Third Circuit Lets Building Codes Be Read Freely

Building codes aren’t behind a paywall anymore.

A federal appeals court has ruled that copying and sharing building codes that have been incorporated into federal and state law is fair use, even when private publishers retain copyright interests in those codes. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit sided with a lower court and joined a growing line of decisions that prioritize public access to the law over private copyright control. The ruling centers on UpCodes, a database that hosts codes such as the National Electrical Code and other standards that become law when adopted by government bodies. The private standards developer ASTM had argued those codes remain protected by copyright even after they are enshrined in law, arguing that access should be licensed rather than freely disseminated.

The decision, issued in April 2026, follows a path carved by similar cases and echoed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s amicus brief. The court stressed that the Constitution and the Copyright Act do not give private publishers a veto over the public’s ability to read, discuss, and apply laws that touch daily life—from electrical wiring rules to fire-safety provisions. It also reflected a broader judicial trend: when a standard or code is folded into legal obligations, the public’s interest in access can trump exclusive control over the underlying text.

For compliance officers and policy teams, the ruling carries immediate practical implications. Municipalities and contractors that rely on building codes often pay for access to up-to-date code text or depend on third-party databases for quick references. The Third Circuit’s approach makes it easier for local businesses, researchers, and everyday citizens to read the exact language governing permits, inspections, and safety requirements without a licensing hurdle. That could translate into faster permit reviews, clearer risk assessments, and more transparent enforcement in practice. It also creates a potential disruption for publishers who monetize code access—platform operators like UpCodes may expand offerings and collaborations, while publishers may be pushed to rethink licensing and access models to monetize value-added services beyond plain text.

Industry observers say this decision sharpens the incentive for standards bodies and data platforms to partner on open access models or tailored paid services. ASTM, which argues it retains copyright in the standards even after adoption, may respond with new licensing schemes or enhanced value propositions around interpretive guidance, compliance tools, or machine-readable formats that sit alongside the text. The ruling also leaves room for continued divergence among courts: other circuits have adopted different views about when and how copyrighted standards lose or retain leverage once they are embedded in law, raising the possibility of Supreme Court review if the issue persists across jurisdictions.

Beyond the courtroom, the outcome matters for everyday people who must navigate construction projects, home upgrades, or safety improvements. When the law itself becomes easier to read and compare, questions about what is required or prohibited become less obscure—and so might the potential for disputes born of inaccessible or opaque codes.

In short, the Third Circuit’s ruling broadcasts a clear signal: lawful access to the text of the law should win out over private copyright claims that would keep that text behind a paywall. The impact will unfold in how cities buy, share, and teach the rules that shape buildings, safety, and everyday compliance.

Sources

Another Court Rules Copyright Can’t Stop People From Reading and Speaking the Law