Independents - Protecting your specs ...

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Special Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, June 19, 2017 - 03:19 pm:    Hello, I have enjoyed reading through a lot of information on this website. I need to set up an account. I am wondering though, among independent spec writers, how many of you use protect/secure your documents with a password? I am asking from the perspective of protecting your copyrighted specs from unauthorized use by clients. And, I guess a second question would be do you provide spec manuals to your clients in Word format? J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 974 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Monday, June 19, 2017 - 03:48 pm:    I resist efforts to provide specifications on Word format, usually successfully. Locking the PDF file creates other issues related to publication. I usually furnish unlocked PDF files and do not have any problems. J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, AIA, CCS, LEED AP, SCIP Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, NCARB Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1766 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, June 19, 2017 - 04:31 pm:    Agree with Peter, never give your client editable files. Sure they can use software to convert the PDF's, but most don't for fear they will lose something in the conversion. I had one client who did just that and left out an important prep instruction, and of course the client proceeded to reuse the spec on several jobs, can we say millions of $ in litigation. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 686 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, June 19, 2017 - 10:00 pm:    This topic comes up frequently. Is your concern that your client will re-use the specs on future projects and not compensate you? Or, just the possibility that someone (anyone) may re-use them down the road. There is an argument to be made that specs are not an "original work of art" and are therefore not able to be copyrighted. Instead, they are an arrangement of information (similar to a phone book). I have a number of public owners that require word files, i send them over and go about my day. Everyone else gets PDF, which are easily converted to word if someone desires. The majority of my clients are honest and the few that aren't, eventually i find out and stop working for them. George A. Everding, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 858 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2017 - 04:26 pm:    Dishonest clients only hurt themselves. There are many reasons why professional specifiers do not reuse specifications from one project on another one, why we start fresh each time. It's not just the missing information Jerry mentions, but the risk of of useless, incorrect, or contradictory instructions from the previous project being incorporated in the new project. Saving the price of your future fees pales next to the "millions in litigation" that the client risks. If they want to take that risk by stealing your specs, caveat praereptor ("Let the thief beware"). Special Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2017 - 09:54 am:    (Robin) I had several concerns and one is use without compensation. I think the feedback from the four of you who have responded is good clarification that; 1. Its best to stick to PDF's and avoid sending out Word files. At least significant effort has to be invested in converting the PDFs to Word documents. 2. Better not to worry about password protecting the PDFs, it can cause basic usage problems for the client. 3. Also best not to worry about unauthorized/uncompensated use. It can happen but the risk is high for the client and the professionals I work for are generally going to be honest. This all makes sense and is what I suspected. I thought it would be a good idea to get some feedback from others though. Thank you all for taking the time to respond. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 317 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2017 - 10:25 am:    Dear Special Guest, I agree with your summary of comments, with one more thing. If you do give files to clients in MSWord format, because some public Owners demand it, try to wait until 100% CDs or Conformed Set. Then make it clear to the Architect that the sections cannot come back to the specifier for more editing. We have trouble when different versions of the MSWord files are floating around while we are trying to edit them. This also makes it more difficult for us to provide support during construction administration, because we don't know how or why the Architect made changes to our work. - Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 293 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2017 - 12:21 pm:    "Conformed Set" -- Please define. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru 818-219-4937 Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 292 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2017 - 12:53 pm:    A "Conformed set" is a term typically used by USACE for the construction documents set that has been updated immediately prior to contract signing to include all addenda added/deleted to the project during bidding. This is the set that the contract is based upon. Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, AIA Senior Member Username: rjray Post Number: 156 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2017 - 05:44 pm:    When I had my own independent specification consulting practice, the letter of agreement with my clients specifically stated that I would only provide locked pdf files of the Project Manual. I password protected the files but allowed printing. For the projects where the owner/architect agreement stated that the architect was to provide MS Word files of the Project Manual, I resisted as long as I could, sometimes successfully. When unsuccessful, I sent the Word files directly to the Owner. This practice resulted from one client copying my Division 00 and 01 files, and who knows how many technical sections, for use on a project of which I was not involved. Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2017 - 03:00 pm:    Everyone has made good points about A/E client's future re-use of "our" instruments of service, but no one has mentioned indemnity. I include in my agreements that A/E clients indemnify me for any future re-use of specs without my permission (which of course would require add'l compensation). J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 977 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2017 - 10:16 am:    The idea of indemnification is interesting, but implies some degree of responsibility on the specifier's part. I would insert a provision stating the instruments of service were developed for a use on a specific project and the specifier assumes no liability for the use of the documents, either as a whole or in part, on another project. J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, AIA, CCS, LEED AP, SCIP Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2017 - 02:12 pm:    Peter, how do you "get" responsibility in the picture? Responsibility is a separate issue/subject. Indemnity strictly provides assumption of liability and defense costs for another party. Do you want to front "defense" expenses for yourself regardless of your proven fault? Consult your attorney (or insurance broker) about such language in your agreements (whether your's or your A/E client's form). And if you have no such agreement language addressing indemnity, what is your state's default/statutory laws? David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1575 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - 02:24 pm:    For those of you who use ARCOM's MasterSpec or their other products, you might be interested in the following pertinent language that I gleaned from the latest copy of "MasterSpec Specification System with SpecWare License Agreement, Terms and Conditions." License Grant: (c) Licensee must use MasterSpec and the applicable SpecWare product only at the physical site (e.g., the physical address) expressly set forth in this Agreement (which address is listed in Licensee's Order Form or, in the case of an Enterprise License, the applicable addresses are listed in Exhibit A attached hereto)(the “Licensed Site”) or, in the case of Linx and Altarix products, the number of central processing units or “Seats” identified in Licensee's Order Form (the “Licensed Seats”); (d) Licensee is permitted to use MasterSpec only to produce office-edited versions (office masters) for Licensee and/or construction project specifications prepared by Licensee for use on Licensee's specific construction projects; Limitations: (a) Authorized Licensees. This Agreement is intended for individuals and organizations preparing construction project specifications for actual and identified construction projects. It is not intended for building product and component manufacturers as a marketing, sales, training, or technical support tool. Additional Categories of Authorized Licensees: (a) Specification Consultants. If Licensee is a specification consultant, Licensee may prepare project specifications for other firms but may not prepare specifications for manufacturers or their products, or prepare office masters for any end user without the end user obtaining a separate MasterSpec License Agreement from ARCOM. Permitted Uses: (d) Licensee may reproduce and distribute to third parties a project specification produced through the use of MasterSpec provided that distribution of the specification is solely and exclusively in connection with the single construction project for which the specification was originally produced; (f) Licensee may upload or otherwise place a project specification prepared by Licensee for use on Licensee's specific construction projects on a project extranet, provided it is in locked PDF format and extranet is provided by a commercial firm. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2017 - 01:28 pm:    Wow...I guess I'm in violation by not locking my PDFs that I give to my A/E clients? Although I've yet to upload to any to a project extranet! but then again, I don't know what my A/E clients do with the specs after I transmit to them? An ARCOM rep once told me that they don't actively enforce/pursue license violations, but again, that was under previous "regime". I don't know what good locking PDFs does anyway. I used to have a program that could unlock almost all locked PDFs, except most complex locking. I "lost" the license when I had to restore my computer...and can't remember which, of many available online, it was. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 199 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2017 - 04:01 pm:    This raises an important issue - how much of our specification work is truly our own? How much can we claim to be our own, how much can be claimed by another entity, and how much do we owe the professional environment? Each project is, to an extent, unique. But, when you think about it, a substantial part of specification writing is using style, format, and even content that was around well before we came along. A relatively small part of each project manual is original work. I think when we say we don't want unauthorized use of our work, most of the time we mean we just want to get paid every time it is used for a project. If you do this job long enough, you will get stiffed no matter how careful you are. Louis Medcalf, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: louis_medcalf Post Number: 84 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2017 - 10:19 am:    The CSI Specifying Practice Group session on 3 August will have Joshua Flowers as a guest speaker on the subject of copyrights for construction documents. Josh (I used to work with him) is both a registered architect and a licensed lawyer in Tennessee. Watch for the announcement. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1423 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, July 21, 2017 - 07:35 pm:    If we get past the words, part --- all of us are not providing only words arranged in a specific fashion to our clients. If that is all it was, we could have them buy a subscription to a spec master and be done with it. Our clients are buying our unique judgement and advice. Those things are not transferable to other projects, and they can't really be reused, either. I certainly produce a lot of project manuals for my employer (who I think of as my client) but over the course of the project, I spend just as much (or more) time interpreting the documents, providing my assessment of products, systems and contractors, swearing under my breath at some question or another and generally rounding out the experience of the project manual. My words (for the most part) come from Arcom. But the 40 years of experience that edits those words comes from me. I've never worried about giving my clients Word files -- if they wanted editable files, I kept a sealed record copy of what I gave them in case of a problem later. They can get words from anyone. Greta Eckhardt Senior Member Username: gretaeckhardt Post Number: 63 Registered: 08-2013 Posted on Monday, July 24, 2017 - 04:16 pm:    As others have pointed out, the actual Word documents a specifier prepares are built on the work of an entire community, and for that reason I consider the final Word documents only a small part of my work as a specifier. I hope and expect that this is true of other specifiers, in-house or independent. What besides Word documents do we provide? In addition to the document interpretation, product assessment and experienced viewpoint mentioned by Anne, we offer a willingness to take information that comes in a variety of forms from a variety of sources, fill in some gaps and make it into a coherent document called the Project Manual, organized and written according to industry standards (thanks to CSI) that can be understood by the entire Owner/Architect/Constructor team. In this process we also add a level of quality assurance/quality control to the documentation of the project. We are engaged in educating our colleagues or clients, and after the documents are issued, we are available to help interpret and explain the specifications during construction. However, I am reluctant to distribute editable Word documents for a particular project, not so much because of ownership, but as a document control strategy. My hope is to avoid the confusion of too many similar-looking - but modified - documents from floating around. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 202 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2017 - 01:52 pm:    Anne's and Greta's thoughts are very well expressed and I agree with them. What they are writing about rarely gets brought up. The unique traits and abilities of an experienced specifier comprise the intrinsic value she or he brings to the project. As Anne stated, that value is far beyond the "words." It cannot be quantified, it is often under-compensated, and the effects of it are different in every new situation. But, I think, an important issue in this discussion is the mere words. What part of a document can one genuinely claim to the extent that one could legitimately copyright it and enforce it (if one had the time and other means to do so)? It reminds me of the great Elizabeth Warren's idea that many attribute to Barack Obama: You didn't build that. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 301 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2017 - 02:48 pm:    I used to have a brochure promoting my spec writing services. When I learned that another specifier (no longer practicing) copied my brochure verbatim and put his own name on it, I wrote a friendly letter wishing him well in his business and suggesting that his customers were probably more interested in what he could do for them than what I could do for them. He stopped using the brochure. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru 818-219-4937 Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 694 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2017 - 07:15 am:    I fully agree that the real value that specifiers bring is their experience and judgement. It can be argued that the actual writing of the specifications is the least important part of the service we provide. However, if there are errors in the specifications issued by me, I am responsible for them. It doesn't matter if others helped in writing or if the errors were in the masters or other source material. Claiming "I didn't build that" is not a defense. Unlike politicians, we can't deflect or shrug off errors with sound-bites. If I am the specifier and am going to be held responsible for errors in the specifications, then I expect to receive credit for when specifications save the day. So actually, yes, I did build that. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 203 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2017 - 08:36 am:    Yes, of course we are individually responsible for the problems we cause along the way and for the good things we do. But the infrastructure (such as MasterFormat) and the way we express things is the product of a culture that has been growing for decades. That's the part I am referring to that I did not build. Louis Medcalf, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: louis_medcalf Post Number: 86 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2017 - 04:38 pm:    CSI Specifying Practice Group, 4 August session: "Intellectual Property for Design Professionals" As design and construction projects become increasingly complex, project team members are faced with more requirements for protection of intellectual property. At the same time, the sources of intellectual property provisions, including industry standard contracts have changed, making it more difficult for industry professionals to fulfill IP obligations. Through case studies, this program will examine common contractual and ethical obligations for intellectual property imposed on participants in design and construction projects, including copyrights, trademarks and patents. Participants will gain practical knowledge of intellectual property “Do’s and Don’ts” in commonly encountered scenarios from project inception through completion of construction in order to comply with contractual requirements. In response to requests for a session on this subject, Dave and Louis have arranged for Josh Flowers of HBG Design, who is both a registered architect and licensed attorney to lead the discussion. The session is free to non-members as well as members. Register at csiresources.org. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 821 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2017 - 10:15 pm:    Louis I could not find how to register based just on the link provided. Louis Medcalf, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: louis_medcalf Post Number: 87 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Friday, July 28, 2017 - 12:01 pm:    The correct date is Thursday the 3rd. There is now an event link on the home page of csiresources.org for registration. Special Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2017 - 08:51 am:    All of this feedback is very much appreciated. I revisited today and reread all of the comments again for good measure. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 991 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2017 - 10:48 am:    Never include the day of the week when specifying a date. Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 296 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2017 - 11:10 am:    Why? Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 334 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2017 - 11:16 am:    November 3, 2017 is not a Thursday. Specifying a day of week and date creates an opportunity for error. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS 1-818-219-4937 www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, NCARB Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1822 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2017 - 11:36 am:    Michael, I seldom disagree with you, but this time I do, I always date my specs, in fact every page of every spec section I issue displays a date (11/3/17) as well as the moniker of the spec section author. In regards to errors, there are many more opportunities for errors, if the spec writer does not perform his due diligence. If you really want to learn about the mistakes you make, try preparing specs for HUD financed projects, what a nightmare, yet I have four such projects under contract right now. I guess I am a glutton for punishment. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 335 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2017 - 02:13 pm:    Jerome, If we all agreed with each other, this forum would be much less interesting. My comment was not about dating specs -- it makes perfect sense to date pages as replacement sections can be issued throughout bidding or construction and dates aid in tracking versions. Instead, I was answering Margaret's question about Sheldon's advice, "Never include the day of the week when specifying a date". A thought about dates: There is an international standard for the order of data in a date: YYYY-MM-DD. Hours, minutes, and seconds can also be added. I have been using this convention for several years and it simplifies filing and computer file naming. If we all used the standard, it would reduce a lot of confusion in the industry and society. See ISO 8601 Data elements and interchange formats – Information interchange – Representation of dates and times. A summary is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601. This is written at 2017-01-01:18:11:18 Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS 1-818-219-4937 www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 216 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Thursday, November 02, 2017 - 01:44 pm:    Michael, If you did indeed write your post at 2017-01-01, you are about ten months delayed in posting it. But it would show your remarkable ability to know the future! Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 336 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Thursday, November 02, 2017 - 02:48 pm:    Give me a break. At least the date is complete and concise. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS 1-818-219-4937 www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 615 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, November 02, 2017 - 04:38 pm:    I work for a firm with (too many) offices all over the world. When we collaborate on a big project, synchronizing times for even an on-line meeting can be extremely cumbersome. Not just the time zones, but the adoption, or non-adoption of daylight savings time and the varying dates it does, or doesn't take effect. No matter what, someone is always calling in from home, in their bathrobe, because it is 3 AM their time. As a trying-to-be Clear, Concise and Correct Spec Writer, I advocate for the adoption of Star Dates, from the Star Trek TV show, to no avail.