Courts Agree That No One Should Have a Monopoly Over the Law. Congress Shouldn’t Change That; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), October 16, 2024

 CORYNNE MCSHERRY, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Courts Agree That No One Should Have a Monopoly Over the Law. Congress Shouldn’t Change That

"For more than a decade, giant standards development organizations (SDOs) have been fighting in courts around the country, trying use copyright law to control access to other laws. They claim that that they own the copyright in the text of some of the most important regulations in the country – the codes that protect product, building and environmental safety--and that they have the right to control access to those laws. And they keep losing because, it turns out, from New York, to Missouri, to the District of Columbia, judges understand that this is an absurd and undemocratic proposition. 

They suffered their latest defeat in Pennsylvania, where  a district court held that UpCodes, a company that has created a database of building codes – like the National Electrical Code--can include codes incorporated by reference into law. ASTM, a private organization that coordinated the development of some of those codes, insists that it retains copyright in them even after they have been adopted into law. Some courts, including the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, have rejected that theory outright, holding that standards lose copyright protection when they are incorporated into law. Others, like the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in a case EFF defended on behalf of Public.Resource.Org, have held that whether or not the legal status of the standards changes once they are incorporated into law, posting them online is a lawful fair use. 

In this case, ASTM v. UpCodes, the court followed the latter path. Relying in large part on the DC Circuit’s decision, as well as an amicus brief EFF filed in support of UpCodes, the court held that providing access to the law (for free or subject to a subscription for “premium” access) was a lawful fair use. A key theme to the ruling is the public interest in accessing law:"

Who Owns the Law? The Pro Codes Act’s Copyright Conundrum; The Federalist Society, July 26, 2024

Jill Jacobson , The Federalist Society;  Who Owns the Law? The Pro Codes Act’s Copyright Conundrum

"Voluntary consensus standards have become an essential but unseen part of everyday life. From ensuring your apartment building’s elevator is safe to enabling your router to get online, privately developed standards greatly impact modern life. A bill quietly percolating in Congress may impact this typically quiet intersection of law, policy, and regulation. The Protecting and Enhancing Public Access to Codes Act (“Pro Codes Act” (H.R. 1631)) permits standards development organizations (SDOs) to retain copyright protection when their standards are incorporated by reference into law, so long as they make a free version of the code available online. I take no position on this legislation and acknowledge the thoughtful arguments on both sides of this debate. I instead write to highlight how this below-the-radar legislation raises interesting and unintended intellectual property and takings issues with potentially far-reaching consequences.

The key players here are SDOs—typically private groups of industry experts who draft technical standards. Given the expertise that goes into drafting these standards, local, state, and federal governments often incorporate them into regulations by reference. Often, SDOs do not write standards for government use; many standards are authored for private sector guidance. Many SDOs derive significant revenues from licensing or selling copies of the standards. For example, many standards are only available for private viewing behind paywalls. However, government agencies may incorporate these same standards into regulations without the SDOs’ knowledge or consent. This creates tension between SDOs’ understandable wish to be compensated for the fruits of their labor and the regulated public’s need for open access to these standards.

SDOs also face uncertainty about whether the government edicts doctrine—which denies copyright protection to works created by government officials—extends to private entities’ work when it is incorporated into government regulations. At least some cases suggest it may. As the D.C. Circuit stated in American Society for Testing and Materials v. Public.Resource.Org, legal text “falls plainly outside the realm of copyright protection.”

On the surface, the Pro Codes Act aims to strike a fair balance between competing concerns over fair compensation and public access."

US Federal Court Bars Online Publication Of Copyrighted Standards Incorporated Into Laws; Intellectual Property Watch, February 17, 2017

Dugie Standeford, Intellectual Property Watch; 

US Federal Court Bars Online Publication Of Copyrighted Standards Incorporated Into Laws

"In a case pitting standards development organisations against internet content aggregators, a United States federal court ruled that Public.Resource.Org breached copyright by posting unauthorised copies of standards incorporated into government education regulations. Public Resource has appealed.

The 2 February opinion of the US District Court for the District of Columbia consolidates two cases, one of which is American Educational Research Association [AERA], Inc., American Psychological Association, Inc. and National Council on Measurement in Education, Inc. v. Public.Resource.Org. The plaintiffs in both cases are standards development organisations (SDOs); Public.Resource.Org (Public Resource) is a non-profit entity devoted to the public dissemination of legal information."