• 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

UpCodes is being sued by ICC

Is there a state fire marshal in Colorado? I thought they had local jurisdictions looking after fire prevention. Would they be able to enforce a state adopted code, if their local jurisdictions have adopted a different code? Potentially if they are receiving their authority from a state law, but unlikely if they are getting their authority from local ordinances.
The Colorado Division of Fire Safety (DFS) "Director" Michael C. Morgan
I do not see the code that the State Architect designs their buildings to as being very relevant to everyone working in the private sector.
And who said the UPcodes are only for Private sector jobs?
 
Conarb has stated that other courts have taken an opposite position. I would like to know what those appellate cases are. From the cases I have read I suspect any adverse rulings were based on other issues. Nowhere have I seen a court rejecting the fact that you cannot copyright the law. Adopted building regulations are laws.
 
Conarb has stated that other courts have taken an opposite position. I would like to know what those appellate cases are. From the cases I have read I suspect any adverse rulings were based on other issues. Nowhere have I seen a court rejecting the fact that you cannot copyright the law. Adopted building regulations are laws.
Mark:

We had lots of discussions on this about 15 years ago, the case that ruled against the ICBO came out of Texas, we discussed in lots while the appeal to the Supreme Court was pending, then we were all surprised when the Supremes refused to grant certiorari and render a decision on the split in the Circuits (a split in the Circuits is one of the few areas where the Supreme Court almost always grants certiorari).

I don't feel like doing it, but if you are so inclined, go back to our old bulletin board and enter the word "certiorari" in the search function and you should come up with a wealth of information on the issue. Unfortunately when the Supreme Court refuses to grant cert there is no published record so I can't just research Supreme Court cases, a guy could go to published decisions of the 5th Circuit and get the name of the case and start following from there, this would take a lot of legal research. What about the current case that started this discussion? Obviously the ICC will be citing the other two Circuits that ruled in it's favor before. The other two cases were in Circuits in the upper midwest if memory serves me, but our ultra-liberal 9th Circuit in California has never ruled on the issue. It seems to me that a conservative court is going to rule to protect copyright like the 5th Circuit in Texas did before, while a liberal court is going to rule for free dissemination, at the Supreme Court it is now 5 to 4 conservative, if Ginsberg dies within a Republican presidency it will probably go 6-3 conservative, if she continues to live until the next Democratic presidency it should go back to the 5-4. Since the ICC wants to protect it's copyright I would think they would want to take it up as soon as possible.
 
I can respond to specific court rulings but I have trouble with vague statements that something exists but can not be proven that it exists..

There is another argument why there should be no copyright of building codes which is based on the "merger doctrine". Copyright protects expression but not ideas. You cannot copyright a fact. While you can copyright the phone book you cannot copyright the phone numbers.

When the model code is adopted as a regulation there is only one way the regulation can be stated. In effect the regulation becomes a fact and thus cannot be copyrighted.

If you look at the current litigation it is clear that ICC does not play a central role. I suggest that ICC does not want to push for a definitive ruling since I suspect they fear they would lose.
 
"Public" documents, such as state judicial opinions, legislative enactments, and other official documents beyond the range of copyright protection.
The courts have consistently held official governmental works, even beyond the scope of section 105, outside the scope of copyright protection.
See Howard B. Abrams, 1 Law of Copyright § 2.05[A][3] (1991) [hereinafter "Abrams"].

I believe State "Codes and Standards" Legality adopted with, the creators blessing, falls under this exception in the copyright law
 
I can respond to specific court rulings but I have trouble with vague statements that something exists but can not be proven that it exists..

Look, I agree with you, but so far the courts are split, I am not going to do all the research to show you the legal decisions, I gave you the keyword to research it, by the way, the article linked in the first post on this thread says:

Several relevant cases, including ones involving building codes, have been decided by different circuits in the United States Court of Appeals, which means the UpCodes lawsuit may potentially be heard by the Supreme Court.¹


¹ https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/09/can-the-law-be-copyrighted/
 
The Colorado Division of Fire Safety (DFS) "Director" Michael C. Morgan

He is listed as the director of prevention and control, not what I would class as a "fire marshal" in the traditional sense of the role, but maybe the role is defined differently there. Here, fire marshals do not handle anything related to extinguishing fires. They perform plan reviews and inspections of completed buildings. They also perform forensic analysis of some fires (where there is not a capacity in the local force).

And who said the UPcodes are only for Private sector jobs?

Well, is suppose it is for public sector construction projects too. It is for the legally adopted version of the code that all construction must meet, so that means private and public projects. However, I don't feel the intent of the service is to provide all standards that every branch of the government decides that they will be meeting.
 
He is listed as the director of prevention and control, not what I would class as a "fire marshal" in the traditional sense of the role, but maybe the role is defined differently there. Here, fire marshals do not handle anything related to extinguishing fires. They perform plan reviews and inspections of completed buildings. They also perform forensic analysis of some fires (where there is not a capacity in the local force).

T Murray, you forgot the most important function of the fire marshal, in the event of a fire and the engines roll he:
1) Places a call to the local press.
2) He gets in his car and heads to the fire red lights and siren screaming.
3) He tells the press: If there were fire sprinklers that they saved lives and prevented more damage, if there were not fire sprinklers that lives would have been saved if there were sprinklers and of course much less damage would have been done, put that in your paper.
 
T Murray, you forgot the most important function of the fire marshal, in the event of a fire and the engines roll he:
1) Places a call to the local press.
2) He gets in his car and heads to the fire red lights and siren screaming.
3) He tells the press: If there were fire sprinklers that they saved lives and prevented more damage, if there were not fire sprinklers that lives would have been saved if there were sprinklers and of course much less damage would have been done, put that in your paper.
Oh, ours doesn't do that here. They are trained in the code and understand why sprinklers are required and why they are not.

The local fire chiefs though...many are very guilty of this.
 
Why does ICC not make available the filings by the other side?
 
. That's why, they must be made available, free of charge.

Free of charge, and cost of printing ... two different things. If it is sold by a non-government entity they will want to make a profit. And if the state or county sells it they will want to cover the printing cost, which is reasonable.
 
Once it is established that there is no copyright the question about the cost is essentially a non-issue. Yes you will have to pay for printing costs but they will be much smaller than the current costs of these codes. As an alternative you cold avoid paying anything if you only looked at the documents on your computer

Whether or not the creator consented to the adoption of the standard it does not change the copyright status of the adopted code. Once a standard is made a part of a regulation or law the author of the standard may have a case for a taking claim. If a taking claim is supported the author will be reimbursed for its costs which are less than the current cost to purchase the codes. This could be handled by imposing a small fee on all issued building permits.
 
Free of charge, and cost of printing ... two different things. If it is sold by a non-government entity they will want to make a profit. And if the state or county sells it they will want to cover the printing cost, which is reasonable.
It costs too much money to get a CD, than to just cover costs.... think again.
 
Top