×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

(OP)
For anyone paying $45 a pop for NFPA 25 to distribute, you may have been wasting money, see below.

What this also means is that we are free to post entire code sections of standards/codes adopted into law (or the entire standard), as we have the right to freely disseminate the law that binds us (here in the US at least).

I take it to also mean we are able to print out copies of NFPA 25 to hand to anyone in the US we choose, for free, where adopted into law. Anyone see a problem to this stance?



Source Ruling:
http://alturl.com/zazo3

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

The NFPA is not a government agency. Your statement is false.

Best to you,

Goober Dave

Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

ifffy, but

anyone can see it for free on the nfpa site, just cannot print it, so I do not understand the difference, but than again not a rule follower all the time.

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

The third page of my 13-2013 contains the following:

"...By making these documents available for use and adoption by public authorities and private users, the NFPA does not waive any rights in copyright to these documents."

NFPA is a non-profit organization that does a lot of good for the world. Pay the $45 and be happy to have contributed to such a worthwhile cause.

R M Arsenault Engineering Inc.
www.rmae.ca

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

Yeah. NFPA is not a government entity. Pay the $45/project and support NFPA in all the good they do.

Sorry, pet peeve of mine. We need to support the leaders of this industry. I proudly maintain my NFPA, AFSA and NFSA memberships. I have saved far more money using information from these organizations than I have ever paid into them. Heck, one AFSA informal interpretation has saved over $30k recently on a project.

Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC
www.mfpdesign.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/9221...

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

(OP)
While I agree on the moral principle of supporting the NFPA, the quote and original post doesn't say that it applies only to government entities, it says that when a work, whether it be a work originating from a government entity, or a copyrighted work, is enacted into law, it enters public domain, since in the U.S. the "law of the land" must be freely available, and distributed "as widely as possible".

In reality we should all be giving every dime we owe to some good cause, not just ones we are aware of like the NFPA, I'm not trying to make a moral argument over what "should be done" but merely what is legal.

So please reread the actual quote, it isn't false on the basis of "government entities".

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

(OP)
Personally I'm not concerned with NFPA 25 itself, merely used it as an example as saw a post talking about the same $45 issue on this site before (when I went to reply, it was locked). My main concern is being able to copy/paste code sections from something like 25 or 13 in emails to communicate, or on forums like this, or send out snippets of 13 information in bid proposals and other similar things, as that is within the scope of my actual job role, without having to worry about legal issues. As far as the $45 itself, I'm not a business owner so it's not my call.

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

I am not a lawyer, but just because a legal document like a state's administrative or revised code references a NFPA chapter, does that mean the NFPA chapter is enacted. Or is it the actual code (revised or administrative) that is enacted.

In Ohio, the International Building Code is incorporated with some edits into the Ohio Revised and Ohio Enacted Code as the Ohio Building Code, thereby enacting the code by actually bringing the code into the actual legal document.

The same codes reference particular NFPA chapters, without using the entire text.

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

(OP)
If it's referenced in something which is adopted into law, the references are also part of the law now too, and are also adopted. If the government adopts a line of text that says "Protect new buildings from fire in accordance with the IBC" and the IBC references NFPA 13 and NFPA 13 references NFPA 24, all of them are adopted into law, and all are allowed to be freely distributed because all are required to be followed.

In the original post, I referenced the court decision outlining all of this:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Veeck_v._Southern_Bu...'l,_Inc./Opinion_of_the_Court
http://alturl.com/zazo3

If NFPA wants to protect their funding they still have exclusive rights to their "value added" handbooks and other guides. For example, we can't freely distribute the NFPA 25 handbook or NFPA 13 handbook, as it isn't just the legally adopted standard.

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)


Interesting the Veeck case cited was decided in 2002. Should be lots of codes available all over the web by now, but I can't even find that Veeck reposted the SBCCI.

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

(OP)
there are tons of codes available on the web at public.resource.org

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

Fpst, what is the reference you're citing? It looks like a Wikipedia entry...

Best to you,

Goober Dave

Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

(OP)
Why is nobody reading the original post haha

DRWeig
it is a wikipedia entry which is sourced, the source, which I also posted, is a supreme court ruling

"Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l, Inc./Opinion of the Court"

the link is in the first post, and the post I made before this one, due to eng-tips inability to correctly format the link, I had to make it into a shorturl link

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

Ah, if the supreme court has spoken on it, then it's the rule. I would like to have debated it, though.

Say if a municipality has its own electrical code, but the local code adopts the NEC (NFPA 70) by reference, does that really free up NFPA 70 into the public domain? Or is it just the local code that is public?

I'd just hate to see the standards-setting organizations lose their sources of revenue to the point that they have to rely on membership fees and public donations alone. That could have a huge negative effect on keeping codes current, not to mention the public safety...

Best to you,

Goober Dave

Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

(OP)
What the ruling basically says is that if it's law, it can't be copyrighted, since the citizens are the authors of the law in a democratic process, no matter who drafted it or legislated it. If it's referenced, then it's also the law, if you have to follow it or risk being criminally persecuted, you can't copyright that, it's the law, everyone in the US has a right to freely speak and distribute the law. Technically, the NFPA doesn't even draft the standards/codes anyway, they are authored by the technical committee (experts) not NFPA employees, the NFPA is just the organization that organizes it all and prints it in a final format, and they deserve compensation for that I agree, but not by copyrighting and maintaining censorship of the law.

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

Alabama has the NEC on their website somewhere using the same logic.

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

You either love or hate the court system

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

Well, we jurisdictions are legally obligated to make the codes available to you. In my jurisdiction we put the local amendments on-line but we don't provide you with full access to every code and standard we adopt and purchase with tax dollars. If you don't like the fact that we don't put every code and standard that we adopt available to you on-line, we still comply with the model code because you can come to our office or go to the city clerk and look at it.

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

(OP)
stookeyfpe, I'm not saying that local jurisdictions should freely provide every nuance law code, I'm saying US citizens can freely provide the law, if they wish.

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

DRWeig,

Look again, this was not a Supreme court ruling, it was a district court.

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

(OP)
stevenal,

when I read it, I gathered that a lower court or courts made a decision against the building codes being public domain, and ruled that Veeck would have to pay up for copyright infringement and remove the material from his website.

Later, the supreme court reversed the decision and took the case on in the first place because of the significance of the implications to the nation, their reversal as I read it is due to the codes adopted being law, and law is public domain, without copyright.

Where are you getting this "district court" ruling? Did you read to the end?

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

Sorry, it was the Court of Appeals, not District court. My point remains; this was not a Supreme Court Case.
Try Link

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

The lower court was reversed, but not by the Supremes.

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

(OP)
Thanks for clearing that up, it appears that what actually happened was:

The supreme court ruled in Wheaton v. Peters that:
"the law in the form of judicial opinions may not be copyrighted"

Then the supreme court later expanded upon that and ruled in Banks v Manchester that:
"The whole work done by the judges constitutes the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen, is free for publication to all, whether it is a declaration of unwritten law, or an interpretation of a constitution or statute."

Then the court of appeals for the fifth circuit clarified that the law whether it has its source in judicial opinions, statutes, ordinances or regulations is not subject to federal copyright law.


There have been several other attempts to copyright and censor the law in the United States by similar code organizations, which is scary. I know the NFPA itself has gone after public.resource.org in legal battle, but for example the State of Oregon tried to copyright the "selection and arrangement" of their model codes/standards, in effect, they tried to copyright the order of the section numbers, index, tables, etc. to render their codes inaccessible to the public for copying unless tedious work was done (or unless you just pay up to read the law). This tactic was ruled as not substantial enough to warrant creativity and therefore not copyrightable, as merely displaying laws in a table or putting numbers by laws, or indexing them is not a creative work. It appears there is a long history of this battle going on to try and take away the publics' right to make the law as accessible as they wish. I can only hope the courts will continue to reject these attempts to censor laws as they have done since the beginning.

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

(OP)
Yeah, I'm awaiting news on that too, but even if a lower court rules in NFPA, ASHRAE, ASTM's favor, it would be appealed just as similar cases have in the past or the media would have a field day as it would undermine the democratic process.

However from what I've read they're kind of shooting themselves in the foot by taking action, every time in the past a similar ruling has been made it has always made it clearer that their copyright is void when adopted by the government, and the best defense to copying they have right now is this whole illusion that their copyright claims are valid, dissuading potential copying by making the public fear distributing/making more accessible what they actually own. I personally would have never realized their copyright claims on many codes/standards was invalid unless I saw the post on NFPA.org about the lawsuit to public.resource.org and looked into it afterwards.

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

So a private standards organization copyrights and publishes a standard. A government then adopts the standard by reference, which by this argument has the effect of voiding the copyright. Sounds like a government taking to me. Through no action or agreement by the standards organization, they have lost their rights. Even eminent domain actions require compensation. So do we require the government in question to compensate the standards organization for the lost sales? And then how do we treat the second government to reference the standard?

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

Of course eminent domain is a poor comparison. Owners of condemned real property at least have a connection to the government in question. The holder of the voided copyright might have no connection at all to the government that caused the voiding.

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

(OP)
The government adopts (or takes) these standards into law to protect its people and property, which is what a government is supposed to do.

By making these adopted laws as accessible as possible and free to the people who have to follow them, the government is also doing its job ensuring the law is as easy and free to get at as possible.

As far as I know, the NFPA doesn't want government funding and they also want to keep the copyrights on legal documents which is not currently allowed here in the US. Both of these facts are not conducive to a long life for the NFPA unless they can scare away potential standard/code distributors with false copyright claims. (This is true for many other private standards organizations), which appears to be their primary course of action.

Of course, funding has to come from somewhere, so if the NFPA's copyright veil is ever lifted on a bigger scale, and their sales drop, they're going to have to make some compromises. Part of making sales in the United States is being subject to United States laws (one being free access to the law and the government, ultimately representing the people, can adopt into law anything they choose, aka democracy).

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

(OP)
I think what stevenal is proposing however is that we should be entitled to anything we create. I would like to remind stevenal that a male gazelle and female gazelle may make a baby gazelle, but that doesn't entitle them to the baby gazelle forever - a lion might eat it for example. That's about as fair as the real world gets. Governments using laws like copyright laws enable business to function much less barbarically, but part of that system relies on lawmaking, which, as its own special subsystem, can adopt anything it likes, even if you're very used to the comforting idea that anything you create is usually perfectly yours and safe and you can nail every person in the world who wants it with a fee, that comfort comes at a price - government, and governments require laws, and can't always be bothered compensating for it, as you may think your art piece, or code or standard, is worth a trillion dollars.

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

nfpa puts the stuff on line free already,

just hard to read, and cannot copy and paste:::


http://www.nfpa.org/freeaccess

RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)

(OP)
yeah, if you have an internet connection all the time, sign up, always browse to that webpage first, log in, jump through a few hoops, wait for the thing to load, and tediously browse pages at a snails pace, it's free, just not as accessible as possible, unless you pay. thankfully we don't have to live with that if we want to share legal documents.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources