Pro Codes Act

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

We serve the law for free to over 900,000 people every month from all over the US

Help keep the law free by opposing the Pro Codes Act

Update: The bill failed to pass, thanks in large part to everyone who wrote their representatives. 🎉 We think the publishers will try to push a new bill in the 2025-2026 Congress.

We started UpCodes to help architects, engineers, tradespeople, homeowners and others comply with their legal requirements. We push for an open and vibrant ecosystem of tools that can help everyone understand and comply with the codes.

For many laws on our site, UpCodes is the only place to access the law online for free. Our ability to serve the community is now at risk with the new Pro Codes Act.

‍

Courts concluded the law should be free

For decades, law publishers like ICC, NFPA, and ASTM have attempted to copyright the law. They have consistently failed in the courts for the last 20 years; at the end of every case, our legal system has reinforced that laws cannot be copyrighted. Perhaps said most succinctly by the Supreme Court:

US Supreme Court

Georgia v. Public.Resources.Org Inc.

Statutes and regulations cannot be copyrighted

– Justice Thomas

No one can own the law

– Justice Roberts

Beyond doubt, state laws are not copyrightable

– Justice Ginsburg

Amongst the law publishers' many cases, they have brought 6 lawsuits against UpCodes since 2017, none of which has been successful for them so far (see "Which way have the courts ruled?" below).

Having been shut down by our legal system, the publishers have now turned to Congress in an attempt to circumvent the courts.

‍

Pro Codes Act endangers your access to the law

After spending millions in lobbying efforts to influence individuals in D.C., the publishers introduced a bill through Rep. Darrell Issa that aims to give them copyright over the law (H.R.1631, S.835).

The bill states:

"a standard ... shall retain such [copyright] protection, notwithstanding that the standard is incorporated [into law] by reference"

The bill is deceptively drafted to sound like it enhances public access to the law, but it does the opposite, it restricts access to the law and aims to give the publishers a monopoly over the law.

These publishers are trying to be the only ones who can put the law online, and to stop the law from being fully available to the people.

That’s why UpCodes is not alone in opposing this bill. A bunch of public interest groups are fighting to keep the law free:

American Library Association
Association of Research Libraries
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
American Foundation for the Blind
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Wikimedia Foundation
and many others^[1]

‍F.A.Q.

In addition to the Supreme Court ruling above, here are the other cases.

‍
From BOCA v. Code Technology (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 SBCCI v. Veeck (2002):

"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."

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"

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."

...

"And all material that has been validly incorporated by reference carries the force of law and is treated as having been published in the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations"

‍

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 NFPA v. UpCodes (2021):

"The actual text of the law is factual, which weighs strongly in favor of a finding of fair use."

...

"Because NFPA has not established it is likely to succeed on its claim for copyright infringement, its motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED"

‍

and 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 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."

‍‍‍