MasterSpec Renewal

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

Author Message Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS SCIP Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 308 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 09:34 am:    I've been trying for 3 weeks to get through to Deltek to renew my MasterSpec subscription, which expires in a few days. Despite phone messages and email through their website contact page, I have rec'd no response and am not able to get to a person through their convoluted phone maze. Is anyone else having this problem or know a solution? This is making me very nervous about the ownership change. Jeffrey Wilson CCS CSI SCIP Wilson Consulting Inc Ardmore PA Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 253 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 11:45 am:    Did you receive the emailed DocuSign electronic invoice? The subject line on mine starts with "MasterSpec License Renewal for..." The actual email address it comes from ends in "docusign.net" but the sender shows up in my Outlook as "Tyler Foley-Kerr via DocuSign." Before I received this, I received an email from "Avitru + Deltek Customer Success," actual email address "renewal@avitru.com" telling me that I'd get a DocuSign email. It all could have gone to your spam folder. Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS SCIP Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 309 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 12:26 pm:    Thanks for the info, Liz -- I appreciate your response. No invoice has been rec'd, and I check spam several times daily. It's good to hear there is a mechanism for renewal, although I'm not sure why it hasn't reached me. The only "notice" rec'd is an automated message when using MasterWorks, which advises to call the 800 number. I'll try white listing the addresses you referenced and sending an email to the Avitru renewal address. Jeffrey Wilson CCS CSI SCIP Wilson Consulting Inc Ardmore PA Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 544 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 12:28 pm:    I have asked technical support to investigate Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 254 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 12:28 pm:    Good luck! Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS SCIP Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 310 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 12:38 pm:    Thank you, Mark -- that is great. Jeffrey Wilson CCS CSI SCIP Wilson Consulting Inc Ardmore PA Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS SCIP Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 311 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 12:39 pm:    Marc, sorry! Jeffrey Wilson CCS CSI SCIP Wilson Consulting Inc Ardmore PA Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS SCIP Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 312 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 01:14 pm:    Success! Rec'd message from my new "account manger" saying DocuSign is on the way. Thanks for the help -- 4specs forum users never let me down! Jeffrey Wilson CCS CSI SCIP Wilson Consulting Inc Ardmore PA Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 545 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 01:36 pm:    I'd love to take credit for that but they may have been on it already...in any case 1 down and 1 to go..I'm interested in the docusign thing. Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS SCIP Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 313 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 02:11 pm:    Apparently it was the email to renewal@avitru.com that prompted the response. That was quick and effective: I'm now signed up for another year. And I have a name & email address for a customer rep. My faith is restored! btw: I normally subscribe for 4 years to take advantage of the discount offered w/ multi-year subscriptions. I'm taking a wait-and-see approach this time to make sure the transition to Deltek works out. I'm especially wary that SpecBuilder Cloud or other alternatives to MasterWorks will be pushed. This would have a very negative effect on my practice. Jeffrey Wilson CCS CSI SCIP Wilson Consulting Inc Ardmore PA Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 546 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 02:15 pm:    granted I'm on the inside, but I've really seen commitment from Deltek to help us advance the product. Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS SCIP Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 314 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 02:34 pm:    That is very good to hear. I for one am truly pleased to have Marc "representing" our constituency! Jeffrey Wilson CCS CSI SCIP Wilson Consulting Inc Ardmore PA Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 02:36 pm:    I hope you carefully read the newest license agreement, or had your attorney review it. It contains some surprises. Remember, everything is negotiable. Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS SCIP Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 315 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 03:17 pm:    Hoo boy! No -- I accepted it with only a glance, assuming it was similar to the previous one. I will read it now that you made your excellent point, Guest. If you care to share your take on the surprises, it would be much appreciated -- and might further the discussion in this forum. I did happen to notice that users are required to include the copyright notice on all distributed spec documents. Interestingly, the version in the agreement differs from the one in MasterSpec section footers. This is presumably an oversight. Jeffrey Wilson CCS CSI SCIP Wilson Consulting Inc Ardmore PA Not a Lawyer (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 04:05 pm:    Jeffrey, note that you can remove the copyright notice from your projects' specifications. "Licensee may not remove or modify any copyright or trademark notices on MasterSpec (except in the case of the Licensee's project specifications) ..." Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 547 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 05:30 pm:    We expect you to remove/modify the header and the footer and replace elements of them with your own. however you must have the copyright (somewhere) on every product you publish. we are vague about where. (Marc's humble opinion not Deltek policy below) I would suggest (but I'm not a lawyer) placing the copyright notice on the pages of the TOC and then on the first page of any subsequent Addendum or separately published bid package or spec section, so that any user picking up any separately published document from your firm understands that this product is copyrighted. (Back to official policy) This has always been a requirement on our agreement with the AIA, we are required to have customers include the watermark which was missing previously. Since our base product is a Microsoft Word file. It has no software lock on it and it is possible to open and use the file with or without a valid license. This statement was added to the footer of MasterSpec documents this year in Q2 to make clearer to users that the content is indeed licensed by the AIA and managed by Deltek. We want to make sure the user understands that they must have a current license to use the product. As these files are often transmitted to others it is important for those receiving any WORD files, to also know, that they too need a valid license. LOCKED PDFs may be transmitted to others without the other having a license. (The sentence in the footer (named a "watermark") accomplishes that task. so that being that, I'm sure you all will have some question or another. please post them here and I will bundle them up and send them to the legal folks to give specific answer. AFTER turkey day. remember as someone noted above. call them and negotiate, ask for clarification if things are not clear. I am not part of the legal department and I can only offer up what i believe to be the answer. Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS SCIP Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 316 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 05:30 pm:    That's interesting, NaL. I searched the agreement and did not find any such exception. All references to copyright and the Avitru "watermark" (which is what they call the copyright notice) require it to be included. Only one reference to "trademark" was found, and I did not find the phrase you quoted. Apparently there is more than one version of the license agreement. I wonder if you're looking at a recent version? Jeffrey Wilson CCS CSI SCIP Wilson Consulting Inc Ardmore PA Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS SCIP Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 317 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 05:45 pm:    Thanks for the offer, Marc. In addition to resolving whether a single location would suffice for the copyright notice, here's a question I'd think Deltek would be interested in resolving: Which version of the "watermark" is valid -- the one in the license agreement or the text in spec footers? The 1st has a 2018 copyright date and the 2nd is 2019, which suggests that the agreement is not up-to-date. Aside from the date, the biggest difference is that the agreement version contains an extra sentence: <It was created by "AYZ firm" for "ABC project."> I would sure like to avoid having to replace the project name in every watermark if included in each footer. Jeffrey Wilson CCS CSI SCIP Wilson Consulting Inc Ardmore PA Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 548 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 06:48 pm:    As for the last first, what does your copy of the EULA say? and if it is not what you want ....argue back for one without the extra AYZ ...ABC language. I will try to get the latest copy so I have one to refer to. as far as the first question I asked that too and got no direct answer. I will save it up and ask after T-Day Dan Helphrey Senior Member Username: dbhelphrey Post Number: 47 Registered: 12-2018 Posted on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 08:06 pm:    The problem with the copyright notice is that if I use MasterWorks (or eSPECS, or VisiSpecs) to do my footers, they take it out. Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 549 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - 11:33 am:    All of the products mentioned allow you to place your own text in the header or footer. so ...simply place the appropriate text in the program to be applied to the document. As to where and how often to place it, see my earlier answer above. anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 06:41 pm:    Here is the copyright language in the footers of my current AIA MasterSpec sections: Copyright © 2019 by the American Institute of Architects. Warning: This AIA MasterSpec based document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. A valid, current MasterSpec license is required for editing or use of this document. I understand that I must have a valid, current license to edit MasterSpec specifications, but once I have edited a section for a project, it is my understanding that I am now the author of what is called a derivative work. I understand that copyright laws say that the original copyright still applies to the original work, but that it does not extend to the derivative portions of the work. Which begs the question: What makes something derivative with regard to MasterSpec? Completely new and original paragraphs, certainly, but what about changing words in existing MS paragraphs? Does Deltek claim it is still the original copyright owner of that? Because all of my "Masterspec based" documents are substantially modified before I publish them for projects, might I argue that all of what I produce is derivative? And because of that, unnecessary for me to include the copyright language in the footers of every section? MasterSpec license appears to support that position - the current MS license agreement states: (e) Licensee may copyright as a derivative work a project specification prepared by Licensee for use on Licensee’s specific construction projects (or for Licensee’s clients if Licensee is a specification consultant); Which to me indicates that MS understands, and accepts, that the specifications prepared for a project are derivative, and copyright is now at the discretion of the author, as a derivative work, not MasterSpec. Would you agree? Not a Lawyer (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 05:47 pm:    Interesting indeed. This was from the terms I was required to acknowledge having read and my agreement to in order to download the most recent MasterSpec updates. I couldn't seem to locate a current copy of any other agreement or terms of service anywhere else. If they are available in another location that I'm not finding, please feel free to provide a link. Marc, assuming I'm not overlooking anything, feel free to ask the legal team to provide a link to the current agreement in the "User Resources" portion of the website ... or to otherwise make this available to review from within MasterWorks, e-SPECS software, SpecBuilder Cloud, etc. anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - 11:42 am:    Aren't edited MasterSpec specifications derivative works? As the MasterSpec license states: (e) Licensee may copyright as a derivative work a project specification prepared by Licensee for use on Licensee’s specific construction projects (or for Licensee’s clients if Licensee is a specification consultant); And as a derivative work, isn't the copyright now transferred to the author of the derivative work? Per the above license agreement and consistent with US copyright law? Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 550 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, December 02, 2019 - 02:19 pm:    for your reading pleasure here is a link to the current EULA: https://www.deltek.com/en/deltek-contracts/masterspec anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, December 02, 2019 - 06:55 pm:    So much to unpack here... Marc: What date does Deltek require licensed MasterSpec users to use for specification sections prepared using specs copyrighted prior to 2019? Many specifiers are using MS specifications from previous copyrighted versions for Masters - dating back into the 80s and 90s in some cases. So if I have an office Master spec section that started out as a 2001 copyrighted MasterSpec section, and have modified it and added original content over the years, what date is required after the ©? What if, over the years, I added or replaced some paragraphs with newer MasterSpec section paragraphs? Am I required per the agreement to note each and every new MS paragraph with the corresponding date of its © origin? According to US Copyright Office Circular 14, copyright notice is optional with the date corresponding to that of the original work. Why is Deltek insisting that copyright notice with a single date be placed on every spec that architect or consultant produces? What is their reasoning for this requirement, exactly? Here is some good information about this from US copyright office: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf The required copyright notice in the current EULA “MasterSpec Copyright © 2019 by the American Institute of Architects, portions Copyright © 2019 by “AYZ firm” for “ABC Project”. Warning: This AIA MasterSpec based document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties.” makes no sense if I have modified previously copyrighted MS specs and am not using the latest and greatest 2019 version. Also, what if I don't care about copyrighting my original (derivative) content in the spec? Why is Deltek insisting that I do so if this is at my prerogative? What about spec sections I create, mostly from other MS sections, that MS doesn't publish, using mostly MS canned paragraphs and language - for example Section 06 11 13 Engineered Wood Products? Does Deltek maintain copyrights to the paragraphs and words I use to create this new spec section? Does Deltek require me to add the copyright notice per the EULA to this section? What about MasterSpec language that I like, and want to continue using, but has been removed or modified in the most current MasterSpec section(s)? Is that also copyrighted material? Can I claim ownership of it? What if I use no MasterSpec spec language in creating a new spec section but I do use all of the MasterSpec Word automatic numbering and styles and formatting? Is any of that also copyright protected? I have a hard time believing that Deltek would bring a lawsuit against any specifier that failed to comply with the current EULA copyright notice. I think Deltek should give a really good think about this. I think a more reasonable copyright notice would read something like this: "This specification section may contain original AIA MasterSpec content which is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties." Short and sweet. And if the specification writer wants to copyright her original portions, she can add whatever language she chooses to the above notice - nothing to do with Deltek. Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 551 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, December 02, 2019 - 07:15 pm:    a bunch of great questions, I have no certain idea. I would suspect (IMHO not being a lawyer) that you are getting to far in the weeds with it. Use the year date that you are issuing the document 2019 or 2020 next year. you need not copyright your info, so modify the sentence to remove that part. the agreement wants the AIA acknowledged as owner of the original language. HOWEVER, always consult counsel, even if you want to give up (not exert) your potential copyright this could have consequences for you/your firm later. I will add this to the list of questions. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 1259 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, December 02, 2019 - 08:47 pm:    Thanks for posting that Marc. The way I read 9.k. Exhibit A, is that as long as this appears in Division 01, we're compliant. Why doesn't MasterSpec write it into 011000 "Summary", Article 1.7 SPECIFICATION AND DRAWING CONVENTIONS? Or they can just keep jerking us around with this crap. Non lawyer guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, December 02, 2019 - 09:44 pm:    A quick read of the license agreement brings out the following highlights (not that these are the only ones worth having an attorney review): 3. This states that independent specification consultants that subscribe to MasterSpec cannot write guide specifications for manufactures even if MasterSpec is not used in writing the guide specification. I assume the intent here is to limit Deltek’s competition in this area so the have a greater opportunity to sell Product MasterSpec to manufactures. I wonder if this restriction to free trade is in violation of Federal law. I know of a few consultants that Deltek hires that are in violation with this restriction. 6.b. If your authorized site is only an office, you are not permitted to edit/use MasterSpec at any other location, including at your home, or you are in violation of the agreement. Does this mean that each subscriber needs to list every possible location on the order form as an “authorized site,” including each airline, if not specific airplanes, they may travel on so they can work during a flight? 6.d The prohibits building owners from reviewing specifications for their projects unless they also hold a MasterSpec license. This would also require building code plan reviewers to have a valid MasterSpec License in order to review the specifications for issuance of a building permit. 6.g. I know of a current MasterSpec upper management individual that, under previous employment, copied MasterSpec content into a MasterSpec competitor’s software system. Great idea, but in violation of the current agreement. 8.a. Subscribers violate the license agreement if they do not “promptly notify Deltek” of any of the numerous errors that can be found in MasterSpec, including, I assume, manufactures and products included in Paragraph Builder that do not meet the applicable requirements included for a specific product in MasterSpec. 9.b. Subscribers are responsible for Deltek’s attorneys fees from third party claims, which the subscriber has no control over. Exh.A, It appears to me, that including this copyright notice essentially grants AIA the copyright to any additional content a subscriber adds to MasterSpec., and since the subscriber does not hold the copyright to this additional content created by the subscriber, the subscriber can never use that content again unless the use is with MasterSpec. Overall, it does not take much thought to conclude that Deltek/Avitru have little knowledge of how specifications are written or used in the design and construction industries. Remember, everything in the license agreement is negotiable, and has been negotiated by Avitru for some subscribers. Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 553 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 03, 2019 - 11:59 am:    great questions.. my quick un-lawyerly responses are: 3. you can't resell our content to a manufacturer. Only we can do that (it is, after all, our product). I'll let the attnys handle the free trade part... but REALLY? 6.b there is discussion about this but generally your laptop (company property assigned to you at office "X") has a copy of masterspec on it....feel free to write specs on a cliff top for all I'm concerned. HOWEVER you cannot have one license and have a company with three offices use is at all three locations..I enjoy cheap science fiction on airplanes (or maybe a good Georgette Heyer regency romance if the truth be told) but if you want to work on a plane...feel free. 6.d I asked about this..no it does not (see 5c). You are working on a project for the owner. they and the contractor, code official, and the subs all can review/have/ etc the spec. BUT we do not want you giving them the Word documents as they could (if unscrupulous) take YOUR hard work and ours and do their own projects in the future with the same docs, slightly altered. give them locked pdfs or a bluebeam session ..as for 6.g I did that at ZGF and we had licenses for both products. so I had a license to use the content and I did. No violation there. The content could be used by our other locations all of which had site licenses. My altered speclink sections never went back to BSD to "improve" their product, it was all used on ZGF projects. 8.a yea we got them to modify this....note that the current language (see my link from yesterday) says "Licensee will use best efforts to promptly notify". I'll let you define "best efforts" We try really hard to make sure that each manufacturer in Paragraph Builder (PB) meets the requirements, if we make a mistake we really want to know about it so that the next person opening PB gets the correct information. 9b when have you ever signed a contract (not written by you) that you liked the indemnification paragraph? This is pretty standard language. I don't like these paragraphs either but they are the way the world works. Read Bleak House for further edification. Exh A states “MasterSpec Copyright © 2019 by the American Institute of Architects, portions Copyright © 2019 by “AYZ firm” for “ABC Project”. Warning: This AIA MasterSpec based document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties.” please note "portions" this is your (the subscriber's) copyright not ours. please feel free to reuse your language however you see fit, or remove your copyright and place your language in common use. just please keep ours covered. The entire review committee and myself gave the Avitru owners and now Deltek reams of comments. we do know construction and specifications. you would have loved the meeting when it was discussed. The real issue is that construction wants to spread the documents around and as of this date we are using Word and pdfs to do that work. We will be moving to a recorded version, that self destructs once listened to, much like the old mission impossible series (for all you boomers) Now, I am passing this all along to the "legal beagles" for review and comment.....that being said. if you or anyone has comments to improve the document to guard our IP and your IP please let me know. we welcome your comments. anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, December 03, 2019 - 12:34 pm:    Marc, There was a suggestion made for copyright notice that reads a little better than what is in the EULA: "This specification section may contain original AIA MasterSpec content which is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties." Does this satisfy the leagle beagles at Deltek/Avitru? Since you have quick access to the folks that crafted the EULA language, maybe you could get a quick take on this for the group. Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 554 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 03, 2019 - 12:54 pm:    I will add this to the list. we actually have a meeting set. Deltek really does listen... Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 555 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 03, 2019 - 12:59 pm:    ken, that would be great....if owners did not regularly require use of their division 01. so per previous answers place it somewhere in every "product" you produce.... Not a Lawyer (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, December 03, 2019 - 02:35 pm:    Marc, you noted that, "the real issue is that construction (assuming contractors?) wants to spread the documents around ..." Is this really an issue? Are contractors really out there spreading edited specifications around from one project to another in violation of not only the copyright, but also their previous project agreements and prevailing architectural and engineering practice laws? If so, do you really think a copyright notice or a locked PDF will stop them from doing it? If they are unscrupulous enough to violate all those other things, I doubt a copyright notice will really stop them. Especially if this notice just appears somewhere in the "product," but not necessarily on the portion they might be trying to spread around as you've opined would be ok. Seems like all this is a solution looking for a problem. Perhaps I've misunderstood your comment. Regardless, what acts is Deltek trying to prevent against, and have there been instances you can point us to where this copyright notice would have prevented them, or provided more protection to the copyright owners had it been provided? I can see what Deltek is doing, I just don't understand why they are doing it and what they think it will accomplish. Another question you can ask the Deltek lawyers is whether they are required by CSI to pass through the Institute's copyright on MasterFormat and SectionFormat as it is being used in MasterSpec. Is there some notification that Deltek should be including in MasterSpec to indicate MasterFormat and SectionFormat are copyright by CSI? Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS SCIP Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 319 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Tuesday, December 03, 2019 - 03:27 pm:    As I understand it, it's AIA, not Deltek that requires the copyright notice. Deltek is simply fulfilling its obligation under the agreement to produce MasterSpec. Marc or others can correct me if I'm wrong. But if there are objections, perhaps we should be directing them to the MasterSpec review committee. Jeffrey Wilson CCS CSI SCIP Wilson Consulting Inc Ardmore PA ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 1260 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, December 03, 2019 - 03:31 pm:    I wouldn't be worried about most Contractor's reusing specs but I can't say the same about private developers or architects who farm out their specs. I've known several of each who violated copyright clauses in the past by reusing my specs on projects for which I was not employed or compensated for when I worked as a spec consultant. I know, hard to believe that anyone would do such a thing, right? Rosa Cheney Senior Member Username: rdcaia Post Number: 6 Registered: 07-2018 Posted on Tuesday, December 03, 2019 - 03:38 pm:    Let me first say, "wow". There's a lot of hate for this watermark. It's hard for me to tell if the dislike is for the wording or for the effort it takes to put it on the documents. I renewed by Masterspec license in January 2019 and have been adding the watermark to every page of my projects since then. For me, it is as easy as using the watermark function in Adobe Acrobat. I input the watermark into Adobe once and saved the settings so it takes little effort to add it to each project. I have it show up as a really small, single line that fits in the margin under the footer. It's there, and putting it there on all my projects has added exactly 2 minutes max to my deliverable preparation. (I rounded up to 2 minutes from 1 minute because I have to edit my client and project name for each project.) So if the concern is with the effort, then in my opinion, there's not too much cause for concern. If the concern is truly with the language itself, then ok, let loose the lawyers. But don't forget that this is not just Deltek's lawyers...this is an AIA product, and so they'll be involved too. Speaking of AIA products...the AIA Contracts have had the copyright watermark on them for the last 20+ years that I can recall, probably longer. (It is at the bottom of every page in very small print). I definitely think that having the copyright on the AIA Contracts helps deter copyright infringement. So similarly, I think it is appropriate for Deltek and the AIA to try to protect their Masterspec intellectual property. As a member of the Masterspec Archtitectural Review Committee, I can see firsthand the amount of effort that the Masterspec writers put into the product. And, I applaud AIA and Deltek for their attempt to rein in the amount of unlicensed Masterspec specs that are in circulation in the industry...which we all know is a whole lot. Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 556 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 03, 2019 - 03:41 pm:    We have licensing agreements with CSI for MasterFormat and UniFormat and I assume for SectionFormat although I have not seen that one. A solution looking for a problem? A copyright has been a long held "gate" to "keep the horses in." You could say "my horses don't run away I don't need a gate!" Ok. That's fine....Me? I'll put up a gate then I don't have to count on the horses sticking around on their own accord. Copyright is more of a deterrence than a lock. I can't stop you from violating it but if I have not gone to the effort of telling you no, then I have no ability to go to court and stop you. I believe there have been instances where MasterSpec has gone to companies and asked them to pull specs off of sites or pay for licenses for specs being created without a license. I have not been here long enough to give you chapter and verse… But again if you don’t let the world know you own the property, then according to the way things work anyone could take the product, rebrand it and sell it as their own…and we would have no recourse. Not a Lawyer (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, December 03, 2019 - 04:22 pm:    Marc, I'm not asking if Deltek has a licensing agreement with CSI, I'm asking if your agreement with CSI is requiring similar provisions for the use of MasterFormat as Deltek requires of us to use MasterSpec. Specifically, does CSI require that Deltek disclose that MasterFormat's copyright is owned by CSI? Even if it isn't a requirement, it seems like something Deltek sees as important and I wonder why they don't do it anyway. I disagree with your analogy, and so does federal copyright law. A notice is no longer a requirement to be able to hold a copyright and has been this way since March 1, 1989. Since this date a notice is optional. No need to tell people no ... the law already does that. To use your analogy, the horses have a gate keeping them in, the issue is whether it is necessary to label the gate as "Gate, installed 2019 by XZY." As far as I am aware, you have the same amount of legal recourse whether the gate is labeled or not. Instead, as I understand it, you really need to register your copyright to better be able to enforce it in court ... notification is completely optional. It seems like the issue with manufacturers using MasterSpec is that they are violating the license agreement and your copyright to produce guide specs, or hiring consultants produce guide specs using MasterSpec in violation of the consultant's agreement and your copyright ... not necessarily that the copyright notice is missing from the sections. I take no issue with the majority of the license agreement. I dislike dealing with the copyright notice because it is unnecessary (per current law), confusing to our clients (especially for ones who intentionally avoid AIA contract documents then see AIA notices in their specifications), and does not necessarily apply to sections that I've written myself because MasterSpec doesn't contain all the sections that I need in any given project (not a dig on MasterSpec, just a reality). Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 557 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 03, 2019 - 07:04 pm:    OH OK. I do not believe CSI requires that I have not read the agreement. I believe that somewhere in our documentation we mention it...but I'm not sure. you are correct on the law as I understand it.. but my understanding is that it is a choice you don't HAVE to place the statement on your document but you CAN. I will ask the lawyers if there is a legal reason we have asked you to add the copyright. remember we are not writing a one off document but a giant unedited master for many to use. people that publish books may not HAVE to include a copyright notice but most of them do.... If I understand correctly, yes a manufacturer (or spec consultant) who is writing a "manufacturer spec" with MasterSpec and not doing a Product MasterSpec would be violating the agreement regardless of the placement of a copyright notice. yes several have noted that the requirement to place the notice is a pain. per question above I will ask the lawyers why (beyond just being lawyers) they want us to have you add the statement. Not a Lawyer (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, December 03, 2019 - 07:34 pm:    Thank you for your efforts Marc. I appreciate your willingness to engage in these discussions and take our questions/concerns to Deltek's lawyers. For whatever it's worth, I would ask that MasterSpec users be allowed the same sort of option from Deltek that copyright law allows ... in other words, users wouldn't HAVE to include a notice, but users CAN add Deltek's example notice if they desire to. Assuming of course the specification(s) is(are) edited for a particular project, etc. in accordance with the license agreement. I wouldn't propose allowing removal the out-of-the-box notice from an unedited MasterSpec master (well at least not all of them ... some version of a copyright notice appears three times in each section ... and no they don't always agree on the date). On another note, it would be easier to process the copyright notice if Deltek would address the Multi-File, Custom Macro issue with MasterWorks noted here: http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/430/9026.html?1573855876 Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 558 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 04, 2019 - 07:00 pm:    I spoke to my Senior VP today and I'm preparing a summary of the comments from this string for him and the legal department. The EULA (see link in string above) is much better than the version from last spring, and infinitely better than the older one from the previous company. The new version (Which I am just now reading) incorporates comments I made to legal this fall. They DO and HAVE listened. If any of you have additional comments on the EULA ...not yet discussed ...please post them. They will be forwarded to the top of our organization and to the legal department. We may be able to build an FAQ for common questions so future customers will understand what we have discussed here. Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS SCIP Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 320 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Wednesday, December 04, 2019 - 07:30 pm:    Thank you for this, Marc. I would like to request clarification whether inserting the author's company and project name in the copyright notice is a requirement or our option. I have no interest in copyrighting portions of specification documents prepared by my firm, so would rather not go to the trouble of changing the notice for every project. I plan to include the copyright provisions in the footer on every page. Honestly, I don't see how it would serve the intended purpose if located at a single location in the Project Manual. Jeffrey Wilson CCS CSI SCIP Wilson Consulting Inc Ardmore PA Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS SCIP Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 321 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Wednesday, December 04, 2019 - 07:36 pm:    P. S. My standard proposal/agreement includes language about copyright restrictions, so users are on notice and the provisions would presumably be enforceable if necessary. Jeffrey Wilson CCS CSI SCIP Wilson Consulting Inc Ardmore PA Dewayne Dean Senior Member Username: ddean Post Number: 211 Registered: 02-2016 Posted on Thursday, December 05, 2019 - 10:00 am:    FWIW, SpecLink does not require any of this. ICYAW, (In Case You Are Wondering) I don't work for SpecLink. Not a Lawyer (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, January 27, 2020 - 04:10 pm:    Marc, any updates for us after your meeting(s) with the lawyers? Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 565 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, January 27, 2020 - 04:50 pm:    thanks for the reminder....once the holidays got started.....anyway let me check.