Public access to incorporated standards

Summary#

This bill would add a new section to the U.S. copyright law about standards (codes) that are “incorporated by reference” into laws or regulations. It says a standard that is copyrighted can keep that protection only if the standards developer makes the portions that are incorporated publicly accessible online for free in a searchable format. The bill aims to balance public access to law with continued support for private standards development.

• Main change: Copyrighted standards incorporated by reference will retain copyright only if the standards developer posts the incorporated portions online at no monetary cost and with a searchable table of contents and index (or equivalent).
• Definitions added: The bill defines “incorporated by reference,” “publicly accessible online” (including accessibility rules), “standard,” and “standards development organization.”
• Access rules: Online access may require account creation if there is no monetary cost and any personal data is not used without express consent.
• Legal burden: In court or other proceedings, the party claiming a standards developer failed to meet these requirements must prove that failure.
• Scope noted: The bill’s findings say thousands of federal regulatory sections incorporate standards, showing this could affect many standards used in law.

What it means for you#

• Standards development organizations (private groups that write standards):

  • They must post any portions of a standard that are incorporated into law online for free and in a searchable, accessible format if they want to keep copyright protection.
  • They must follow accessibility rules similar to Section 508 for the posted materials.
  • They may need to set up or adapt websites and indexing tools.

• Federal, state, and local governments:

  • Governments that incorporate private standards into law will see those standards made publicly viewable under the conditions in the bill.
  • The bill does not change whether governments can incorporate standards; it adds conditions tied to copyright status.

• Businesses and professionals who buy standards:

  • The parts of standards that are incorporated into law will be viewable online for free. This could change how people access the legal requirements they must follow.
  • The bill does not clearly say whether developers can still sell full copies, annotated versions, or extra services.

• Members of the public and legal users:

  • People would be able to read standards that are part of laws on a public website without paying a fee.
  • The posted materials must be accessible (meet disability-access rules) and include aids to find content.

• Courts and litigants:

  • If someone claims a standards developer failed to meet the posting requirement, that challenger must prove the failure.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

• The bill itself does not include a fiscal note or cost estimate.
• This could mean additional costs for standards developers to host, maintain, and make standards accessible online in the required format.
• Governments that rely on private standards may see administrative impacts when confirming whether posted standards meet the bill’s conditions.
• The bill’s findings note that many federal regulations incorporate standards, so any administrative effects could be broad in scope.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to ensure people can read the technical standards that become part of the law without erasing the copyright that helps fund standards development.
• It could be seen as improving public access to laws by requiring free, accessible, searchable viewing of incorporated standards.
• The bill appears designed to keep the voluntary consensus standards system working while protecting the revenue model that funds standards development, by allowing copyright to remain if developers provide free online access.
• The shift of the burden of proof to the party claiming noncompliance could be intended to make disputes clearer and reduce frivolous claims.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that the bill’s key timing phrase—“within a reasonable period of time after obtaining actual or constructive notice”—is not defined, leaving uncertainty about when posting must happen.
• The requirement for a “searchable table of contents and index, or equivalent aids” and compliance with accessibility rules could be open to different interpretations. This may create disputes over whether posted materials meet the standard.
• It is unclear whether making incorporated portions freely viewable will meaningfully protect standards developers’ revenue. The bill does not explain how free online viewing interacts with existing sales, licensing, or subscription models.
• The bill does not provide a fiscal estimate. One possible trade-off is that smaller standards bodies could face technical and administrative costs to meet the posting and accessibility requirements.
• The procedure for enforcing the rule is limited: the challenger must prove noncompliance. This may make it harder for the public or governments to enforce access in some cases.