, and the subscription service is a lot less expensive. Maybe ICC should partner with UpCodes, or at least try to understand their success and try to improve their E-codes.

Here is the article:


Building Code Nonprofit Accuses Calif. Rival Of Ripping Off IP
By Dorothy Atkins
Law360 (December 22, 2022, 6:51 PM EST) -- A nonprofit that creates model building codes hit a California for-profit company with a copyright infringement suit in New York federal court Thursday, accusing the rival of "commercially exploiting" its copyrighted international and custom building codes and publishing them online, while also removing some of the nonprofit's copyright notices.
In a 17-page complaint, the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit International Code Council Inc.., which is dedicated to building safety, alleges that the Walnut, California-based UpCodes Inc., its co-founder Garrett Reynolds and its CEO Scott Reynolds have profited from selling ICC's copyrighted codes while falsely claiming the company is simply providing public access to codes and standards.
"Defendants' true purpose is to line the pockets of its owners and investors by cannibalizing ICC's laboriously created works and jeopardizing ICC's continued and future ability to provide its invaluable services in assistance to various states and localities when crafting sound and safe building codes and standards," the complaint said.
The ICC develops building codes that help developers design and comply with building standards while also constructing safe, sustainable, affordable and resilient structures, according to the lawsuit.
ICC's codes — which range in subject from residential and energy conservation codes to spa and swimming pools codes — are developed by the nonprofit's more than 40 technical committees, including 17 committees that conduct hearings on proposed code changes, according to the suit.
The organization sells its codes to help pay the organization's staff, and it makes some of its copyrighted codes publicly available for free in read-only mode on its website, according to the suit.
However, the ICC alleges that UpCodes, which was founded in 2016, and its executives have been publishing "unlicensed and unauthorized free versions" of ICC's copyrighted works to draw in potential customers, and then charging those customers for "premium services" and features that include searchable codes, bookmarking and multiuser collaboration tools.
"UpCodes utilizes a 'freemium' business model that seeks to attract users by offering a 'free' service, where a significant amount of plaintiff's copyrighted works and custom codes can be viewed, downloaded, and further distributed by members of the public at no cost," the complaint said. "After users engage in the 'free' service, they are introduced to UpCodes' 'premium' offerings."
ICC alleges UpCodes targets the same industry professionals whom ICC serves and attempts to hide the infringement by removing ICC's copyright notices from its codes.
"Although ICC's [international building codes] and custom codes each display a copyright notice, in some instances defendants remove the copyright notices," the complaint said.
The two-count complaint alleges one count of copyright infringement and an additional count alleging UpCodes altered or removed copyright management information.
The lawsuit seeks an order barring UpCodes and executives from altering, reproducing and distributing ICC's copyrighted works. It also asks the court to award ICC attorney fees, interest and litigation costs, as well as any profits UpCodes made from the alleged infringement, plus statutory
damages of up to $150,000 per work infringed and up to $25,000 for each altered copyrighted work.
The complaint also seeks to hold the company and its executives jointly and severally liable for the alleged infringement.
Counsel and representatives for International Code Council and representatives for UpCodes didn't immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday.
International Code Council is represented by J. Kevin Fee, Jane W. Wise and Gabrielle C. Velkes of DLA Piper
.
Counsel information for the defendants wasn't immediately available Thursday.
The case is International Code Council Inc. v. UpCodes Inc. et al., case number
1:22-cv-10815
, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
.
--Editing by Linda Voorhis.

 

[bill1952]

This will be interesting.

 

[TheCommish]

rinse and repeat

 

[e hilton]

“the subscription service is a lot less expensive.”

Partially because they are not paying for the development costs.

 

[Mark K]

There are no copyright of laws. Building codes adopted by states or jurisdiction are laws. So while there may be a copyright of the IBC there is no copyright of the California Building Code. which is based on the IBC. The ICC does not own the laws of California.

 

[bill1952]

The current system of building and fire codes in the US may be the worst, like democracy, except for all the others that have been tried.

 

[Mark K]

“the subscription service is a lot less expensive.”

Partially because they are not paying for the development costs.

What development costs?

With rare exceptions the context is developed by other entities. Then those proposing code changes have to sign over any copyrights to ICC.
ICC manages the adoption hearing and publishing tasks. They then slap their copyright on the document and charge a hefty profit for their efforts.

These other organizations and volunteers pay for the development costs.

ICC membership costs are relatively low when compared to the membership fees for professional organization. Thus the cost of the publications subsidizes the membership costs for ICC members.

 

[bill1952]

What development costs?

I've participated in code development - NFPA, ICC, the legacy building codes, and some other SDOs - since 1987. The organizational support, staff time, some travel expense reimbursement for volunteers, record keeping, etc. is essential to the work.

I believe I retain the copyright on my proposals, and simply grant the SDO the right to use it.

 

[Mark K]

I've participated in code development - NFPA, ICC, the legacy building codes, and some other SDOs - since 1987. The organizational support, staff time, some travel expense reimbursement for volunteers, record keeping, etc. is essential to the work.

I believe I retain the copyright on my proposals, and simply grant the SDO the right to use it.

Not my experience.

The administrative services ICC provides are a small portion of the developmental costs which are absorbed by other organizations and individuals. Selling codes is a cash cow for ICC.

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

 

[Michael Brown]

This has been going on for years with the first lawsuit in 2017. As a general rule, Upcodes has been winning but in instances where they have found to have crossed the line, they have made corrections to thier site to comply with the rulings.

 

[phillier937]

There are no copyright of laws. Building codes adopted by states or jurisdiction are laws. So while there may be a copyright of the IBC there is no copyright of the California Building Code. which is based on the IBC. The ICC does not own the laws of California.

I use upcodes all the time. As a side note - due to new laws in our legislation to limit new rules without removing old rules the new version of the Ohio code will only reference the ICC with Ohio requirements as revisions vs an entire new code as law. They said eventually the board (or ICC?) may publish a version for us to use in a book still as the Ohio Building Code. Curious to know how Mark's thoughts would apply here.

 

[Mark K]

I use upcodes all the time. As a side note - due to new laws in our legislation to limit new rules without removing old rules the new version of the Ohio code will only reference the ICC with Ohio requirements as revisions vs an entire new code as law. They said eventually the board (or ICC?) may publish a version for us to use in a book still as the Ohio Building Code. Curious to know how Mark's thoughts would apply here.

What are the properly adopted provisions? When adopted by reference the provisions adopted by reference are still a part of the laws of the state.

Who physically produces a copy of the code is a commercial issue. Since there can be no copyright other parties can produce volumes containing those provisions hopefully at a lesser cost.

Placing a claim of copyright on the laws of the state is improper.

 

[bill1952]

Maybe you're right Mark. The jurisdictions who adopt the CC copyrighted model codes should be charged with theft of intellectual property. Then every jurisdiction will write their own code. Hundreds of different groups of bureaucrats each writing a new building code and all of the other codes and standards.

 

[Mark K]

The other option would be to consider the adoption of the model codes as a governmental taking which would require the entity adopting the code pay for the costs associated with producing the model code. When these costs are prorated over all of the entities adopting the code the cost should be significantly less than paid by those needing to use the code. The jurisdiction could offset those costs by increasing the permit fees. While there would be some cost shifting the total cost to the public would be less.

The model code agencies would still produce their codes since allows them to influence the content of the code and since they will be able to sell printed versions of the code even if they may not be able to charge the same markup as in the past. Arguably the reason for developing the model codes was not just to make money.

 

[bill1952]

The other option would be to consider the adoption of the model codes as a governmental taking which would require the entity adopting the code pay for the costs associated with producing the model code. When these costs are prorated over all of the entities adopting the code the cost should be significantly less than paid by those needing to use the code. The jurisdiction could offset those costs by increasing the permit fees. While there would be some cost shifting the total cost to the public would be less.

The model code agencies would still produce their codes since allows them to influence the content of the code and since they will be able to sell printed versions of the code even if they may not be able to charge the same markup as in the past. Arguably the reason for developing the model codes was not just to make money.

This suggests government can be more efficient than private not-for-profits, which seems very unlikely.

But then I don't believe the SDOs are making a profit, and I'm pretty sure their employees' compensation is less than equivalently skilled government employees.

And let's not forget everyone has free access to the ICC and NFPA documents.

 

[tmurray]

There are no copyright of laws. Building codes adopted by states or jurisdiction are laws. So while there may be a copyright of the IBC there is no copyright of the California Building Code. which is based on the IBC. The ICC does not own the laws of California.

This may not be so simple. After a recent foray into copyright laws with a lawyer who specializes in copyright, I think ICC could copyright the codes as a compilation. No individual law (code provision) could be subject to a copyright claim, but when reproduced all together it could be.

Ultimately, I would agree with you on the government producing codes. This is the way it is done in Canada and the codes are available for the cost it takes to produce a physical copy. Digital versions are free. Codes and their development are in the interest of the public good and should be supported by the public at large, not just the ones who use the documents.

 

[code-fiend]

This suggests government can be more efficient than private not-for-profits, which seems very unlikely.

But then I don't believe the SDOs are making a profit, and I'm pretty sure their employees' compensation is less than equivalently skilled government employees.

And let's not forget everyone has free access to the ICC and NFPA documents.

Hey folks, I'm new around, I just registered to comment since I have strong feelings and have followed this case for a while.
I'd definitely say I'm in teh camp that the law can't be copyrighted, but that's my opinion.

The SDOs are making huge profits. The executives are making really big salaries. Just check their 990s, and they're making more money than ever, check ICC's 990, just google it. I believe the CEO makes over $900,000 salary, lot less than mine!

And the 990 shows they make most of their money from "Program services". And so, if they also make the codes free why is it a problem for UpCode to make the codes free too? They think they should be only people showing the codes? Their codes pages are also really annoying to use.

 

[bill1952]

That's what happens when the board of directors - mostly or all building officials - are in charge.

Not sure it's out of line for private companies with $70m/yr revenues.

 

[InspectorMike]

I use upcodes all the time. As a side note - due to new laws in our legislation to limit new rules without removing old rules the new version of the Ohio code will only reference the ICC with Ohio requirements as revisions vs an entire new code as law. They said eventually the board (or ICC?) may publish a version for us to use in a book still as the Ohio Building Code. Curious to know how Mark's thoughts would apply here.

Ohio codes, except the NEC can be viewed at ICC, read on the OAC or downloaded from OBBS. I can't find it at OBBS and its too big to attach.

 

[Glenn]

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.

 

[ICE]

I think UpCodes founders knew exactly what they were exploiting for profit.

That’s American entrepreneurship in action. There’s no doubt that the the people that create the code should be rewarded for the effort however, once the code is adopted as a law it should be freely available for consumption by the public that shall obey that law. And not in some clumsy, convoluted, difficult to navigate format…..the electronic version that ICC sells …. with a user friendly word search should be the free version. Toss in a free code commentary and now we’re getting somewhere.

Of course if the veil is removed and it becomes so much easier for the masses to know and understand the codes, there will be less work for the regulators.

Glenn.
Your response should be prefaced with the information that you are in bed with the ICC.

 

[Glenn]

That’s American entrepreneurship in action. There’s no doubt that the the people that create the code should be rewarded for the effort however, once the code is adopted as a law it should be freely available for consumption by the public that shall obey that law. And not in some clumsy, convoluted, difficult to navigate format…..the electronic version that ICC sells …. with a user friendly word search should be the free version. Toss in a free code commentary and now we’re getting somewhere.

Of course if the veil is removed and it becomes so much easier for the masses to know and understand the codes, there will be less work for the regulators.

Glenn.
Your response should be prefaced with the information that you are in bed with the ICC.

Because my ethics don't align with what you find to be "American entrepeneurship in action", you are so confused that you must attack my character and claim my position is only because I work with ICC. Of course, in a society of puppets, you choose the phrase "in bed", because free thinkers are scary.

I'm an independent professional. I'm not "in bed" with anyone. I work with a lot of different organizations and companies. If this is your way to attempt to discredit what I clearly described as my opinions and ethics....it's pathetic. You need not discredit or disprove an opinion based on one's ethics. To do so reveals more about your ethics than it does mine. I described mine clearly.

I'm glad I've challenged you, ICE. Good. Be challenged. Be surprised that you've actually met a man that thinks and speaks for himself and is confident in what HE thinks is right and wrong and stands by it. Nice to meet you. I'm Glenn Mathewson. Independent in every way. Don't let it scare you.

 

[rogerpa]

There’s no doubt that the the people that create the code should be rewarded

The ICC does not create the code. They are compilers/publishers. The content (creation) comes from the public, manufacturers, builders, code enforcement, and other interested stakeholders as approved by "governmental employees". All submitters give up any rights to copyright when they submit their proposals.

 

[ICE]

The ICC does not create the code.

I knew that and that's why I said "the people that create" the code.