Arguments from authority are such compelling ad hominems

Arguments from authority are such compelling ad hominems

UPcodes is illegal and incorrect.  It's not an add hominem. Those are factual statements. 

 Use it at your own risk.

FYI: The expert I'm referencing (Steve Thomas, CBO) isn't employed by any code authority. He's an independent licensed and certified code expert. He's written sections of code (anyone can do this).  He has 45 years experience with building codes, not 25.  Sorry for the error.  I trust him more than I trust you BB.  

I've found times where upcodes is not providing the correct information, but I'd be hard pressed to give examples. As the resident code expert at multiple firms I've worked at, I'll ditto my preference to just going straight to the source for ultimate verification. Often I may check it to get close to the right section though. ChatGPT is worse FYI, it doesn't even know what NFPA 101 is, for instance.

Hey, UpCodes cofounder here, I wanted to respond. UpCodes is not illegal, every single ruling over the last 7 years has said that the law can not be copyrighted. Here are direct quotes from Judge Marrero in ICC's case against us:

(sorry submitted by mistake)

"The Court concludes, however, that the case law is ultimately consistent. It compels a holding that the I-Codes as Adopted are in the public domain, because they are in fact enacted state and local laws binding on the enacting jurisdictions' constituents."

"A private party cannot exercise its copyrights to restrict the public’s access to the law."

"On balance, the Court is persuaded that accurate posting of the I-Codes as Adopted is a fair use as a matter of law."

And the Supreme Court weighed in on the topic in 2020, with Chief Justice Roberts saying "no one can own the law". (https://twitter.com/upcodes/status/1262567054529486849)

Chad, just FYI, this building official, Steve Thomas, seems to have close ties with the ICC, according to ICC's own document. Are you sure he's never received compensation or benefit from ICC?

Hi, UpCodes cofounder here, do you mind me asking why you're trying to find an argument against us? Anything you'd like to see us improve on?

Hi, UpCodes cofounder here, in case it helps with your partner, you could let them know that no source is perfect. In fact, ICC found less that 2 dozen errors on our site. In response, we did an initial review of their site in Summer 2020 and found 400+ sections where ICC either has an error or not the most up-to-date code in Washington, NYC, Oregon, Florida and North Carolina.  And we didn't spend that long on it. Please see here: https://up.codes/free-law/upcodes-vs-icc

To be fair to UC, it's not that hard to find more than two errors in the code itself ...

But I’ll try it again!

Hey Wilma, UpCodes cofounder here. Thanks for giving us another try! I just wanted to share this (which I've shared elsewhere on this thread). Just pointing out that we actually think our site is very accurate and up-to-date despite the narrative that ICC has very successfully pushed. 

And any feedback or improvements to the site you'd like to see, we'd love to hear it!

Chad, do you know if it is a violation of copyright to copy and paste sections of the code onto plan? A plans reviewer is insisting I copy a graphic from the code into my plans.

It is a copyright violation unless you pay for their premium subscription. But nobody is going to come after you if you do it anyway. I'm usually a stickler for copyright laws but this one is ridiculous. 

It's fine to copy and paste for personal use. You can't physically copy or print from ICC unless you pay for the subscription. I'm not sure about UPcodes. 

 The ICC is going after UPcodes for copyright because it's for commercial gain. 

With the 2024 codes 'user notes' there is no way UPcodes can win and will not be able to host any 2024 codes on their site. My understanding is that the ICC would be fine with UPcodes using their stuff if: it was accurate, and if they were paid. UPcodes refuses to comply with either. 

Basically UPcodes cannot use any 2024 codes on their site.  I'm sure there will be more lawsuits about this.  UPcodes has been in court over copyrights since 2019.   

Once a code is amended and adopted at state code, it becomes public law which is required to be accessible free to the general public. Technically, we need to get rid of private model building codes and make a public owned entity governed and controlled by the various state and local building code divisions and make a model code. This copyright/private entity aspect of ICC should disqualify ICC from being used for public law purposes. Upcode has some legal points they made and ICC should cease being used and completely replaced by a completely public model code that is controlled by a PUBLIC entity not a private corporation (even if it was on the stock market... doesn't actually make it public).

ICC does have its own legal rights to publish a model code but public policy should be that building codes be entirely public as with the statutes and administrative rules.

The codes are available for free from the ICC website. Codes are not public law. They do not need to be free.

I'm no legal scholar but this sure looks like the ICC doesn't want you cutting and pasting the free content:

5. Ownership of the Services and Site Information; Intellectual Property Rights
The Services, including the Site, E-Content, and the design and content features thereof (including without limitation, information and other materials, illustrations, product layout, and design, icons, navigational buttons, images, artwork, graphics, photography, text, data, audio sound, software and the like, as well as the selection, assembly and arrangement thereof), are owned by ICC or its affiliates or are licensed from third-party service providers by ICC. The Services, as a whole and in part, are protected by copyright, trademark, service mark, trade name, and other intellectual property and proprietary rights, and all other applicable rights are reserved to ICC or its affiliates or applicable licensors.


https://www.iccsafe.org/about/...

All regulations of local and state agencies like their administrative rules and the statutes are required to be public BY the agencies. They are required to be public if they have any law enforcing aspect to it. If it has the force of law, it is required to be public. So, technically, ICC shouldn't even exist as it does. It should be a government owned public entity whose model laws are public domain and when amended and adopted be public at all times 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, every day. If the public can not without a paid subscription read, copy, duplicate, etc. the laws as they so choose to, and have access to it whenever they want, all the time, without it being subject to it being made unavailable behind a paywall, which ICC has the authority to with any of its publications, they it is unenforceable. The public is required to have access to any regulation (which is what a code is when it is adopted and given the power of enforceability) that is given power of enforceability through statutory and administrative laws, must be accessible in the same manner as statutes and administrative rules. State legislature didn't give ICC legislative powers. It really needs to be completely public end to end. ICC could choose to make none of their code public and require you to pay a subscription that could be as much as the cost of the code books in print (combined). They are in business to make money and generate a corporate revenue. When it is a model code (not adopted) it doesn't matter. Once it is incorporated into law, adopted (and may be amended) it become regulatory law which is required to be in public domain so every person can and will have public access to it, copy in part, cite, etc. at all times. 

Something of interest: Veeck v. Southern Bldg. Code Congress Int'l, Inc.

Just look it up and read up on this case if you want to know more. 

When States and government jurisdictions adopts the codes, they are public law in essence. They must be publicly accessible in its entirety at all times. 

When ICC makes an edition of the I-Codes, the purpose of it is to get legislators and regulators of states and local governments to adopt it.. effectively becoming law. It is not just some standard. When it is given legal effect and power, it becomes effectively law. It isn't just some "best practices" standard. Anyone can write their own such standard but when the goal is to have legal adoption and enforcement, then it loses the copyrightability in the form it is adopted by a government legislative body or a government regulatory agency. When it is to legally enforce than it is public law and must be public as any other law is.

ICC like one of its founding members SBCCI is in the same business. If ICC wants to protect its copyrights, it needs to get out of the business of trying to get such codes adopted by legislators and regulators and be just a "best practices" standards publishers. They effectively give up the copyright once it's adopted "into law".

Once the code is adopted by a government, it becomes edicts of government. It doesn't matter the original model code by ICC. It is the version AS adopted by a state, federal, or local jurisdiction that is edicts of the government. Sometimes the particular jurisdiction adopts it unamended so it is effectively identical to the version by ICC. When you publish a standard/model code and try to make it into law, you risk effectively nullifying your copyright. When I submitted a draft bill for amendment to the state of Oregon, it becomes public record. If they adopted it, I would have zero copyright claim even though I may have authored it. I give it up if it became law because it becomes an edict of government. ICC would essentially be in the same boat. They would have to effectively give up the copyright for it to become law in that laws must be free for publication to all and accessible to ALL, always at all times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Public.Resource.Org,_Inc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_government

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU03/20140114/101642/HHRG-113-JU03-Wstate-MalamudC-20140114.pdf

https://www.wilmerhale.com/insights/client-alerts/20200515-supreme-court-expands-the-government-edicts-doctrine-to-legislators

https://www.calfee.com/newsletters-301

https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2284&context=jour_mlr

The laws and rules and legal devices that regulates us in general principle MUST be owned by the people. In other words, public and copyrights negated so that private interest has no monopolistic control over the laws that regulates us. Building codes when adopted are laws that regulates us. So, if ICC wants to have something they can publish with copyright, they can publish a version of their codes with their own annotations and commentaries. They do. The raw code becomes uncopyrighted once it is adopted by federal, state, and local jurisdictions into law as amended (if amended). The versions as adopted by those jurisdictions becomes law and are government edicts that must be publically accessible to all with unfettered access to do, as PUBLIC DOMAIN content as with any other law. ICC would be best to modify their business and product offering. Offering a model code to the states and jurisdictions to adopt and publish a version with their own annotations and commentaries. While the raw model code be made in a manner for adoption by governments without ICCs extra commentaries and such that isn't baked into the code sections. This way, ICC has a copyrightable publication protected from the effects of becoming edicts of government. They can do it that way so the raw code itself is what they go and advocate into law but they make the money on the publications with ICC commentary and annotations and such that are added content to explain and clarify the code beyond the base code.

I can't claim copyright to laws but I can incorporate it into a publication which explains the law and claim copyright to my explanations and in theory make money from it. ICC is aptly in position to do exactly that with regards to the building codes and related codes they offer, that they may drafted and advocated successfully for adoption by the various federal, state, and local governments.

Make and keep the raw code free and if necessary into public domain but make money on the educational side of it where you teach and explain the codes and make money that way.

Thanks for those points, Richard, I think you have it right. But I may be biased, disclaimer: I'm an UpCodes cofounder.

But every court has agreed with you and us on this point.  For example, ruling against ICC in their case against, Judge Marrero said:

"The Court concludes, however, that the case law is ultimately consistent. It compels a holding that the I-Codes as Adopted are in the public domain, because they are in fact enacted state and local laws binding on the enacting jurisdictions' constituents."

And agreed there's other ways for ICC to make money.  UpCodes has been around for 8+ years, and ICC is making more money than they've ever made, which you can see from their 990s.  So they don't need to rely on restricting access to the law to make money.  This is a good model the other law publishers can follow.  (Ref: https://projects.propublica.or...)

I think ICC has a place in the industry of proposing codes to be adopted but the thing they need to do to make money isn't the code itself that gets put into law. As authors like drafters of bills, when they become law, you no longer can hold and claim copyright to the law that is passed and the text of the bill because it becomes public. What ICC can do, it the model code be free and made public in and of itself but they make the money from the educational additions they add through commentaries and annotations they add to explain the code, what it means, the intent, etc. That's the stuff of value. Including graphics that aren't already baked into the code itself but are added to clarify understanding of the code. ICC can even do that for various state amended versions of the codes adopted for each state and make a shit ton of money. Off setting the cost of operations. If they do a good job of it, of course. So I think it is in these educational aspects ICC can offer that they can and should make their money and protect that aspect under copyright but not so much the code itself as they become public law. Upcodes can do similarly as well and it comes down to authorial expression on clarifications and explanations. It is good to have both ICC, Upcodes, etc. in stuff like this so we have the law itself as they are adopted and amended by the varied states and jurisdictions throughout, so we professionals can be effective in complying with the codes. Why shouldn't we be able to copy & paste the code sections we may have to cite in the course of our professional duties and holding zealous building officials at bay of making up requirements that the code doesn't require. Sometimes building officials get big headed. So we got to be able to cite the codes and it's a pain in the ass to manually retype it when it can be adequately copy & pasted. When copying excerpts of copyrighted commentaries and explanations by ICC or other authorities of the subject matter, it would be fair-use when you also cite the sources and proper credit that is due even in what is within the overall commercial activities of professional services within rational reason. I don't see a case situation where building design professionals ever have to copy and publish the entirety of codes as a whole but we should have access to and quote what we need to in our work unfettered by threat of lawsuits. Albeit, ICC hasn't quite gone to those extremes and been more targeted in their lawsuits but they can be causing unneccesary harm when they get lawsuit happy and going out suing this and that and cause intimidation that they may go even more aggressive and even harmfully ridiculous. I look for a ground where the "law" is freely open to the public and the adopted code is law. I think there are ways ICC can be in this business they are in with the code itself being free and public. Make money on the additive value of what they can bring beyond the code itself.

And one thing a lot of people don't realize is that, despite UpCodes being in business for 8+ years, ICC is making more money than they ever have. It's completely unnecessary to try to restrict access to the law to make money.

Do local AHJs pay ICC to use their codes? How do they modify those codes if the ICC is copywritten? How are they allowed to distribute those codes if it’s based on copywritten material?

When you submit code like ICC advocacy arm does to legislatures and regulatory bodies to adopt, like a Bill or similar lawmaking, rulemaking, regulation making process, they advocate and submit the code for adoption (through the code cycle). When someone, a legal person (includes organizations) submits a proposed law or rule amendment or some regulation to be adopted, that submission becomes public record. Once the submission is adopted into law much like a Bill is submitted and if supported and advocated for, it may get adopted..... without getting caught up in the weeds of process differences between legislation, rulemaking, and regulation adoptions in their technical procedures, lets say the outcome like in the context of ICC's I-codes becoming adopted into law... it becomes public law which means the adopted "law" becomes public domain. 

In effect, the copyright is forfeited. ICC forfeits copyright to the code itself (the text, integral graphics/figures, tables, equations) once it becomes public law. 

What states should do and suppose to do is repackage the code, stripping of ICC logos and such that isn't adopted in itself and package it into a document. If you wrote an entire code set and got it adopted in your state, you can no longer hold copyright to the code because it is forfeited when it becomes law. You relinquish your claim of copyright when you give the code to be adopted as law because no law may be owned or controlled by an individual person or company. All laws belongs to the collective people. 

This is why copyright then is voided. 

So, what do you do to make money from that work, you publish an annotated version of that code with your commentaries explaining the code sections. You give up the rights to the code itself but that doesn't mean you give up rights to commentaries. You just don't include it in the package that is the raw code. The best practice is what you submit to become law is stripped of things like your trademarks and such and things like commentaries. You leave it to that states to "pretty" it up in a published package or whatever. 

It is no different than model statutes like NCARB publishes. Many states adopted some version of NCARB's model laws in some fashion. As states incorporate them into law, it become essentially law. Lets say, a State wanted to adopt a more pure version of NCARB's model law... they can essentially adopt the text as a regulation or rule and incorporate it in its entirety (usually stripping things like NCARB's logo and stuff like that that are irrelevant). 

If ICC or anyone wants to propose a model law (model codes are model laws), they have to be prepared to forfeit copyright claim over that model law when states adopts them into law. Some are practically unamended and in its entirety. This is what you get with government and making your model law into actual law because once it is actual law, it becomes public domain and belonging to the people. Private entities can not own the law in the United States. This point goes back LONG before ICC ever existed. You can't have your model law/code be law and you have exclusive monopolistic right over publication, access, etc. of that model code that became law. You can't have it both ways. 

Nerds be nerdin'.

Oh the ICC is full of errors and inconsistencies. The issue is that ICC codes have been adopted as printed by various AHJ. UPcodes is incorrectly saying what it in the ICC codes.

The addition of the 'user notes' in ICC codes is what is going to seal up the copyright claims and stop UPcodes.  It's why the ICC did it.  

b3tadine, thanks for pointing those links out!

Chad, for many jurisdictions, ICC hosts the model codes, but many jurisdictions adopt amendments to the jurisdiction.  For those, we integrate the amendments and keep them up-to-date.  ICC does not always do that and when they do, they've made errors or not been fully up-to-date as seen for example in the Washington in examples in the link above.

ICC isn't required to integrate amendments.

They provided them online before Upcodes was around, but you're right, they might have gone to a subscription model otherwise.

UpCodes cofounder here, glad to hear you're enjoying our interface!

In terms of double-checking code against government website and what not, that does apply to whatever service you use.  ICC's service is also not perfect as we pointed out in a 2020 review we did, showing hundreds of instances where the code was not fully accurate or up-to-date.

I'll also mention that we've made a ton of investments into improving data accuracy over the last 12 months and continue ramping that up.  Keeping all the amendments integrated and up-to-date is a challenging task, but we're constantly improving.  We now have a team of 22 full-time folks whose full-time job is QAing and keeping these things up-to-date. 

ICC knows well how hard this is, last I checked, Washington was the only the only state with a base code + separate amendments where they tried to integrate them and as you can see from link above, there were mistakes made or it wasn't up-to-date.  To be fair, that was 2020, it's possible they've improved or have integrated more amendments.

It is very difficult to do. I think it's great the UPcodes is attempting to incorporate amendments. Unfortunately UPcodes still produces enough errors in their codes that you still need to verify it's accuracy.

The simple fact is that UPcodes is not a building code.  You cannot reference it in a code review.    If you use it and it's wrong (it still is)  then you have no way to defend yourself.  

To teach code, the code as adopted (with amendments as applicable), is public law and is required to be accessible with unfettered access in the same manner as statutes and administrative rules. It becomes public law and public domain at that point. That's even part of the fundamentals of the U.S. Copyright laws and part of the basis of Government Edicts Doctrine / Edicts of Government doctrine. You as a citizen has legal right to access, read, quote, etc. any law, rules, and regulations that has legal force to be applied against you or for you. In other words, you have a right to know the law and what the law is and what is says, cite it, quote it, use it to defend yourself or even protecting yourself. Copyrights applies a monopolistic control over copyrighted material to its author. When a private entity has monopolistic control over the laws they drafted and advocated for its adoption then the private entity can keep and restrict your access to it requiring you to pay whatever the hell they want even as much as a billion dollars a page of that code. That is against public policy and the Courts have repetitively and resoundingly rejected the power of private entities having monopolistic control over the code that becomes law and control access to the code text that is adopted into law. If you propose a law (that is basically what the model code is.... essentially a "Bill" in a sense to be adoptive legislatively or through a regulatory body. If ICC tries to impose monopolistic control of access to the code text of code that is adopted, then its time as public policy we do away with the entire I-Codes altogether and formulate a new and fully public entity for drafting new uniform model codes to be adopted replacing the whole I-code system. Even go as far as public policy go, no longer adopting model codes developed by private entities. Of course, the individual jurisdictions can then make amendments as they see fit.

Teaching how to read code, there are stuff for that, already. Could be expanded upon and more available.

I want our adopted codes to be accessible as freely as our statutes and administrative rules. All of our public laws which includes the regulatory laws like building codes, fire code, etc. All of that should be accessible fully as is our statutes and administrative rules. 

If someone wants to use a subscription services which the services offered with those subscription services beyond the code itself, that is up to the individual. 

I want the codes that we adopt to be accessible so we all can access and read the codes as with our laws. That's my position.

" I want them looking at the code, including local amendments, and trained on how to check for updates in-house. " 

This sentence, I agree with. Part of what you said prior, I am on the fence on that. 

The part I agree with on its own is people being able to access and read the codes, look at it, cite it, including local amendments and most of how, how to interpret and understand the code requirements, and how to check for updates in-house and verify with the local/state or other jurisdictions. 

Sometimes it is a convenience to have some things already done for you but you still have to do some leg work. People shouldn't assume ICC or Upcodes is perfectly up to date. 

Depending on the laws, the local jurisdiction may not amend the codes the state adopted because the state wanted to keep some uniformity of the code across the state.

Yeah, he and his minions are coming on too strong.

Plot twist; Rick works for upcodes and now everything makes so much sense.

Actually, I don't work for Upcode. I already told you why code when adopted is public law and is disqualified from copyright and becomes public domain. This had been settled by the courts.

I think it’s great if a product/service provider comes on a forum & adds to the conversation with some substance. Self-identifying as such just assists in putting the comments in context. Maybe even stays to offer pro insight when relevant? The other new account “+1’s”, tho, seem questionable.

It might get tedious if it were pure sales pitch. But he offered some info to counteract at least one misunderstanding about the product.

[I have Notlicensednorexperienced Walloftext Balkins on ignore at the moment so that cuts down on most of the filler on this page]

It's the thumbs-down on any comment that was vaguely anti-UpCodes that irked me. Maybe it's different on other forums but here, thumbs-down is rarely used and when it is used, it's notable. As an etiquette issue, I can let it go. But it doesn't add to my already not-so-great opinion of UpCodes. Watch them thumbs-down this comment too ;-)

> The other new account “+1’s”, tho, seem questionable.

You're right, those were indeed questionable! I had shared this with the team since there's user feedback on it and wanted to emphasize just how important accuracy is for us. I just followed up today and it does seem that a couple folks got a bit overzealous, made accounts and left some votes, which seems to have included downvotes too. My apologies for that, I've now asked them to remove all votes so that should happen promptly and to avoid that in the future. And I confirmed no one else from UpCodes has commented on the thread but me.

I really appreciate that Garrett, and you do seem to really care about creating a quality product, which is appreciated as well.

The thing is UPcodes isn't a publisher of a law. If you use it and it's wrong it's on you. 

 If the ICC publishes something and it's incorrect you are not at fault and have ways to remedy the issue. 

Take sec 1511.7.6 of the 2024 IBC. Lighting protection systems. This was included in the 2024 edition by error. If you look at the ICC website you'll see that two times an application was made to include this section in the 2024 code. Two times it was rejected.  We've shown this to various AHJ and it removed from the projects.

ICC isn't a publisher of laws, either. The ICC model code itself is not the law. The correct law is the code as amended AND adopted in the jurisdiction where the project is located. If a jurisdiction adopts the model code as is, it become public law and that jurisdiction is required to publish the law in a manner that is A) free, and B) public for everyone. Of course, they can charge for cost of making prints just has they may for any public information request BUT the law must be public in a manner where a person may print out the law at home on their own printers if they so choose or reference from it. 

The correct thing is the code published by the jurisdiction should remove all ICC trademarks and such and publish the code and integral graphics, figures, etc. that are part of the code but not ICC's logo and stuff that is purely proprietary. ICC should present to jurisdictions the code to be adopted (including with jurisdictional amendments) a version of the code stripped of proprietary trademarks and such. Basically the raw code. That is what they should be doing in the first place when advocating the code to be adopted into law. Private entities and person should note that when you present a Bill or some code or other prospective law to be adopted, it becomes public domain when it is adopted as amended (if any amendments are made). Anyone has the right to publish the public law as adopted. They SHOULD be correct as possible. Upcodes could have issues if they publish the codes with ICC's logo and marks and should publish the code itself that is adopted removing any trademarks that belongs to ICC that isn't part of the code. 

If a jurisdiction adopts the code with certain integrated brief comments baked into the code (and not pre-stripped by ICC when they submit it to be adopted by a jurisdiction), then you have a problem. States should also strip out such commentary and rewrite the brief commentary but I don't really see any in the Oregon codes. However, Oregon's code does have the ICC logo but they should also remove the ICC Preface and rewrite the preface and incorporate the information they need to communicate the marginal markings, italicized terms, and such. 

In fact, ICC and I-codes should be replaced with a fully public model code by a public (government) owned entity akin to like NCARB is as a public owned corporation that is owned by the jurisdictions as members/owners of the corporation, and the code then be adopted with amendments by each jurisdiction as they do today but the source model code be a public entity not a private entity. This is my personal opinion so we get past this problematic issue of a private entity copyright vs. public law effectively nullifying copyrights and the problems associated with things currently with ICC, states, etc.

Yes and no. 

 When any code is adopted by a government agency then it must be publicly available without having to pay for it. This is already done. The copyright and publishing information isn't required to be removed, in fact it's illegal to do so. 

The key thing to understand that something can be copyrighted and still protected while being public law.  

The courts ruled ALL governments edicts are PUBLIC DOMAIN and copyright laws can not apply to government edicts. Building codes when adopted are government edicts. Period. ICC has no right to copyright to anything adopted by government. ICC forfeited their copyright by getting their model codes adopted by a government agency or legislative body. They lost the copyright by doing that. Plain and simple. 

When something is public domain, there is no copyright and can be removed for the simple fact, the copyright no longer exist. ICC copyright ends the moment it became law in a particular jurisdiction and became government edict. To be honest, private entities shouldn't be making and proposing laws unless they are willing to forfeit ownership and copyright to that proposed work. 

Copyrights makes it a right to authors to hold EXCLUSIVE control over access to the copyrighted work, exclusivity of publication, and whether any portion is available to even be looked at or not. If ICC retains copyright, they have the right to deny anyone access unless they pay for it at whatever the amount ICC wants. So if ICC has copyright to the code that is adopted, then ICC would have absolute control over access to the code that is law and could deny the public any free access to the code whatsoever locking it behind a pay wall. Courts already ruled that private entities can own or hold copyright interest on any law even if they were the original authors. 

In a sense, it kind of an eminent domain issue. ICC can only pursue that avenue if the proposed law (model code) was adopted without ICC's permission. However, if ICC was proposing it to be adopted, then ICC implicitly places the model code into public domain and releases their copyright interest in the model code that is adopted for the model code to be adopted must be owned by the public as in public domain. 

Otherwise, every person who drafted a bill that was adopted would have exclusive rights over the publication of that work that became statutory law. The same idea applies even to regulatory law. In general, copyrights are automatic the moment it is composed into a medium. 

However, when such work, that would initially be copyrighted, is used to become an edict of government, the copyright is essentially terminated/forfeited and becomes public domain. It can not be both copyrighted to private individual(s)/entities and be public law. It is ILLEGAL to do so. Private entities and individuals can not own exclusive rights over laws. 

Copyrights by definition is an EXCLUSIVE rights by authors. Therefore, there is a big conflict. Courts resolved this issue a long time ago and on multiple occasions. This issue goes back all the way to the early days of the U.S. Copyright laws well over 100 years ago. 18th/19th century time frame.

When government adopts ANY law including those authored by anyone else like every BILL that ever get legislated is authored by the persons who wrote the bills to be legislated into law. The Code being proposed is like a bill that is adopted into law either by the legislative process or through adoption under administrative rules. Any regulation (such as building codes) that have legal force is law. If you can be punished for violating it, it is law. If it law, it is public domain. It is government edict doctrine that makes it public domain. In other words, ICC forfeits copyright over any building code they may have authored when it is adopted by a government entity into law, be it statutory law, administrative rule, or adopted as a regulation (regulatory law). 

Any type of law enforced at any level of government within the United States is required to be free and publically available unfettered by any copyright claim, control, or otherwise by any individual or private entity. Therefore, ICC's copyright is forfeited when they advocate to the legislature or regulatory agency to adopt at the moment it is adopted. 

You can not retain copyright as author or anything you authored that is proposed and put into law especially if you advocated it. This also applies to companies. This was ruled by federal courts, court of appeals, and certain cases, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Copyrights can not be attached to any law. Building Codes and any other adopted regulation, statutory and administrative law of any government from federal to local are known as government edicts. Courts have held that such laws are essentially public domain the moment they become law. Regulations are laws when they are adopted. They are a regulatory law but a law nonetheless. 

Government edicts are not to be encumbered be private entity's and individuals' copyright interest. Courts held that such copyrights are essentially forfeited by the authors. If you think about any Bill that is drafted, they would be copyrighted by the author of the Bill but once it is law, the Bill and the Engrossed Statutory Law is public domain. 

ICC is like any other jackass that drafts a bill or otherwise proposes amendments to administrative rules of an agency or drafts up a regulation to be adopted. They are authors and the copyright is there until it is adopted. Once it is adopted into law, the copyright to forfeited and thus belongs to the people as a whole. You give up copyrights to your dream laws when you get it adopted into actual law. No one person or private entity can own the laws that are adopted. Period. Absolute NO EXCEPTION. 

ICC lost its copyrights to the code text when it is was adopted. All I-Codes are derivative works of public domain laws. Don't get to keep the copyrights when you give it to the government to become law because for it to become law, the work is essentially converted to public domain when it becomes a government edict. ICC, too F---ing bad. Should have learned about limits of copyrights. Oh well. 

Now, a non-adopted model code would be copyrighted by the authors because it would not be a government edit (ie. not a law).

Rick wrote:

"ICC lost its copyrights to the code text when it is was adopted. All I-Codes are derivative works of public domain laws. Don't get to keep the copyrights when you give it to the government to become law because for it to become law, the work is essentially converted to public domain when it becomes a government edict. ICC, too F---ing bad. Should have learned about limits of copyrights. Oh well."

You're incorrect Rick. 

Also, watch your mouth.  You sound like a child throwing a temper tantrum.  

In other words, if ICC wants to have exclusive publication rights of their authorial work like the codes, they they shouldn't be having these codes adopted. In fact, it is time that we stop adopting the I-codes or any codes that are developed and published by privately owned organizations. We should replace code development with a completely public entity process that is public. No more private entity developed buildings codes. It should be entirely a public process where any submissions like the Bills are clearly indicated that all submissions shall become public domain property upon submission. Making clear that any copyright claim shall forever be forfeited upon submission. If you want your suggestions or ideas to become law or code, you no longer shall retain any private rights over your submission. If you don't wish to lose your private rights over such submission, you don't submit the submissions. You don't be part of the code development process. You stay out of it.

WATCH YOUR MOUTH.  

The copyright infringements have to do with reproducing AUTHORED content without permission.  Becoming a law doesn't change that or grant everyone permission.  Only the AHJ has that permission.  Even then MOST AHJ's don't provide a physical copy unless you specifically ask for it and pay the printing fees for specific sections.  Most AHJ's have links on their code pages to the ICC's website. 

Do you know what the government edicts doctrine is? Do you know what its effects are on copyright law according to the court cases? It doesn't matter if the local AHJ has a copy of the code although they should. Sometimes the adopting authority of the codes is the state. In Oregon, that is the Building Code Division. The purpose of the governments edict doctrine, pretty much is literally to nullify the copyrights of those who may have authored the texts of the laws from imposing their rights under the copyright. When proposed codes or any other proposed 'laws' or to speak colloquially when a "Bill" (speaking a little looser than a literal Bill used in statutory lawmaking but the concept of a Bill in application of all lawmaking), the proposal of a law or amendment to a law, is being adopted into law, they are all originally authored at least by someone. That someone would have a copyright to their written work. Right? Automatically upon creation of the work. When the author proposes it to become law, they are essentially offering up their copyrighted work to the government (federal, state, or local), for it to adopted and become law. Laws are not allowed to by copyrighted. Laws are prohibited from copyrights to be attached to it. Public policy in our laws is that laws be public. Otherwise, the individual authors would have the rights of the copyright law to exclusively control any publication or reproduction of their work. The point of copyright is grant the author sole, exclusive rights to publish, reproduce, creative derivative works, etc. This means a person who holds the copyright can simply have no access to reading any portion of the copyrighted work without paying for it. Meaning no third-party could publish it in any way or form. In addition, that copyright owner could require you to pay whatever amount that copyright owner decides for you to even preview it as well as to purchase. When private entities can do that with adopted law, the law no longer can be really enforceable. It becomes a situation where it can be unconstitutional. In that equal protection of the law as with equal enforcement of the law can be infringed upon. It also causes "ignorance of the law" to become a valid defense. Every person needs to have access to the law, all the time. Just because ICC, currently may have their code available to be looked at for free does not mean they can't deny access to it if they wanted to from their site. Government edicts doctrine in effect nullifies the copyrights because the code is a law.

Chad, the authority having jurisdiction, that the government jurisdiction which by the way is public owned. They belong to the people as a collective body. The State of Oregon government belongs to the people of the State of Oregon. We the people who the government that governs us. You heard of the saying, "Government of the people, By the people, for the people". That is our government at all levels. How can we the people follow the laws of the people if the laws of the people are denied access to the people?

For there to be equal protection of the law, the law must be equally enforced and equally accessible to every person and accessible to everyone including those without money otherwise there is not equal protection of the law or equal access to the law. If they can not afford to pay the extortion to even be able to read the law, then they will have been denied the opportunity to comply with the law. Every person is expected to follow the law which means they would be expected to be able to access and read the law and understand the law. If they can not access it, how can they have read it or understood it? Then how could have complied with the law they been denied access to being able to read it in order to understand it in order to follow and comply with the law.

…and all the ASHRAE standards, ANSI standards, UL assemblies, and so on and so forth, all adopted by reference in model codes, state codes, federal codes, and so forth…

Hence why there are three types of fire resistance compliance: Prescriptive, Performance, and Third-Party Testing (Engineering Judgements). I'm sure Hilti and 3M would have a field day.

Those associations knowingly advocated for their standards to be adopted into the model code, knowingly that ICC would advocate for the code to be adopted by the various federal, state, and local governments, and thus be subject to the government edicts doctrine which applied to laws long before there was any codified building codes in the United States, anywhere. Building Codes and the related I-Codes when adopted as was the UBC and other codes in those era, became public domain when they are law. If the law was not free and public, unfettered by copyrights, there would not be equal protection of the law of the 14th Amendment. Those with money and wealth, especially back in that era, were white men....this would be a serious issue. You have to have a six digit figure income to buy all the codes and standards all the time with all the other laws and rules, and regulations. How can one afford to buy all those things. These authors often charges as much or close to the same amount for digital/electronic copy as the printed books. The statutes are freely accessible, so why not the building codes. If ICC had their way, there wouldn't even be free access to the codes on their site. They would have made it a pure subscription service where you had to pay a subscription to just to look at it, and buy the code if you want to have access to printing it or to copy and select the text to even quote it. Of course one could manually retype it but it is a PITA way to do it. ICC wants the code to be adopted as law yet have exclusive control over publication, access, etc. of any code even as amended and adopted by the states so they have absolute monopoly over the codes. The court rulings complicated their goal. However, as public policy, we shouldn't be using model codes by private entities unless they sign a waiver where the authors sign away their copyright interest or otherwise declare into public domain the code. It should be a public-entities owned public corporation developing the model codes and standards to be that then be adopted by the individual jurisdictions. Private entities interest is just to line the pockets of their shareholders money and more money. They aren't in it to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. It isn't their responsibility. ICC isn't a law enforcement entity. They don't have the tenth amendment police powers.

The power to police, adopt laws, and rules, and regulations and enforce them are powers of the federal, state, and to some extent the local governments that the states grants unto their subpolitical bodies within. The interest for private entities that authors the codes and laws is to limit or get rid of free access to those laws and to make money off people who need access to the laws. That interest is contrary to the needs of the general public's access to the laws that regulates them so they can be compliant to the law. You take a look at all the codes and standards, it can cost well over $10,000 just to buy all of them. Maybe over $20,000. That's a lot of money. These guys could jack up the price to $10,000+ each and easily make the codes and standards cost over $200,000 to gain access. All of these entities would LOVE to make that much off every copy of the codes and referenced standards. It would be ridiculous. Then the codes would further be challenged on constitutional grounds and various other legal grounds. It would trigger the end of the 'uniformed' building codes when the jurisdictions decides, enough is enough, we are rewriting the codes for our jurisdictions.

Returning the code development process back to being a purely public process much like the San Francisco building code was developed by the City of San Francisco and adopted much like the zoning laws are. In states like Oregon, we have a state agency which would basically rewrite the codes in house and adopt them as part of our specialty codes. We might not be able to write the code in 3 year code cycles but we would not need to. We just write amendments (as we do anyway) but we would have the same base code and amendments. We wouldn't exactly have to make up the codes from scratch. We just rewrite and reword the provisions we already adopted as law and restructure the codes as needed and essentially depart from ICC's base code. We can essentially, enough with the ICC and depart from them. Eventually, our code could look structurally different from ICC's model code. It isn't like we actually have a truly uniformed building code across the U.S. That never materialized. If anything, the only really uniformity needed is across the states where the state adopts the code for the whole state. Oregon is that way. Then other states can borrow ideas from their neighboring states like they already do with state laws. There's no real need for ICC. If California were to do something like that, there would be some of that which would cross-pollinate into the codes in Oregon and Washington just as it does with other laws. Our codes would be quasi-uniformed on a regional level. Sometimes, the ideas would cross-pollinate across regions.

So some things which were standards of the industries like conventional wood framing spacing of studs have been standard practice for so long it doesn't matter and it was based on basic engineering principles. The headers are like small beams supported by small posts called studs. The double top plate headers can only span a limited distance. Typically about 24 inches with your basic 2x4 to 2x6 stud. A beefier header beam could span further and that comes to basic engineering but usually require a beefier posts at the larger spacing intervals. This relates to the principles of tributary area and stuff of basic engineering. A 2x6 post can only support a limited amount of load... much less than say a 6x6 post. You get the idea. A lot of the ideas the code requires is stuff even ICC doesn't own like as those are engineering principles that are in public domain. However, I do not suggest we entirely return to methods of the 1910s and 20s. I do suggest that we have better public process of adopting model code that is entirely public. This doesn't mean private publishers can't publish a version of the codes with their own commentaries and such. The code itself for public adoption should be public domain from get go. The standards that are explicitly mandatory should also be public domain. Standards that are considered accepted standards that can be used to meet the code can be private but private standards shall not be such that it is absolutely mandatory as if it is the ONLY way to comply with code. So there can be approved alternatives including those developed by public entities not just private interest trying to carve some manner of monopoly by gaming the codes into some form that they are a de facto monopoly which is aiding and abetting antitrust law violations.

Sorry, for the string of multiple posts as it was actually a long post so it was broken up into smaller chunks.

It is not good public policy that the laws, rules, and regulations that govern us and regulates us are controlled by privately owned copyright interest where the private entities have exclusive publication rights over the laws, rules, and regulations they may have authored. They can hold copyright over it and deny making copies or such or force people into paying whatever they demand for a subscription which can be $1,000,000,000 a month. Albeit that would be on the extreme and probably absurd side. 

They could do that as a middle finger to the public. So there is a reason why the laws are public and to be publicly accessible in a free manner. ICC's suing is showing their interest is not in making the codes free and accessible but for making money and they would want exclusive publication so they can paywall access to the code and charge money to everyone to even access the code and eliminating the free access to the code. They want to close off free access to the code. Upcodes and the courts, have frustrated their plans to do so. That's obvious. 

One is assuming ICC is going to make the subscription cheap. That's an assumption. They have to have competitors in order to have the incentive to do so. 

Right now, Premium Complete subscription on ICC is $72.75 a month. What stops them from moving the decimal point to the right two or three spaces? Really, what's to keep them from charging say, $7,999 a month? Even $727.50 a month is too expensive for most people. Maybe not for a firm with a lot of money but that could also be per seat meaning if you want multiple employees and owners of the firm, you have to pay something like $500-$700 or $5,000 to $7000 per seat per month. That would be a bit rich for small firms and definitely a beyond the affordability zone for individual architects and designers, etc. 

So how would we comply with the code in that situation if the code can only be published by ICC even the state adopted and amended versions and you have to pay through your nose just to get access to it. They can easily remove the $10 a month subscription if they wanted to. It isn't like they have to have multiple subscription options. Without competition, they can force people essentially down a single subscription option and charge a lot for it because there would be no incentive by competition if they essentially eliminate any form of competition in publishing of codes.

Personally, I don't give a shit if ICC makes money and charges for a "value-added" version of the codes with added content that isn't part of code itself but adds to the understanding of the code. ICC can make and add value by their commentaries and interpretations of the code they help authored. That is valuable to people in my opinion.

They don't care what you think. In addition, neither does copyright law.

Enjoy the animated GIF.

If you want to waste your time instead of reading the fucking rulings of existing cases that had already ruled on the matter. The lawsuit between ICC and Upcodes may likely get distracted around the fact these are two private entities and forgetting that codes ICC is publishing is public law and when it became a public law, that adopted public law is public domain in which case, every person can publish, print, copy, and do whatever he or she pleases with that law. We'll agree to disagree. If you want to revisit after ICC loses again after they lost as BOCA and SBCCI. So there you have it, never reading the law. Never reading the court prevailing ruling. No shit you don't have a clue what government edicts and the government edicts doctrine.

You are wrong on this Rick.  Just stop.  

No, you are. The courts already had ruled that the codes that are adopted are government edicts AND that government edicts had already been declared as public domain and can not be protected by the copyright laws back in the 19th century and on multiple occasion since then. You disagreeing with that is not disagreeing with me. It is disagreeing with the court rulings. ICC already lost twice as BOCA and SBCCI. 

ICC needs not make a penny on the code itself. They can publish value-added code related publications and copyrights would attach to the value-added content of those publications, not the code itself that is adopted as law.

Enjoy!

I apologize for being aggressive but I expect you to at least read the rulings from the court cases cited. Look it up and read it. Read up on government edicts doctrine. When courts makes a ruling, it becomes judicial law that is precedence on future cases.

When a panel of judges rules, the majority ruling rules even if there are dissents. The majority rules a certain way, the ruling is that of the majority not the dissents. In other words, you can ignore the dissenting opinions if they are the minority in the vote. The majority rules, its the law. 

You need to read the court cases in the last five years between the ICC and UPcodes. 

The UPcodes cases have made the argument that online posting and compiling isn't considered unapproved duplication since there is no commentary. The courts already ruled that code books with commentary are copyrighted and cannot be duplicated or posted online.

This is why ICC is adding the 'commentary blurb' to each chapter of all their publications starting with the 2024 editions. Regardless - all pre 2024 codes are still under copyright as they related to unapproved duplication. 

Okay, I'll agree with code books with commentaries because it is the commentaries that are copyrighted not the actual code text that is law upon adoption. I believe I said that earlier on. You can strip the commentaries out to the actual adopted codes because it is the code itself that is copyrighted. For ICC to do it right and not lose the copyright when the commentary is incorporated as law as part of the code, they should submit for legal adoption a version (for government adoption) stripped of the commentaries and trademarks and add the commentaries to the ICC's published offering as those value-added components that are copyrighted. The version with commentaries would have the same "code" but have that added stuff that is copyright protectable like the commentaries. 

 If Upcodes is publishing ICC's commentary version of the code, that can be a problem. ICC usually had a raw code version in their publication lineup as well as a version with commentaries. ICC should have two versions, the raw code version they send to governments to adopt and that they can publish that which is stripped clean of trademarks and commentaries and such as those would become government edicts. Then ICC publishes the version with commentaries. The individual states and jurisdictions would just need to post that "raw codes" version they adopt with their amendments incorporated in a digital form as well as in print version if they so choose. Upcodes can then take those "raw code" versions and publish them as is and not publish ICC's version with ICC's commentaries. Upcodes could, however, take the raw code and add their own commentaries and have their own version with their own commentaries. This would resolve the legal issues, I believe. 

The raw codes as adopted and amended by the actual governments throughout the U.S., is not copyrightable as they are government edicts at that point. ICC doesn't have to publish to the general consumer the raw code. They just need a "raw codes" version that goes to the governments for adoption into law so the commentaries don't get inadvertently incorporated into law. When it is incorporated into law, it is incorporated as a whole as government edicts. This is why I suggest, ICC don't go to governments to adopt the version with ICC's own commentaries. Just the raw codes. Nothing more, nothing less, basically. Even commentaries can be inadvertently become government edicts IF they were included at the adoption of the code. This is how ICC can protect the copyrights on the commentary from becoming government edicts along with the code.

Rick doesn't think that building codes can be copyrighted. The law says otherwise.

what's the point or the goal in engaging him?

It gives me a mental break from detailing.

Go read this and the cases cited:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Go read the cases for UPcodes and ICC. They differ and change the statues.

Rick - You're acting like a Sovern Citizen trying to apply Blacks Law Dictionary and out of date case decisions to get out of ticket.    

Lower courts can not overturn the Supreme Court. ICC cases haven't gone to the Supreme Court to ever be the opportunity to reverse the rulings of cases such as Banks v. Manchester, Callaghan v. Myers, Davidson v. Wheelock. Look at Georgia vs. Public.Resources.Org, Inc. (2020). In Veeck v. SCCI (2002), the court had determined that once the copyrighted building codes of SBCCI had been adopted into law, its copyright protection were outweighed by the policies favoring unfettered access by members of the public to republish the law in any manner they see fit.

To quote:

The issue in this en banc case is the extent to which a private organization may assert copyright protection for its model codes, after the models have been adopted by a legislative body and become "the law". Specifically, may a code-writing organization prevent a website operator from posting the text of a model code where the code is identified simply as the building code of a city that enacted the model code as law? Our short answer is that as law, the model codes enter the public domain and are not subject to the copyright holder's exclusive prerogatives. As model codes, however, the organization's works retain their protected status.

https://law.justia.com/cases/f...

My point, the copyright is effectively nullified.

This ruling is grounded in compliance with Supreme Court precedence that still stands to this day and in fact, the SCOTUS further expanded the government edict doctrine in 2020. 

More quote: 

There is a strong argument for that conclusion and it can be simply stated without calling on the illusion of the merger doctrine: the thinness of the protection enjoyed by this specie of copyright is overcome by the stronger public policy of unfettered access to enacted law, a victory expressed in the conclusion that enacting the code into law put the expression in the public domain.

Another quote from Veeck case:

I reiterate for emphasis that this would be an entirely different case if Veeck's (or anyone's) access to the law had been denied or obstructed; instead, we deal here only with Veeck's bald pronouncement — now legitimated by the majority opinion — that, once a code is enacted into law, due process does not merely afford him access, but also gives him unfettered copying and dissemination rights.

and another quote:

Logically then, the only possible support for Veeck's due process position is his wholly unsupported assertion that, by virtue of their adoption into law by reference, the codes have entered the public domain and are therefore denuded of all copyright protection whatsoever, regardless of their content or the identity of the author or other interested parties. According to Veeck — and now our en banc majority — simply by virtue of their adoption into law, SBCCI's model codes have become "THE law"; and as THE law, all THE people (not just those who may be deemed metaphysically to have been the authors by virtue of their elected legislatures' acts of adoption) have an absolutely unfettered right to do whatever they please in the way of copying and publishing, in total disregard of the author's otherwise valid and enforceable copyright.

Prevailing majority upholds the Banks v. Manchester case and the 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.

This continued upholding of the Supreme Court.

This is the Supreme Court in 2020: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1150_7m58.pdf

I do not care. Again, look at the court ruling for the UPcodes cases.  The courts used this decision to make their rulings.  

You might want to read the decision.  It doesn't apply to duplicating materials that before their adoption into law had a copyright.  It also doesn't apply to works with commentary.  

ICC's cases in lower courts doesn't mean shit with regards to actual law published. Upcodes as with any citizen has absolute unfettered right to access, publish, reproduce, copy any law. No exception. Now, what Upcodes can not do is publish what is NOT law that is copyrighted by another person (legal person which includes ICC but ICC namely for context) without permission from ICC. Upcodes can publish any law. Anyone can. YOU can Chad. Any time you even quote a portion or even a single sentence or provision of a law or the code. For example, when you quote the adopted code, if copying any portion of it in the course of your professional services, which is a commercial activity by the way, if ICC copyrights applied, you violated the copyright. Even quoted the section number of the code. It is a portion. Fair use clause isn't even really applicable here for commercial activities. Fair use clause is really legislatively intended for academic research not commercial use. Public law is public domain not just a fair use of copyrighted matter which the latter is much more restricted and limiting than it being public domain and entirely outside the legal scope of the copyright law. As in the copyright law in inapplicable to public law which codes and all laws are required to be in order to be law and enforceable. Due Process requires it. Even Justice Thomas, although dissenting, did agree that law, as a matter of due process, as in the case of Nash v. Lathrop and other cases cited, made a point to quote this: “[t]he decisions and opinions of the justices are the authorized expositions and interpretations of the laws, which are binding upon all the citizens. . . . Every citizen is presumed to know the law thus declared, and it needs no argument to show that justice requires that all should have free access to the opinions.” Chief Justice who wrote for the majority opinion of the Court upheld the long standing "government edicts doctrine". This case is important about annotations by the public government. Does commentaries if adopted by the government become a government edict. The argument could be a yes, even if they didn't actually write the commentary which is an annotation. If not adopted, ICC's commentary would be protected by copyright as ICC is not a government in itself.

Missed this part from your Supreme Court ruling.  I can see how you'd miss it.  It's only the first few paragraphs of the decision.  

The ICC is not a legislative body. 

ICC should defend and protect its copyright interest in the things that the copyrights are not profoundly and effectively nullified by the government edicts doctrine. One aspect is to not include the commentaries with the "raw model code" they propose for adoptions by jurisdictions but ICC publishes the version with commentary so the commentary itself is not in anyway potentially incorporated by the governments throughout the U.S. along with the code. The more you integrate the commentary with the code throughout when you submit for adoption as law, the more it is likely the commentary would be incorporated and potentially even amended and adopted as part of the code adopted and become a government edict. So it is best for ICC to keep the commentary separate for ICC's own publication of the code and only have the raw model code for adoption into law in order to shield it from becoming a government edict and thus, nullifying copyright protection. The government edicts doctrine grants that citizens must have unrestrained access to the laws that govern them. Further to point, that unrestrained access is more than just being able to freely read the law. 

This common law were established by the highest Court of the United States. So lower courts can not overturn the Supreme Court. So when a building code references a standard, the standard itself is still protected but the building code itself can be copied entirely verbatim by anyone as with any law, when the building code is adopted as a law. Colorado has been one state that had been borderline violating the Supreme Court ruling for a long time trying to extort massive amounts of money for what belongs to the public. 

ICC would generally want to preserve and protect their commentaries and such by not having it included and integrated throughout the raw model code that is for the purpose of getting the codes adopted into law so it isn't there and part of the code text in any fairly integrated fashion. This doesn't mean they can't publish code books with annotations/commentaries that those code books WITH the copyright protected annotations/commentaries. 

However, even if the code was adopted and ICC had commentaries, the commentaries can be stripped out and the code put into its raw adopted code as amended. Cut it out and republish the code that is law as amended. Upcodes could do that but just a little more tedious. If States do that, then Upcode would just be republishing public law. ICC just can't really win the copyright of the code itself when it is adopted as law due to government edicts doctrine. When Upcode publishes the state adopted building code for the State of Washington, the code itself as law as amended and adopted, it is public domain right to copy any law just like music that is so old that the copyright expired. Once it is public domain, it belongs to the public. Laws always are public domain as matter of public policy and judicial precedence all the way to the highest Court of the country. A law that is owned exclusively (copyright) by individuals and private entities is not legally enforceable and is unconstitutional in the United States. 

When private citizens and private companies submits and proposes a law to be adopted/passed, the government essentially takes ownership of it. It's probably something closer to an eminent domain matter. So if anything, ICC will have to sue the governments on basis of eminent domain takings laws and go by that route. However, if they were in anyway advocating the adoption of their model code into law, they have a difficult case to claim illegal takings. 

The Supreme Court government edicts doctrine would have to be challenged against eminent domain law with the tricky part of "Just Compensation". What is the fair market value of a model building code that is not a law? How is that measured? The copyright can be a challenge but what is the worth of a copyright of a model building code when it is not adopted? Why would people buy the I-codes when it is not adopted? Is it because it is adopted or about to be adopted into law that people buy it? When do people buy the building codes? 

I reckon that would be after it is adopted and before it goes into effect and shortly after where a lot of the purchases occur in a given jurisdiction. People in Idaho would buy it around the time it is adopted and shortly before and after the code goes into effect, in most cases. When it isn't even law, it isn't much of an incentive to spend money on? So the fair market value of the code to a person in a jurisdiction where the code isn't even adopted is of much lower value than when it is adopted. 

ICC doesn't really make its money on the model code when it is just a model code. They make money on it when it is a law or about to become law. That is what drives the sales. So you can say the fair market value can be a challenging thing to assess in the context of an unadopted model code. 

Can ICC sue the governments and Supreme Court over the government edicts doctrine as an illegal takings under the Eminent domain law? That may or may not work for ICC. 

The only way I see ICC really winning against Upcodes is Upcodes publishing ICC code books with ICC commentaries where the commentaries are not adopted as law and thus copyright protected. 

ICC suing for illegal takings under eminent domain against the Supreme Court, the federal government, state governments, and local governments for the implications of government edicts doctrine would be an interesting case but likely ICC will fail. This is where things get into some interesting path of legal challenge that hasn't been tested by ICC or its predecessors. It is very difficult to challenge the government on eminent domain takings in almost any case. It is almost always an uphill battle. Probably why ICC has tried that challenge.

Chad, there is a body of cases that have to be looked at. Yes but the rulings across multiple cases encompasses more than just state legislature but also includes regulatory bodies that adopts regulations into law (regulatory law). The federal, state, and local government basically takes ownership of the adopted code. So if ICC has a beef, they need to sue every single government from the Supreme Court to the lowliest of local jurisdictions for illegal takings and challenge the constitutionality of the government edicts doctrine. Basically, if you submit a code you wrote to be adopted, you are also GIFTING the ownership of that code to the jurisdiction within their jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction that adopts a model code owns it for that jurisdiction. So they own it and as policy it is public domain as whatever the jurisdiction owns is own by the collective public of that jurisdiction.

I'm not reading that.

There seems to be a lot of speculation in this thread on whether UpCodes is allowed to reproduce ICC's codes or not.

But I'm not sure why because the court already ruled on our case a couple years back saying it's allowed on 2 accounts: Public Domain and Fair Use.

"The Court concludes, however, that the case law is ultimately consistent. It compels a holding that the I-Codes as Adopted are in the public domain, because they are in fact enacted state and local laws binding on the enacting jurisdictions' constituents. ... On balance, the Court is persuaded that accurate posting of the I-Codes as Adopted is a fair use as a matter of law." - Judge Marrero in ICC v UpCodes (2020)

Disclaimer: I'm an UpCodes cofounder

I think the only issue Upcodes would have legally, is if they include ICC copyrighted commentaries that are not adopted as law as that may be still copyrighted.

Other issues may be trademarks. That can be resolved by cutting out ICC trademarks (logo) to strip out the trademarks as trademarks are not part of the code (as adopted).

Trademarks are covered by a different set of laws from that of copyrights.

Garrett - the speculation is about the use of the ICC 2024 codes.  

The issue will be that all the 2024 versions of ICC codes have commentary at the beginning of each chapter. My understanding is that commentary was a direct response to the ruling you mentioned. Basically the judge said that only if the codes had _____ in them could they be copyrighted. The ICC added what was mentioned by the judge.

I'm not sure how the forthcoming lawsuit will play out on this. The law is quite clear on this though - hosting any 2024 ICC codes on a website is currently illegal.

That's not addressing the issue with UPcodes having serious errors on the site.  That's the reason why I don't currently trust the site. 

If a state adopts 2024 I-codes from ICC. The commentaries from ICC would have to be removed or 2024 I-Codes do not get adopted or they adopt specific sections from the 2024 I-Codes as amendments to a prior edition I-code they already adopted working around the commentaries and not publish the state adopted codes using that edition's commentaries at all.

Who's publishing the 2024 code? What state adopted it at this time? If Upcode is publishing 2024 I-codes before anyone adopted it, maybe it is a problem. However, you can gander that a good 80% of the text is substantially the same as the previous edition... would it be a derivative work of what is in public domain? Hmmm.... you talk about a commentaries that is copyrighted. If 2024 I-code isn't even adopted yet, what's the point of talking about it or for Upcodes to publish it right now? Who's gives a shit about 2027 I-Codes or the 2030 I-Codes at this time?

Rick, you don't seem to now much about 2024 edition so I'll say this one last thing. The 2024 codes are already adopted in some areas and will be adopted throughout most of the US. 

 At the start of each chapter there are 'user notes' . Some say this is commentary, I don't think it is.  I'm sure the courts will need to figure this out. These users notes have two sections  'about this chapter' , and 'code development reminder'.

With that I'm done with this discussion. 

When it comes to the 2024 I-Codes, all it takes in adopting and releasing the code in a public domain manner is stripping out the "user notes" and publish the code itself that is adopted. That's how you cleanse the non-adopted / non-law stuff that is not part of the code itself that becomes law. Also strip ICC trademarks. When a jurisdiction adopts the code, they are adopting the actual code not the other crap... usually. Then that be published by the jurisdictions and any interested party who wishes to host the codes that are adopted. Of course, the state's can replace those "user notes" which their own commentary. That would be insertion notes just like Oregon in the Oregon codes, inserts excerpts of state statutory law. Upcodes can publish those. Upcodes could also strip those non-adopted stuff and post the codes as adopted. Just because those user notes are added doe not negate the effects of government edicts doctrine on the core code itself. If Upcodes is publishing the 2024 I-codes with those user notes by ICC that are not adopted, could be a legal issue. All that is needed to comply and not violate ICC copyright claims on that text in the box is to strip and remove the box with that text. Just cut it out. States don't necessarily adopt those and it's easy for them to run a strike through all the text during the code amendment and adoption process and possibly replace that with their own info about state code development cycle and explanation of the chapter. It isn't something they even need. Even Upcodes can do that for each chapter. Only what.... 35 chapters and 16 Appendixes. That can be done in maybe an hour or two. Just the code text. That's what they need and apply state amendments. The user notes aren't actually part of the code. It's a non-issue. The code text itself is what's law when it is adopted and thus becomes government edicts.

ICC actually had those user notes in the 2021 I-Codes. Oregon's current OSSC which is based on 2021 IBC doesn't incorporate those user notes. It was stripped when Oregon began the 2022 OSSC code. They removed that upon adopting the 2021 code provisions updating the OSSC. Other states can do the same thing. Cut that out and publish without that box. Upcodes could do likewise as with publishing adopted state codes.

Oregon uses a considerably amended version of the I-codes. In fact, they kind of combined provisions from IBC, IFC, and IEBC into one code. Our chapter 34, in the current edition incorporates IEBC into the chapter. There is a bit of differences from the raw model code. Other states are more pure but even they can just cut those user notes with minimal amendments as they so desire.

The new thing I am noticing from 2024 I-codes is this QR Code thing. A non-issue. You cut that out when cutting out the User Notes.

Chad, if it is about the user notes, Upcode can strip that out pretty quickly as those aren't necessarily part of the actual code that is adopted. However, Upcodes would have to look at how the state adopted the code. Did they explicitly indicate the inclusion of the "user notes"/commentary section at the beginning of the code. 

Of course, when I am customarily thinking of commentary, I'm thinking of this: https://codes.iccsafe.org/codes/commentaries/2021-commentaries as the version with code commentaries. That's the editions with the detailed commentaries by ICC that I customarily would think off. Of course, they become less valuable when states make significant alterations and therefore would also need to include commentaries for each state if they were to publish a detailed commentary version for the codes in each jurisdiction but that's a bit of work for ICC to do on their own and publish. However, it's fine for the unamended model code. 

The legal question for the case in Alabama, when they adopted the code unamended, did Alabama inadvertently adopted the user notes that was in the 2021 IBC and by that, would it has inadvertantly become government edicts?

Same with Colorado.

Upcodes incorporation of ICC's user's notes might be an issue where I agree can be reason for the ire of ICC. When I actually look at the OSSC in Oregon, as it would as a printed book where someone scanned each of the pages that goes in the binder, it doesn't actually have the ICC user notes. So it shouldn't be included unless it was actually adopted by the state. Lets take a look at the code as published by Colorado. When you look at the codes as adopted, in the jurisdictions, do they actually include the User Notes? Don't see it in 2022 Denver Building Code.

Other than for state public projects, there isn't a state-wide building code according to Colorado's Office of State Architect. (Just summing it up). Now, let's see about Alabama. Somewhat similar issues at the state level but little different on private commercial / residential projects which seems the code for those are as adopted at more local jurisdictions. Sorting out Alabama's adopting laws / rules is a mess so I'll look into that later.

Donna, since you politely ask, I'll stop on this thread for awhile at least. I agree that I got a bit heated and I agree that particular post be "hidden".  Maybe also hide the ones with the middle finger memes, too or if there is a way to edit that part out with a moderator note indicating the meme was requested by removed. Thank You. A cool down period is appropriate.

Nah, the middle finger memes are funny. but thank you for being gracious about it.

That would be fair. I would have clicked a thumbs up to agree.