Talk:List of IEC standards

Recommendations

Turn redirects into pointers at the proper name of the article where possible. Don't create red links. Don't make empty low-content articles about a standard that is just a recitation of the table of contents. There is often very little useful to say about a standard without retyping its content which would be a violation of the standards organization copyright. Explain the significance of a standard, not just what is in it. Don't make an article for each sub-section of a standard especially if the sub-section is just going to be a stub. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I recommend to create separate pages for sub-standards containing brief description of the standard as the page is getting too lengthy with the flood of sub-standards. Eg; For 'IEC 60335-1 Safety of electrical household appliances' there are nearly 90 sub-standards which are listed in this articles itself. It can be transferred to separate 60335 page, a description and history. Fahidka (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC).

Actually, now I recommend blowing the whole thing away and directing people to the IEC sales site; individual technical standards are very rarely notable enough to have their own encyclopedia articles, and a list of standards is a directory, which Wikipedia is not supposed to be. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree this page should not contain red links as it is a list (WP:RED). However I disagree that redirects should be turned into pointers because if the redirect is later removed the change will not be reflected on here. Also WP:PIPE says "It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects" Lmatt (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

We should also avoid creating myriads of circular redirects. Hyperlinks are functional, not decorative; the user expects to find a new article when he clicks on blue underlined text and not just to get a fresh window on the page he's already viewing. --18:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

These links have now all been removed, and several links added where there is an actual article. Lmatt (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant? : IEC standards lose copyright protection if incorporated in or referred to by statute.

This revert undid revision 603383876 by me cuz, per User:Deucharman Added template has no relevance to International Standards). This is what I added to the see also section :

Commons:Template:PD-US-Codes-and-Standards-as-Statutory-Law – standards and codes become edicts of government when adopted, thereby losing copyright protection under US law.

The relevance seems obvious to me. As noted in the template page, "once a code has been accepted as law, the code loses its copyright protection and becomes public domain, like all statutory law. It was also determined that standards organizations can retain copyright so long as the material is just a coding model and is not yet accepted as law by any jurisdiction." Thus an IEC standard loses copyright protection if incorporated in or referred to by statute. --Elvey (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It is irrelevant because the referenced judgment applies to US building codes, not international standards documents! The template refers specifically to "published works of a United States standards, safety, engineering, or building code organization". The IEC is not a US body. The United States is a party to the Berne Convention, and as such abides by international law on copyright. Deucharman (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

What about, for example IEC 60950-1 A.K.A. UL 60950-1?

Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments. (Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices section 206.01 (verifiable at, e.g. [1] or [2]

The bottom line is that as an encyclopedia, we shouldn't be keeping secret that, at a minimum, there are cases and reliable sources that indicate that there is a dispute as to whether IEC standards lose copyright protection if incorporated in or referred to by statute. Unless our job is to protect the interests of this cartel, even though "it is difficult to imagine an area of creative endeavor in which the copyright incentive is needed less. Trade organizations have powerful reasons stemming from industry standardization, quality control, and self-regulation to produce these model codes; it is unlikely that, without copyright, they will cease producing them." - Goldstein on Copyright § 2.5.2 at 2:59 <!- not 2:51 --> --Elvey (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Your reference to trade organizations indicates a complete lack of understanding of what the IEC is, see http://www.iec.ch/about/profile/ If you believe that there is any genuine reference for what you claim, then you should cite it. A link to a non-existent webpage (as you have cited above) is unhelpful. Mautby (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Lack of understanding? Please be WP:CIVIL. What expertise do you have in the IEC? I happened to include a quote that included the term "trade organizations". IEC produces standards, some of which are then adopted as statutory law, whether it's a trade organization or not. Do you want to keep that a secret? What link are you talking about? I included several.--Elvey (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Your quote attempts to justify your ideas using a reference to a non-existent webpage: www.faqs.org/faqs/law/copyright/faq/part3/ and another reference which refers to a type of organization that the IEC is not. If you want to make a point, use relevant data. I am an engineer who uses many standards, including some from the IEC, but I have no connection with any standards body other than being a user. Mautby (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a very curious discussion. Suggestions about keeping secrets are way off beam. The issue is simply whether there is any verifiable reference from a reliable source to support the claim that IEC standards lose copyright protection if incorporated in or referred to by a US statute. Without such a reference the claim cannot be made. Elvey has further weakened his case by a spurious and unsupported claim of COI. Deucharman (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.copyrightcompendium.com/#206.01. FS. The quote and reference (which was "Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices section 206.01") are CORRECT. The url had experienced minor link rot, now repaired. With all due respect the issue is also that we shouldn't be keeping secret that, at a minimum, there are cases and reliable sources that indicate that there is a dispute as to whether IEC standards lose copyright protection if incorporated in or referred to by statute. I've already provided a verifiable reference from a reliable source to support the claim and then some, via, e.g. the sources the template I linked to refers to. FS. --Elvey (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What's in the license template I linked clearly needs to be read, so here it is:

It should be stated in the upload description which governmental jurisdiction has accepted this document as statutory law, and on what date it was accepted, including a reference to the acceptance document for public domain eligibility verification purposes.

Background: Building and construction safety codes have long been published by standards organizations that charge people very high fees for access to the material, or restrict access to the content in various ways. The NFPA for example has an online viewer for its NEC editions that does not allow the reader to Copy, Print, or Save the text. The NFPA only makes the material available as either printed books or PDFs on CDROM which must be purchased. For an example of the steep access fees these standards organizations demand for document access, here's the Underwriters Laboratories list of document fees:

• http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/pricechangememo_2007.html

Legal argument: In 2002 the United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals case Peter Veeck / RegionalWeb vs Southern Building Code Congress International determined that once a code has been accepted as law, the code loses its copyright protection and becomes public domain, like all statutory law. It was also determined that standards organizations can retain copyright so long as the material is just a coding model and is not yet accepted as law by any jurisdiction.

Reference: Link to text of the court's decision for 293 F.3d 791, Peter VEECK, doing business as RegionalWeb, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, v. SOUTHERN BUILDING CODE CONGRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee., No. 99-40632, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, June 7, 2002

• http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/293_F3d_791.htm

Free content access: http://bulk.resource.org/codes.gov/ -- Complete free downloadable access to various editions of the NEC and other standards from local governmental building codes across the United States

The legal argument refers to codes. Whether they're electrical safety codes or construction safety codes is not relevant. Should we defer to LCA? See Streisand effect--Elvey (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this material be at Legal issues concerning IEC standards? There is no reason to mention it here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Elvey needs to be somewhat more honest and accurate in his postings, and ensure that his references actually relate to the claim, with the same specific meaning which is attributed to them, not synthesis.

Quote: The url had experienced minor link rot. But, the reality is that the link originally posted has been invalid since at least November 30th 2010! [3]

None of the references mentions the IEC, therefore they cannot be used in support of the claims. Mautby (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. The legal argument refers to codes. Whether they're electrical safety codes or construction safety codes or mention the IEC is not relevant. Fixing the minor <sic> link rot is something that required merely punctuation changes. --Elvey (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Elvey is one very confused editor! Here is the message he has just left on my talk page: Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on [[:You claim that he was executed for pantheistic heresy, full stop. Erm, [dubious – discuss]? --Elvey (talk) 9:28 pm, 31 March 2014, Monday (14 days ago) (UTC−7)]]. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please see Template:WP. Accusing me of needing to be more honest and accurate is a personal attack. Especially when the allegation is bogus. Elvey (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2014 Not a lot I can say on the subject of pantheistic heresy!

Let's get back to this discussion. Elvey posted a link to: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/law/copyright/faq/part3/ and when it was pointed out that this is a non-existent webpage he went back and changed his link to: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/law/Copyright-FAQ/part3/ claiming minor link rot, but as the "link rot" had occurred around four years in advance of the link, that is obviously completely untrue. Saying so is not a personal attack, it is stating the truth. Now Elvey claims that fixing the "link rot" required "merely punctuation changes" - why not be honest and admit that he had picked up a very old reference, and had not bothered to check it? I have read that linked webpage, and there is nothing on it which relates to the subject under discussion. So why link to it at all?

When Elvey surreptitiously revised his earlier post, he also added a second reference to a document p;ublished in 1998 (several years prior to the judgement that he bases his claims on). This reference is about "Edicts of government" and makes no reference to standards published by an international NGO, which are, by definition, NOT "Edicts of government".

Elvey's reference to Free content access: http://bulk.resource.org/codes.gov/ -- Complete free downloadable access to various editions of the NEC and other standards from local governmental building codes across the United States is completely spurious, and contains no mention of any IEC standard.

Elvey has clearly failed to understand the essential differences between the "model building codes" which lie at the heart of the VEECK case, and technical standards published by a non-US body such as the IEC. He makes very clear that he has a particular POV (reference to the steep access fees these standards organizations demand for document access), a clearly unacceptable stance. This is not about "keeping secrets", it is about not allowing an unreferenced and biased Fringe theory to be represented in what, after all, is simply a list of documents published by the IEC. Mautby (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling that out, but I wouldn't worry about it. Enough of us are watching here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You have misrepresented what I have said and done half a dozen times above. Shame on you. 'standards published by an international NGO, which are, by definition, NOT "Edicts of government"' - shows you still don't get it. If that were it, there would be no Commons:Template:PD-US-Codes-and-Standards-as-Statutory-Law.

Again, the legal argument refers to codes. Whether they're electrical safety codes or construction safety codes or mention the IEC is not relevant. It's incumbent on you to provide EVIDENCE that the law sees them differently. The case refers to codes, and does not indicate that it sees them differently. Fringe is claiming the law sees them differently based on no evidence.--Elvey (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Elvey, you keep quoting a template which refers, quite specifically, to "the published works of a United States standards, safety, engineering, or building code organization". The IEC is not, repeat NOT, a United States organization, therefore that template is quite irrelevant to the IEC. People keep telling you that, a link has been provided to the IEC where you can clearly see that it is not a US organization, so why keep harping on about it? Please just accept that you are wrong, and that you have been unable to provide any evidence to the contrary.

It ill behooves you to accuse others or misrepresenting you and being uncivil. I took an interest in what other WP subjects you have contributed to, and was very taken aback to discover that you have accused me of a CoI, this is apparently on the basis of a single reversion of the CoI tag which you had added to the article with no explanation. The guidelines for the use of this tag state: "When placing this tag, please also tag the talk page with {{Connected contributor}} so that other users know what the conflict of interest is." You did not do this, nor make any other mention of your CoI accusation on this talk page. What you did do is to raise the subject at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, but, in your particular manner, failed to follow the guidelines for that page also! The page states: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period." and "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion." You did neither of these things, and it is blatantly obvious that you had no grounds for the accusation that I have a CoI! I see that you were given short shrift on that page. JohnJuliusFeinstein (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of a CoI. I listed you as an involved party. My actions have been misrepresented again. I explicitly "sought consensus on the appropriateness of the {{COI}}", which is what the noticeboard is for.

Let's stick to discussion of the facts regarding the IEC. So now it's whether they're a United States organization or not. Before it was whether they were a trade organization or not. Whether they're a United States organization or not is not relevant. It's incumbent on you to provide EVIDENCE that the law sees them differently. The case does not indicate that the courts see them differently. Fringe is claiming the law sees them differently based on no evidence.

If there's no CoI, it should be easy to calmly discuss the evidence here and come to a consensus. Let's stop the mudslinging, shall we? --Elvey (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The bottom line is that as an encyclopedia, and it's encyclopedic that there are cases and reliable sources that indicate that standards lose copyright protection if incorporated in or referred to by statute. "It is difficult to imagine an area of creative endeavor in which the copyright incentive is needed less. [Standards Organizations] have powerful reasons stemming from industry standardization, quality control, and self-regulation to produce these model codes; it is unlikely that, without copyright, they will cease producing them." - Goldstein on Copyright § 2.5.2 at 2:59. IEC standards are standards. --Elvey (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is against you. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Elvey, you are on your own with this, and have consistently failed to show any evidence to back your theory. Please drop it now. SSHamilton (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Many computer standards are also ECMA standards, including some ISO and IEC standards. As well as I know it, the ECMA versions are freely available, even when the ISO and IEC versions are not. That is, it doesn't invalidate the copyright, but you have to distribute the right one. Gah4 (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

non-public standards?

It is peculiar that the article neither has links to public texts of the content of these standards, nor any mention of the copyright status. It appears that this is a complex and contentious issue. Can anyone come up with safe enough wording to put something in the article?-96.233.19.191 (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

anchor

Would it be reasonable to add {{anchor}}s to this, so we can link to the individual line? Gah4 (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)