undecided as yet, while it looks like that's the way it will go

Even then I think Upcode has been wiping the courtroom floor with ICC lately so those copyrights haven’t been holding up since it’s an ordinance required by an AHJ.

ICC is fighting (and losing to) UpCodes because it's hurting their business model. My copying an image, or paragraph or two, or even a whole page to include in a set of drawings so a contractor or permit official doesn't have to have a copy of the code on site isn't going to make a dent in ICC's business model.

Maybe I'll start including a hyperlink to the relevant section on UpCodes' website instead when/if this ever comes up again.

"Beyond doubt, state laws are not copyrightable." 

Supreme Court of the United States Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org (2020) 

- Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

These organizations need to get with the times and just publish their material free online with adds, like the other companies do.

I wonder if they did, weather or not they would be able to have better luck with the law suits because then everything would be public access already, and the argument that they are controlling access would be moot. Then someone else is just ripping them off with no added value to the services. 

All of the ICC model codes are available for free viewing on their website.

Janosh, correct, but the question is can we copy their images onto our drawings.

Yep, understood; I was replying to Natematt's comment that codes should be available for free online which the ICC has already done. But for my part, I would not hesitate at all to cut paste code diagrams or text into our drawing set (we do it regularly) and as others have mentioned courts have consistently held that public regulations cannot be restricted by copyright.

Oh, got it. 

The ICC did that under protest, and they have never been interested in making it easy. They're the same sort of shitheads as fought streaming for so long that it basically ensured the currently fucked up model we have, with ads, multiple services, and none of the convenience that consumers want AND WILL PAY FOR.

@Janosh

ASTM is not though. 

That's a great point. While I often wish I could copy/paste the online ICC writing into my specs, I can't recall ever feeling the need to copy their drawings.

Much like those useless, time-consuming, and inevitably outdated CODE STANDARDS SHEETS we all know and hate, this is an effort to shield Architects and jurisdictions from liability. Like wearing a bible-verse-printed jumpsuit while doing a morally suspect crime.

I don't need to copy them into drawings per se, but I'd like 1) a viewer that isn't a restricted size and 2) the ability to zoom/scroll/copy/paste/print as necessary to bolster other work. Communicating with consultants/clients; citing text with the quotation. Or just printing a page to highlighter the pertinent bits to my current situation.

screen capture was the method until upcodes offered text based access to the language

Some of it is required. Section 107 Submittal Documents. Things like 107.2.4 “The construction documents shall include manufacturer’s installation instructions..” (copyright material). Also other things like egress, structural, etc. which require essentially a code study presented for the basis of how you determined the values, meaning you cite the section like Table blah blah for occupant load, exception blah blah for your mile long dead end corridor, and so forth. Other 'norms' might be in the specifications citing other copyright material like BIA (Brick Institute of America) standards on the assumption the GC won't own those docs or would be willing to purchase them.

Without going into the way in which jurisdictions make up their own processes, most of the code language we put into our drawings is not required by the State or Local Building Codes. We do it to illustrate compliance and assist the AHJ in understanding the methods we have used to comply. To make an reductive absurd example, if I copied the entire code book into my documents, I'd still be liable (and rightly so) for non-compliance where it existed.

mightyaa, I don't think citing the source document and directing the reader to go there is really at issue. The copyright notice that WG posted earlier mentions not reproducing or copying the content without consent ... nothing about referencing it. Where "the construction documents shall include manufacturer's installation instructions," is required ... I've always interpreted that to mean that I can refer to those and "include" them by reference in the construction documents. I don't think it means that I have to literally copy them into my drawings or specifications.

That's where citing Table blah blah blah can work without having to copy Table blah blah blah into your documents. I also have language in my specifications that states that the contractor needs to obtain and become familiar with the document referenced. So if I state that they need to follow a BIA (actually Brick Industry Association, not Brick Institute of America) standard, they have to go get it themselves because I'm not binding it into my specifications. Again, that's supporting the copyright, not violating it.

I figured their main source of income was selling their published work to state governments. Do you think they make more from direct sales to consumers?

Maybe, and hear me out on this, we can stop outsourcing governmental regulations to private companies. I think the bug up your ass might be blocking the blood intended for your brain.

Oh, and if they haven't figured out how to make money other than selling the books (which won't change regardless, nobody is suggesting they give the book away for free, and printed copies will still only be available through them) through value add services such as commentary, classes, software to use to assist with compliance (you know, like UpCodes is doing) then I won't miss them. They're trying to make sure they can sit back and relax without innovating or competing. That's not Capitalism.

Selling books is hardly the main source of income for ICC. According to their tax filings their main source of income is program services (like their evaluation services and accreditation services) to the tune of just shy of 2/3rds of their revenue stream. Selling merch is only like a third of their business. Judging by how many companies push their ICC-ESRs, they'll be doing just fine. Ironically, they have competitors for those services.

Hire this guy, and you'll be throwing good money after bad. What a dopey, lazy fucking question.

Pete, quick semi-related story: both my mom and my wife were state employees of the health and human services department. They are both very smart and well-educated, as were some of their co-workers. Our last governor was all about reducing the size of government to save money. So then my mom and my wife had to outsource their work, primarily reports and grant-writing, to outside entities, who charged exorbitant fees, produced marginal work (at best) and who required a lot of "management" (i.e., hounding) just to complete the work they were contracted to do. Far from any savings, they cost the state 2-3 times what it would have cost to just have the state workers do it. Government workers have a bad reputation, perhaps sometimes deserved, but outsourcing things does not necessarily save money or make sense.

Wood, the point of Republican "governing" is to break governing, and the claim "look at how bad government is working".

b3, how many projects have you worked on that never made it to the build phase due to your lack of knowledge of building codes? Seems like it may be more than you are willing to admit here.

OTF zero.0. Try again. Riddle me this clown, how often do you contact ICC because of your rote incompetence, or inability to explain basic code questions to your local AHJ?

b3, go back to picking out color swatches and leave the heavy lifting to the rest of us.

Ok, piker. You've been an architect for all two minutes. Make my coffee you hump, I like it black, no sugar, sweetie.

Funny stuff b3. I'm 52 and been practicing for 20 plus years as an architect. In the business for about 30 years. Go fetch me a turkey pot pie bit*!@

BRB, creating a TikTok dance to Burning Down the House