In a significant copyright decision affecting access to incorporated legal standards, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's denial of a preliminary injunction sought by the American Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM International) against UpCodes, Inc. The case centers on UpCodes' practice of publishing ASTM's copyrighted technical standards on its website without permission when those standards have been incorporated by reference into building codes adopted by local jurisdictions.
ASTM, a non-profit organization that develops technical standards for various industries, generates approximately 70% of its revenue from selling and licensing these standards. The organization sued UpCodes for copyright infringement after the startup began publishing ten copyrighted ASTM standards related to steel and aluminum construction without securing a license. These standards had been incorporated by reference into the International Building Code, which has been adopted by Philadelphia and other jurisdictions.
UpCodes operates a 'freemium' business model, providing free access to building codes and incorporated standards through its searchable online database, with optional paid subscriptions for additional features. The company maintains a policy of only publishing standards that have been incorporated into law, displaying historical versions that match what was legally adopted rather than current updated versions.
The District Court denied ASTM's motion for preliminary injunction, reasoning that UpCodes was likely to succeed on a fair use defense. Circuit Judge Restrepo, writing for the three-judge panel, conducted a detailed analysis of the four statutory fair use factors under 17 U.S.C. ยง 107, ultimately agreeing that UpCodes' copying likely constitutes fair use under federal copyright law.
The decision highlights ongoing tensions between copyright holders' exclusive rights and public access to legal standards that have been incorporated into binding law. The court's analysis focused on the transformative nature of UpCodes' use, the factual nature of technical standards, and the public interest in accessing legally binding requirements, though the full reasoning regarding all four fair use factors was not detailed in the available portion of the opinion.