NFPA 25 copyrighted or public domain (distribution) 1

[fpst]

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

 

[DRWeig]

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

 

[cdafd]

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.

 

[skdesigner]

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.

http://www.rmae.ca

 

[TravisMack]

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

http://www.mfpdesign.com

https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692

 

[fpst]

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".

 

[TravisMack]

Fair enough. However, I will continue to encourage contractors to supply a new copy of NFPA 25 for project close out documents.

Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC

http://www.mfpdesign.com

https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692

 

[fpst]

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.

 

[TravisMack]

I do "snips" of NFPA on my drawings all the time. I don't think that is a CW issue. I hope not at least

Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC

http://www.mfpdesign.com

https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692

 

[PEDARRIN2]

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.

 

[fpst]

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...ode_Congress_Int'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.

 

[stevenal]

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.

 

[fpst]

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

 

[DRWeig]

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

 

[cdafd]

Drw

Some building and other I codes are free on the site:::

http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/index.htm

 

[fpst]

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

 

[DRWeig]

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

 

[fpst]

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.

 

[jgailla]

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

 

[cdafd]

You either love or hate the court system