Copyright discussion about the digitization of standards
I would like to start a discussion about copyright law related to digitising standards. I am still not 100% sure what is and is not legal. Please share your opinions, related articles, blog posts etc.
I am working on implementing equations, methodologies and processes from the existing standards into digital scripts that could be used for streamlining design and verification workflows. I am especially interested in ISO and EN standards that are under the EPBD (Energy Performance of Buildings Directive).
From what I understand.
Standards are protected under copyright law. What is protected is the form in which the standards were created as a whole and in fragments. However, the equations, methodologies and processes are not protected by copyright law.
For example, U=1/R is a known equation in physics for calculating the thermal transmittance based on total thermal resistance. An equation like this is inside the standard ISO 6946:2017 - Building components and building elements — Thermal resistance and thermal transmittance — Calculation methods.
I can create a U=1/R function in a programming language and share the script with my colleagues because the ISO organisation does not have the copyright to the equations used in the standard.
I am not so sure about physics variable definitions. Definitions are specific sentences formed to describe a variable in the standard.
The line here seems to be thin and blurred.
Comments
I wish I had an answer for you. What is a program if it's not one long equation - but software can be placed under a restrictive copyright.
I tend to agree with your analysis - but I'm pretty much a random guy with an opinion.
It sounds like you need to talk to academics who do exactly what you say - implement physics and industry standard solutions into software. @topologic is that something you work with? Can you suggest some people in the forum who know more about this?
Sorry I am not an expert in this area. Best advice I can give is to contact the copyright holder and get permission if needed.
I'm also not a lawyer, but I assume the type of copyright the standard is under plays a role. For example, what you're doing may be considered a "derivative" work perhaps (again, pure speculation) so if the standard is something like most of the web standards, derivatives are allowed, whereas some, like IFC, is published under a No Derivatives license. There is also added confusion because some licenses, like IFC, are both an ISO copyrighted document, but also separately published under a Creative Commons license by buildingSMART. So I'm curious if your ISO standard is also "dual-published"?
Anyway I've cross posted it here: https://github.com/buildingSMART/IFC4.3.x-development/issues/241 maybe we can get some hints.
There is this document https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/store/en/PUB100206.pdf but it doesn't help much. Maybe there are other documents more specific to technical standards and software development where the translation of standardized material into operable parts of the software is a given.
My personal interpretation is that copyright for them is first and foremost a means of control over the standard. E.g one cannot create "forks" or competing standards by incorporating large fragments. Secondly it's a means to ensure money is coming in, e.g if you want to incorporate large fragments of standard text outside of fair use in a text book they expect an additional truckload of money driven up to their front door. You're not entitled to share your copy with others because others should pay for the standard themselves.
Any other implications from copyright I think are less of an issue and is probably just more a matter of letting lawyers and judges figure out what fair use entails might it ever come to a dispute.
IANAL
@Moult that is an interesting case. I agree that this case is quite confusing that the same document was published under 2 different licenses. Nevertheless, it is good that at least one version is under CC. I have never seen different license types for the standards I want to digitize (EPBD standard).
@topologic I sent an email to copyright@iso.org.
@aothms thanks for the link. It has a few encouraging sentences in green boxes.
For example, the one below in a way answers my question about definitions:
"Copy parts of a standard for your book or software.
Citing standards or including extracts of standards is encouraged
as long as there is the correct acknowledgement and the conditions of your licence are respected.
Please contact IEC or ISO for authorization"
I received a reply back from ISO that I should talk with my national organisation pkn.pl.
PKN says that they have the copyright to the symbols that are in the standards...