H.R. 4072 adds a new section to Title 17 that preserves copyright in technical and voluntary consensus standards only if the standards development organization (SDO) makes the portions of a standard incorporated by reference publicly accessible online at no monetary cost. The bill sets baseline accessibility criteria and ties retention of copyright protection to an SDO’s prompt posting of the incorporated material after receiving notice that a standard has been referenced in law or regulation.
This is a targeted statutory change: it does not convert incorporated standards into public-domain works, but conditions copyright on free, searchable, and accessibility-compliant online access. The provision will affect SDO licensing practices, government rulemaking and adoption processes, and downstream users who rely on incorporated standards for regulation and compliance.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates 17 U.S.C. §123. It (1) defines covered standards and what “incorporated by reference” means; (2) requires SDOs to post the portions of a standard incorporated into law on a public website at no monetary cost, in a format with a searchable table of contents and index, and meeting section 508 accessibility; and (3) places the burden of proof on anyone who claims an SDO failed to meet the posting requirement.
Who It Affects
Standards development organizations that hold copyrights in technical or voluntary consensus standards; federal, state and local agencies that incorporate private standards by reference; commercial licensees and legal publishers; regulated industries that must comply with incorporated standards; and public-interest organizations and libraries that provide access to legal materials.
Why It Matters
It changes the commercial calculus for SDOs by making free online availability a condition for retaining copyright where a standard is used in law. For governments and regulated parties it reduces friction in reading the law as written, but it also creates timing, notice, and litigation dynamics as SDOs, agencies, and challengers sort out compliance and enforcement.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill appends a new, self-contained provision to the Copyright Act that targets standards that governments incorporate by reference into laws and regulations. It first sets definitional boundaries: a “standard” covers technical and voluntary consensus standards as understood under existing federal guidance; “incorporated by reference” means the law or regulation points to the standard rather than reproducing its text; and a “standards development organization” is a copyright holder that develops standards using processes consistent with Circular A–119.
Those definitions frame the universe of works covered and which organizations the rule binds.
Substantively, the statute establishes a conditional rule: a standard that is copyrighted continues to enjoy copyright protection only if the SDO, within a reasonable period after actual or constructive notice that the standard has been incorporated by reference, makes the incorporated portions publicly accessible online at no monetary cost. The bill requires the posted material to include a searchable table of contents and index or equivalent navigation aids and to meet section 508 accessibility standards.
The drafting allows websites to require account creation or acceptance of terms so long as access is free and any personally identifiable information collected is not used without affirmative, express consent.Enforcement is left to private challenge in court or similar proceedings: if a party alleges noncompliance, the bill assigns the burden of proof to that challenger to show the SDO failed to meet the posting requirement. The statute does not itself create a federal enforcement agency, monetary damages formula, or express penalties; instead, it modifies the copyright status of the work and relies on existing copyright and civil remedies.
The provision applies equally to Federal, State, and local laws and regulations and incorporates Circular A–119 by reference in the definitions, signaling the intent to align with existing federal standards policy.Practically, the act forces SDOs to weigh the trade-off between continuing to rely on licensing revenue and making at least the incorporated content available for free in a browser-readable, searchable, and accessible format. Agencies retain the ability to incorporate private standards, but their continued reliance will now more often trigger a posting obligation for the SDO.
Because the statute conditions copyright—rather than mandating public-domain status—it preserves many licensing paths but changes the baseline expectations for public access to the law.
The Five Things You Need to Know
H.R. 4072 adds 17 U.S.C. §123, which conditions copyright protection for standards incorporated by reference on SDOs making the incorporated portions publicly accessible online at no monetary cost.
The posted material must include a searchable table of contents and index (or equivalent aids) and must conform to section 508 accessibility requirements.
An SDO’s posting obligation is triggered after it receives actual or constructive notice that a standard has been incorporated by reference, and the statute requires posting within a “reasonable period of time.”, Websites may require account creation or acceptance of terms to view the standard so long as access is free and any collection/use of personally identifiable information requires the user’s affirmative, express consent.
The burden of proof in any challenge alleging noncompliance rests with the party asserting the SDO failed to meet the posting requirement.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the statute as the "Protecting and Enhancing Public Access to Codes Act of 2025" or the "Pro Codes Act." This is purely nominative but signals congressional intent that access to incorporated standards is a public-interest goal to be balanced against copyright.
Findings
Summarizes Congress’s view that voluntary consensus standards are valuable, widely used by governments, and typically funded by SDO licensing; points to Circular A–119 and the existing incorporation-by-reference regime. The findings frame the statutory change as an attempt to balance continued SDO funding with public access, which can be relevant to judicial interpretation of ambiguities in the operative text.
Definitions (who and what is covered)
Defines key terms: 'standard' (technical and voluntary consensus), 'incorporated by reference' (a law or regulation that references but does not reproduce text), 'standards development organization' (copyright holders meeting Circular A–119 attributes), and 'publicly accessible online' (readily accessible on a public website meeting section 508 standards). These definitions establish both the substantive scope and the technical accessibility criteria SDOs must meet.
Conditional copyright retention tied to free online access
Provides the operative rule: a copyrighted standard retains protection only if the SDO, within a reasonable period after actual or constructive notice of incorporation, posts the incorporated portions for free online with a searchable table of contents and index. This is the core compliance obligation; it does not abrogate copyright outright but creates a statutory condition precedent to maintaining copyright when a standard becomes law.
Burden of proof for challenges and technical provisions on access
Allocates the burden of proof to any challenger asserting noncompliance with the posting requirement. It also clarifies that requiring account creation or acceptance of terms does not defeat ‘publicly accessible’ status so long as access is free and personally identifiable information is not used without affirmative consent. The section avoids prescribing enforcement mechanisms beyond this evidentiary rule.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Members of the public and regulated entities who need to read the law: Free, searchable, and accessible online copies reduce the friction and legal risk of not being able to access the exact text that governs compliance.
- State and local governments and regulators: Easier public access to incorporated standards lowers transparency complaints and makes enforcement and public notices more defensible.
- Legal services providers, compliance officers, and in-house counsel: Reduced transactional friction in locating the operative text of incorporated standards reduces legal uncertainty and discovery costs.
- Libraries, public-interest groups, and civic technologists: The requirement strengthens public-interest missions to provide access to the law and enables redistribution in non-monetized formats for research and outreach purposes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Standards Development Organizations (SDOs): Must host and maintain free, searchable, 508-compliant online access—incurring hosting, formatting, and possible lost licensing revenue if posted material cannibalizes paid sales.
- Small or niche SDOs: May lack resources to implement accessible, searchable hosting or to withstand revenue loss, making compliance more burdensome than for larger organizations.
- Federal, state, and local agencies: May face increased administrative coordination to provide timely notice, and could be drawn into litigation about whether notice was given (actual vs. constructive), or pressured to reconsider incorporations when SDOs refuse to post.
- Commercial publishers and secondary licensors: Potentially narrower markets for paid distribution or subscription access if essential portions of standards are available free in a browser-accessible form.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between two legitimate public goods: ensuring the public can read the exact technical standards that govern safety, health, and commerce, and preserving the paid licensing model that funds the expert-driven, consensus-based standards-development process. The bill tries to thread that needle by conditioning copyright on free access, but that condition shifts cost and business-model risk onto SDOs and risks altering the incentives that historically produced many widely used standards.
The statute deliberately conditions copyright retention rather than converting incorporated standards into government works, but it leaves several high-friction facts unresolved. “Reasonable period of time” and the contours of “constructive notice” are undefined, so expect litigation over when an SDO must act. The drafting also limits affirmative obligations on agencies to serve notice, so disputes may hinge on how courts interpret the notice requirement.
Because the bill places the burden of proof on challengers, plaintiffs will need evidence that the SDO did not post the required content, which can lower the risk of frivolous countersuits but also raises discovery battles about what counts as adequate online access.
Technical compliance requirements (searchable table of contents, index, and section 508 conformance) impose concrete formatting obligations that go beyond simply uploading a PDF. Those obligations raise costs—especially for older standards or for SDOs that maintain proprietary document formats—and create opportunities for partial compliance strategies (for example, posting a read-only or simplified extract that meets the letter but not the spirit of the law).
The allowance for account creation coupled with a prohibition on non-consensual use of personally identifiable information is sensible in principle but will require SDOs to change privacy practices and could complicate analytics that many SDOs use to measure commercial use. Finally, because the bill applies to federal, state, and local incorporations, there is a cross-jurisdictional complexity: SDOs may face simultaneous obligations in many jurisdictions without a central enforcement mechanism, making coordination and uniform compliance more difficult.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.