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
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)
Best to you,
Goober Dave
Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies
RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)
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)
"...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)
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)
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)
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)
RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)
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)
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)
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)
RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)
Best to you,
Goober Dave
Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies
RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)
Some building and other I codes are free on the site:::
http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/index.htm
RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)
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)
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)
RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)
RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)
RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)
RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)
RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)
Look again, this was not a Supreme court ruling, it was a district court.
RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)
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)
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)
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)
http://www.nfpa.org/press-room/news-releases/2013/...
RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)
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)
RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)
RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)
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)
RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)
just hard to read, and cannot copy and paste:::
http://www.nfpa.org/freeaccess
RE: NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution)