Our Fight to Keep the Law Free

Map of the U.S. with hotspots for UpCodes active users.

We serve the law for free to 800,000 people each month from all over the US

“Beyond doubt, state laws are not copyrightable.”

Supreme Court of the United States
Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org (2020)
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Update: The court ruled against ICC, read about their next lawsuit here and about the publishers' push in Congress here.

There are organizations trying to copyright the law.

These are laws that every American has to follow or face civil and criminal penalties. It's not just architects, engineers, and builders, but even homeowners and small business owners.

One such organization trying to copyright the law is the International Code Council (ICC). They brought a lawsuit against UpCodes, trying to force us to take down open access to the law.

UpCodes is using AI to make compliance easier and cheaper. This will result in safer and more affordable housing. Open access to the law is an important part of reaching that goal.

UpCodes will defend Americans' constitutional right to read their own laws and our ability to innovate in the space.

‍

Background

The ICC convenes committees of volunteers made up of government officials and industry professionals to write base codes. ICC then lobbies state and local governments to enact these codes into law.

Once enacted into law, ICC publishes these codes in books and makes tens of millions of dollars in revenue each year for access^[1]. This process allows them to profit by monopolizing access to the law.

‍

What UpCodes has done to help

UpCodes provides free, unfettered access to the laws. We’re introducing new tools to the industry on top of the free access.

We look to equip professionals who design our cities as well as homeowners to better navigate these important laws.

In the case of UpCodes AI, we are looking to catch code errors upstream by scanning 3D digital models of buildings. These are the tools needed to keep up with the growing complexity of codes and to keep our apartments and homes affordable and safe.

‍

How you can help

If you would like to help, please help spread the word about UpCodes with your colleagues and friends — both our service and our fight to keep the law free. It’s important Americans know that their right to read and speak the law is under attack.

Follow us on Twitter here and share on social media to spread the word. TechCrunch had a great summary here.

‍

The Future

Building codes are essential for keeping our buildings and cities safe. However, in order to create safer cities, we need new technology to empower professionals, business owners, and residents to follow these laws.

Check back for updates!

‍F.A.Q.

Yes, it has. In fact, ICC has litigated and lost this issue twice:
From the BOCA v. Code Technology case (1980)*:

The citizens are the authors of the law, and therefore its owners, regardless of who actually drafts the provisions, because the law derives its authority from the consent of the public, expressed through the democratic process.

From the SBCCI v. Veeck case (2002)*:

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.”

In addition, there is other case law showing that no one can own the law.

From ASTM et al. v Public.Resource.org (2018):

The plaintiffs here claim a copyright over binding legal texts, which would enable them to prevent anyone from gaining access to that law or copying it for the public... As a matter of common-sense, this cannot be right: access to the law cannot be conditioned on the consent of a private party.

‍

and five years later when the case made it back to the DC Circuit Court, they ruled similarly (2023):

We hold that the non-commercial dissemination of such standards, as incorporated by reference into law, constitutes fair use

‍
From Code Revision Comm. v Public.Resource.org (2018):

The resulting work is intrinsically public domain material, belonging to the People, and, as such, must be free for publication by all. As a result, no valid copyright can subsist in these works.

...

the law falls plainly outside the realm of copyright protection

From the Supreme Court ruling in the above case (2020):

no one can own the law [Justice Roberts]

...

beyond doubt, state laws are not copyrightable [Justice Ginsburg]

...

statutes and regulations cannot be copyrighted [Justice Thomas]

Even a case in the 5th Circuit regarding foreign laws was consistent. From CSA v PS Knight (2024):

because CSA’s model codes are incorporated into Canadian law, Knight’s copying of those codes is not infringement.

‍

From our own case, ICC v. UpCodes (2020):

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 our case, FGI v. UpCodes (2023):

The Court is persuaded that UpCodes’ posting of the FGI Guidelines that have been adopted into law likely constitutes fair use. As such, there is not a fair chance that FGI will succeed on its copyright infringement claim.

‍

and our case, ASTM v. UpCodes (2024):

There is significant evidence of the practical value of providing unfettered access to technical standards that have been incorporated into law.

...

UpCodes — like Public Resource — is permitted to reproduce in full the relevant portions of standards that have been incorporated by reference into law.

‍‍
*BOCA and SBCCI are two of three entities that came together to form ICC^[2]