Are You Licensing MasterFormat 2004?

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

Author Message Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 213 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - 10:42 am:    Are You Licensing MasterFormat 2004? Sound like a silly question, but CSI has informed me that 4specs comes under their “Proprietary Use of MasterFormat” requirements. That requires us to sign an agreement and to pay a mimimum of $1.600 the first year. This appears to be targeted at 4specs and other print and online publications. Roger Grant in his email to me December 14, 2009 said: http://www.4specs.com/license/2009_12_14_CSI_2_4specs.pdf "Our long standing practice is to enter into a license agreement with organizations that are employing MasterFormat in a Proprietary Use as defined in the Terms of Use." I can find no one who has a license agreement. CSI has not provided a copy of the license agreement to sign and there are many conditions to the documents I have that make it difficult for 4specs to accept the license. I spoke with about 10 print and Internet publishers at GreenBuild. No one had signed such a license nor paid the $500 application fee and $1,100 minimum annual fee. The proprietary use definition is very broad: Terms and Use and Licensing for MasterFormat(tm) http://www.4specs.com/license/CSI_MF_Terms_of_Use_2009-07-31.pdf Proprietary Use of MasterFormat(tm) http://www.4specs.com/license/CSI_MF_Proprietary_Use_2009-07-31FINAL%20Commercial.pdf This proprietary license requirement could include the following: 1. Publisher such as 4specs, ARCAT, First Source, Design Guide, TODL and the like 2. Plan rooms issuing lists of projects and the MF2004 sections in the specs 3. Instructing manufacturers about the use of MF2004 even in a free class – “… such as providing a free service or application that helps to market or position an organization or individual by association. “ 4. A university teaching an architectural or CM materials class using MF2004. Schools still need to have a public use license for classes are presented without cost to the participant. 5. An estimating service providing takeoffs for local projects 6. An architect making CAD and BIM details for a manufacturer. 7. Local architectural library service using MF2004 to classify manufacturer's binders for use by their architect, contractor and material supplier members. 8. While the use by a manufacturer of MF2004 numbers on their literature is ok, it is not clear that they can use the numbers on their website. 9. A distributor or multi-line rep listing the MF2004 numbers he represents on his business website may require a proprietary license. "... and the marketing efforts are not provided as a means of indexing or providing access to the products of multiple manufacturers." "Use of MasterFormat for the purposes of organizing master guide specifications, design details, or cost information for the purposes of generating revenue through license, sale, or presentation to third parties is a Proprietary Use." “Public Use is the presentation or other use of MasterFormat for the purpose of education or training, in any format live, recorded, web, or other provided by a university or other non-profit institution without cost to attendees. Public Use licenses may also be granted for educational uses where the education is provided for a fee which does not exceed the costs of presenting the education." The potential list of covered business practices and licensees could be significant. CSI has quoted me a $1,600 cost to get the first year's MF2004 license, and has not provided a schedule of fees so I can see what the cost would be the second year. I have not been able to determine what the basis of the fee is - percentage of revenues? profit? I talked with an Intellectual Property attorney in Salt Lake City on Monday and have an outline of why CSI has very limited rights to mandate licensing MF2004. I’ll provide this information later when I heard from your about the 2 questions below. The questions today to the 4specs Discussion Forum are: 1. Have you or anyone you know received a written license for Organizational, Public or Proprietary use of MF2004? 2. Have you or anyone you know received any type of license for MF1995? Colin Gilboy Publisher, 4specs.com 435.654.5775 - Utah 800.369.8008 Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 359 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - 10:58 am:    No and No but we are forgiven as architects. however at the CSI chapter level we use it in presentations to make money - is that a violation? I'll trade them, I'll bill for every volunteer hour in trade for the use of the license when I'm out giving MF'04 chats to businesses - for money - which I have done for the local chapter for 4 years now. (we're mostly done now but for a while there we did a lot of these.) I'd also like to see McGraw-Hill's bill prior to coughing up any cash. how many years have they used MasterFormat numbers? M Specification Writer Senior Member Username: specification_writer Post Number: 12 Registered: 01-2009 Posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - 11:53 am:    No and No. Why would CSI single out 4specs? Is someone at CSI trying to shut down one of the best reference web sites on the www? If CSI is serious about charging 4specs for using Masterformat 2004, then CSI will have to prepare a license agreement for every architect, specifier, contractor, manufacturer, educator, estimator, engineer, and the list goes on and on. I call FOUL. Shame on CSI. Specification Writer Architect Washington, D.C. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 360 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - 12:12 pm:    read carefully, architects/engineers/contractor and cost estimators doing projects and or organizing internally are allowed. the discussion is about companies like 4specs, arcat, bsd, crsf, arcom, McGraw Hill and others. let's talk about plan rooms? they do it for money and it's public not internal. Colin, I believe has #5 wrong. Estimators are covered as they are on the project. There are a BUNCH of "Public Use" licenses that need to be granted and currently are not. I'd put the money in escrow and tell the Power's that Be to show me everyone elses checks then I'd release the money. As Colin asks; Has any other organization received their bill? has anyone else payed it? M Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 322 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - 12:58 pm:    Mark's comment reminds me of all the volunteer work that Chapter/Regional Technical Committees spent writing Green Sheets and CSI took them and created SpexText for a profit. "Fast is good, but accurate is better." .............Wyatt Earp Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 246 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - 01:09 pm:    This is similar to AISC’s attempt to copyright the dimensions of the rolled steel sections thus requiring authors of computer programs that have the dimensions in a data base pay a fee. It is well established that you cannot copyright the phone numbers in the phone book. You can copyright the way that phone numbers are presented in the phone book meaning you cannot copy the page but you can format them differently on a page. Similarly CSI cannot copyright the MasterFormat numbers. What they are doing is using the threat of legal action to blackmail people to pay this extortion. We should not forget that CSI is an organization. If the membership and better yet chapters were to yell loud enough I believe that this craziness will go away. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 52 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - 01:11 pm:    Ron You have your facts wrong. SPECTEXT was not created from the Green Sheets. Its base was the consultant's master. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 323 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - 01:17 pm:    Bob: I stand corrected. It was a long time ago. I do remember that both the Baltimore and DC CSI Chapters were really up in arms about what CSI was doing. I can't remember the exact details nor the years. "Fast is good, but accurate is better." .............Wyatt Earp Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 214 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - 01:33 pm:    Mark, Actually you can copyright the numbers. Please follow this logic: CSI has a copyright on the MF2004 book. You cannot copy the book. CSI cannot copyright the list of section titles. CSI can copyright the numbers ending in 13, 16, etc. Those are unique to their MF2004 classification system. CSI may have lost the right force licensing of MF2004 and to sue under latches - delaying taking action. 5 1/2 years is a long time not to take action, especially considering the efforts to promote the MF2004 system with the MasterFormat Accredited Instructor program and the many presentations at CSI, AIA, and who knows where else. MF2004 is derived from MF1995 and each edition was derived back to MF1978 when the 5 digit numbers were introduced. The 16 divisions were introduced even earlier. CSI probably cannot claim infringement on the MF2004 numbers where they just added a zero to the MF1995 number. There is more complexity and this will sketch out the problems. Colin Gilboy Publisher, 4specs.com 435.654.5775 - Utah 800.369.8008 Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 820 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - 01:35 pm:    To answer Colin's questions, no and no; however, I'm caught up in this with a document that I was preparing called "A Code Checklist for Construction Specifications." The document is a breakdown of building code requirements in a MasterFormat 2004 structure. But the licensing document, as posted by Colin above, states: "'Revenue' is not limited to direct financial gains, and may also include indirect gains that may accrue from such an application, such as providing a free service or application that helps to market or position an organization or individual by association." I was not planning on selling the document, but, of course, I planned on putting my consulting business name on it, which could (and probably will) be interpreted as helping "to market or position an organization or individual by association." I'm not about to pay a $1,600 initial and a $1,100 annual fee for a "free" document, and I don't think there is a substantial paying market for this type of document to recoup the licensing fees. Thus, my "Checklist" project is on hold. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 361 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - 01:38 pm:    what do you mean on hold! i need a copy now! you will force me to read more code book never as fun as fiction or even specs. Marc Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 229 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - 01:42 pm:    Colin - 1) yes, 2) no Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1122 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - 01:56 pm:    Hope CSI is not intending to follow AIA in the publishing business where mere casual use of documents is a big deal and costly. Like payng $4,000 for docs marked SAMPLE, so you can include them in a text book [and all you wished to do was show the cover sheet to ID the doc] Oh, and too, needing a VP/Corporate Counsel in charge of docs, so nasty letters and threats can be issued. If we are trying "to make things better and easier" can't see how this complication helps things. Maybe we need some creative thinking on the part of CSI's legal eagles!!! Is it still true that "too many cooks spoil the broth"? Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 247 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - 01:59 pm:    Colin You could make a similar argument with regards phone numbers which have an area code and which are presented as in a unique format developed by ATT (111-111 1111). Do not concede this point. It is my understanding that the phone number issue is well established and the similarities to the MasterFormat numbers is so direct. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 821 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - 02:01 pm:    Marc: I'll finish it and sell you a copy for $1,600. ;-) Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 183 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - 02:06 pm:    I wonder if this has anything to do with the new BPM service. ( I think that's the name) It's advertised as a construction materials search engine similar to 4specs. I can't find it in my inbox anymore, probably because I prefer 4specs and deleted the ads, but got the impression they were associated with CSI. Kinda wondered what was going on as 4specs has such a strong connection to CSI, (I thought). Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 362 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - 02:09 pm:    give me the info, I'll publish and they can sue me, I'll go bankrupt, and ask for a federal bailout Craig Haney New member Username: c_haney Post Number: 1 Registered: 01-2010 Posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - 03:03 pm:    We are not licensing MF 2004 and do not believe that we are obligated to do so. I agree with most of the previous comments; many of us have expended huge amounts of time and expertise on CSI's efforts. I really resent this current effort by CSI, and believe that it will ultimately backfire on them. Tracy Van Niel, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: tracy_van_niel Post Number: 290 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - 03:23 pm:    From what Colin has posted, it sounds like we (as an architectural firm) would have to pay this licensing fee if we teach an in-house education unit on MasterFormat 2004? So in other words ... CSI has spent all this time (including hundreds and thousands of volunteer hours) and money to develop and then promote MasterFormat 2004 but if you use it or want to educate how to use it, you have to pay them, right? Tracy L. Van Niel, FCSI, CCS Doug Frank FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 259 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - 03:29 pm:    So CSI has it’s best marketing tool in years with MF04 and now they’ve decided to effectively restrict or limit its use by charging a fee. What a concept ! Doug Frank FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate FKP Architects, Inc. Houston, TX Tracy Van Niel, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: tracy_van_niel Post Number: 291 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - 03:36 pm:    Did you see in the CSI News Brief that just came out today that if you join as a new member by February 28 that they will throw in a free copy of MasterFormat? Tracy L. Van Niel, FCSI, CCS Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 363 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - 04:20 pm:    Tracy, you would not have to pay money but you might need the Public Use letter. "License Fee: No license fee will be required for Public Use of MasterFormat, but a letter or other written communication granting Public Use status must issue from CSI before a Public Use license will be valid." But like Ron, If your company writes a book about materials and categorizes it with MF04 numbers then that might be an issue. Even if you give it away for free as a marketing item Let's all get down to the real issue. CSI is not going to send the software police after you for a lunch and learn. they (we) don't have the time or money. They want to get some return on the investment (our investment) in the product. That's fine - within reason. MasterFormat is the one thing that CSI REALLY HAS TO SELL. the PRM is a textbook, PageFormat and SectionFormat are nonstarters etc. UniFormat would count and perhaps as BIM expands, that plus cost estimating (DODGE, MEANS etc) could make UniFormat worth more than a cup of coffee. (that's a buck 50 here in Seattle) So what do we charge and for what? We all put a lot of effort into MF04 if Colin makes money by using it shouldn't he pay for the priviledge? CSI is already giving it to A/E/Contractors etc for free. The Public Use section - again free - should be more like shareware (remember that) with a request for acknowledgement and correct use of the name. Now for the rest of the planet Colin included, what's fair? Colini makes a lot less off of MF04 (I bet) then Means or Dodge or (in the future Autodesk) make off of Uniformat. Should it be on some kind of sliding scale? and how do you determine percent of sales atributable to MF04? So back to flat rates 1600 too much? how-a-bout a onetime 1600 and then nothing? Would that be reasonable? That is all negotiation but WE need to discuss that. If WE want to give it away for free, then call your institute directors and the board and Walt at the CSI office and tell them AND get ready for 1. higher dues and or 2. fewer products produced. Even with volunteer work it takes money to get this stuff into the market. With the Internet perhaps we will never again see a printed version of MasterFormat but websites take money too. How do we pay for that. THINK PEOPLE let's talk about the issues: 1. Seeming to single out Colin - not fair 2. Poorly constructed requirements (copied from the CD) 3 (or 2a). Requirements not fully thought out or applied 4. Other Issues? 5. Lastly; the price Marc Anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, January 07, 2010 - 08:18 am:    Have hope...there's still MF95! CSI might shoot itself in the foot with this one and MF04 will go down the pipe like Sony's Beta recording methodology, which was better than VHS, but Sony made use of its patent too onerous. Craig Haney Junior Member Username: c_haney Post Number: 2 Registered: 01-2010 Posted on Thursday, January 07, 2010 - 11:04 am:    Yes, Collin and many others of us may be producing income using MasterFormat as the basis for our operations, but doesn't every design professional that uses MasterFormat for their project specifications do so for profit? They are certainly not doing so for altruistic, charitable purposes! Once you pay the fee to purchase MasterFormat, should it be yours to use as you need? That said, why is CSI still giving away free downloads of MasterFormat? If they need the income (and with plunging membership and few products to sell they do) then sell MasterFormat to everyone who wants a copy! FYI, 4Specs is certainly not the only entity that CSI has targeted in this effort. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 379 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, January 07, 2010 - 11:22 am:    Although MF95 is no longer supported, I suspect the same restrictions apply. In 1995 I created SpecHELP!, an electronic version of MasterFormat. It included virtually all of MasterFormat, along with a list of headings from SectionFormat, and the keyword index to MF88 that I had made available in 1989. I was told that if I wanted to sell the program, I would have to pay CSI a fee. At first I was surprised; I didn’t realize Sweets and other companies paid to use MF, and I had no idea how much it cost just to print MF. I don't recall how much the fee was, but in the end, I didn't think it was unreasonable - as long as I could sell a lot of software. It's easy to say that if we want the industry to use MF we should give it away, and we have, for end users. Anyone can download the entire list of section numbers and titles at no cost. I, too would prefer that we give away MF, that AIA would not charge for use of their documents, that building code books - which we have no choice but to use - were free, and that I wouldn’t have to shell out a couple of thousand bucks for ASTMs. But in that ideal world, I assume no one has to eat. Anyone is free to list products, manufacturers, services, and whatever alphabetically, by state, by date of birth, by stock price, or whatever. (At least I don't think anyone owns the alphabet.) Using MF makes many products and services easier to use, thereby making them easier to sell, resulting in increased profits. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. It takes money - and a lot of unpaid volunteer effort - to create and maintain our documents. ARCAT, First Source, and yes, even Colin, make a fair profit from their work. Is it too much to ask that they help support MasterFormat? As Marc suggests, not charging for its use can only lead to dues increases. If you haven’t noticed, the economy sucks, and along with everyone else, CSI is looking for ways to pay the bills. Even though the right to charge for use of MF and other publications has always been there, it’s likely that it has not been actively or evenly enforced in the past. Should the fees and enforcement be fair? Of course, but the fact that they exist and that CSI expects to be paid for its services is nothing to get excited about. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 364 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 07, 2010 - 11:32 am:    Craig, 1. the licence specifically allows the use by architects, that's why we all wrote MasterFOrmat in the first place.) 2. The downloads would not include the keyword index (I believe) which is an important look up tool. CSI wants it used and you have hit on the major issue. We (CSI) want everyone to use it but (to take an extreem example) we don't want someone taking the (complete) book and reprinting and reselling it to make money. It is a tricky thing. If we use the numbers and titles to help organize a website (or a new book on materials, or like Ron's book on code related construction issues) have we gone beyond the simple use - for a project or education session and are now reaping large returns, part of which are the result of CSI's (our) work. if they are the result of this work, shouldn't CSI get some money for it? OR maybe our purpose as an organization is to give this away because it is the right thing to do. Then someone alters the system (just a little) puts their name on it (perhaps a large publishing firm with lots of capital) and pretty soon it's known as the Simon&SchusterFormat and CSI gets no credit for it and they get tons of cash. Is that fair? Shakespeare is dead and his works are not covered. anyone can go to the library find a copy or photocopy of the first folio, copy the text, put a cover on it and sell it. - no problem. Shakespeare (or his estate;) ) doesn't make a penny. Micky Mouse was about to come out of copyright and Disney pushed through changes to the law to extend it. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 807 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 07, 2010 - 12:00 pm:    Yea Sheldon! Well spoken. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate WDG Architecture, Washington, DC | Dallas, TX Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 249 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, January 07, 2010 - 12:04 pm:    You can use the copyright to protect against somebody changing the system without requiring payments. Refer to the free use software movement and wikipedia. I would also suggest that because of the fuzzy aspects of MasterFormat that everybody in effect modifies the system. The argument about the need for the CSI to make some money is irrelevant under some situations such as the fair use restrictions that allow you to quote portions of a copyrighted document. There is a clear legal differentiation between physically copying a page of MasterFormat and listing the MasterFormat numbers. I contend that the later is equivalent to listing the phone numbers in the phone book in a different format which is a protected activity. Thus the use of MasterFormat numbers on this web site is legally protected and CSI is involved in extortion. Note that there is a difference between a patent which protects against the use of something and a copyright which deals with the way something is represented. Michael M. Davis, FCSI, CDT Member Username: mmd1300 Post Number: 3 Registered: 07-2004 Posted on Thursday, January 07, 2010 - 01:26 pm:    While I have been registered with 4specs.com for several years, I have not been one to post responses to the many topics of discussion. However, I do monitor discussions on several topics, and would like to submit the following comments on this topic: • MasterFormat™ is produced jointly by The Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) and Construction Specifications Canada (CSC). U.S. copyright is held by CSI and Canadian copyright by CSC. All Rights Reserved. • In my opinion, the question regarding MF95 is a mute point, in that as of 12/31/09, CSI no longer supports the licensing of this version of MasterFormat. • CSI has had a MasterFormat licensing policy for many years, which include three categories of licenses (Organization Internal Use/Individual Use, Public Use, and Proprietary Use). There is no license fee for the first two categories and only a fee for the third. • CSI works to protect our MasterFormat intellectual property rights. • The requirement of a licensing fee is typical in the industry for the use of the intellectual property of others. • CSI’s licensing fee for commercial use of MasterFormat is very reasonable. • CSI members have devoted countless hours over many decades to develop and maintain MasterFormat • CSI spends substantial amounts of money to produce and maintain MasterFormat and the MasterFormat.com web site. This money comes from a variety of sources including direct sales of MasterFormat, the MasterFormat sponsorship & license programs, and member dues. • CSI has an obligation to our members to treat this in a business manner including the collection of licensing fees from companies that are profiting from CSI member contributions of expertise and time. • CSI is very quick to recognize the “volunteer work” and contributions by its members. I strongly feel CSI is a volunteer driven organization and our failure to protect the work of our members would be a disservice to the countless hours our members spent in support of improving the industry. The CSI Board of Directors has a fiduciary obligation to the members to protect the intellectual property of the Institute and we take that obligation serious. Further, we have an obligation to treat all licensees fairly and in a consistent manner. To ignore the repeated violation of our copyright cost by a few cost the Institute money and has a negative impact on member dues. The CSI Board has directed staff to work with commercial users to help bring them into compliance with the terms of use and licensing for MasterFormat. We have had ongoing discussions with 4specs.com towards this end. Unfortunately, while I agree with the right to have open discussion, I believe the discussion of private business issues, while not disclosing the complete information in a forum such as this is counterproductive to resolving this matter. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 365 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 07, 2010 - 01:58 pm:    Thanks Mike you reinforced a lot of good points but I disagree on a few 1. For the most part this discussion has not discussed 4specs per se, but the copyright of MasterFormat in general. 2. After reading the links provided in the opening statement from Colin I see quite a lot of apparently vague language, but I'm not an intellectual property attorney 3. I find the whole thing interesting and very much a topic we should discuss openly. This is not about 4specs alone, it includes Ron's book, it would include any similar publication or website. I use MasterFormat on my internal (therefore OK) website for organization of material and we use UniFormat for Revit families. I assume this will still be OK when I expand access to contractors and consultants working with us. What if I post information on our EXTERNAL website that uses MasterFormat numbering for access? I'm not charging for assess but it would be there. Would I be in violation - possibly? It is important for regular CSI members to discuss this AND if concerned with the policy get engaged and contact their board members, you and others. It is also important for all of us to understand – or seek to understand the fine line for our type of organization between promulgating a standard for the good of all and surviving financially How much money do we make off of MasterFormat? Who are licenced propriatary users? If we had a list we (who use software and books and websites everyday) could alert the organization to those who might be using it without permission. As a Masterspec user I have mentioned to several manufacturers and contractors that they are using ARCOM language and do not appear to have an agreement with ARCOM. I don't call 911, but I mention it to the manufacturer or contractor and suggest they get legal. Could we do the same? is that a good idea? I wonder. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1072 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 07, 2010 - 03:02 pm:    What organizations have already licensed their use of MasterFormat 2004? Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 215 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Thursday, January 07, 2010 - 05:33 pm:    Michael Davis said just above: "We have had ongoing discussions with 4specs.com towards this end." The first contact of any type CSI had with 4specs about licensing was August 24, 2009 - 5 years after we started using MF2004. Their attached document supporting licensing was dated as a final July 31, 2009. All of the correspondence including a letter from CSI to Ryanlinks that is essentially a cease and desist letter is online. http://www.4specs.com/license/ In December Roger Grant emailed me. "Our long standing practice is to enter into a license agreement with organizations that are employing MasterFormat in a Proprietary Use as defined in the Terms of Use." The July 31, 2009 date hardly supports a claim of "longstanding," especially when an earlier draft was dated February 2008 - not June 2004 when MF2004 was released as a pdf online. More recently CSI emailed me a license agreement supporting their position. This license agreement is found only on the CD and is a software license covering the use of the CD. I returned the CD yesterday to Roger Grant - it had never been in my computer before Christmas when I checked to see what the license agreement was. There is no license presented when you download the online pdf or purchase the book. I spoke with Karl Borgstrom in late December and he seemed unaware of signed licenses. His email, online at the link below states: "... one or more such enquires were received, but I do not recall whether or not a fee was set or license agreements were signed as of the end of my tenure." I spoke with many other publishers at GreenBuild in Phoenix in November and no one acknowledged signing such a license agreement and paying the fee. They all seemed aware of the CSI position and saw it as a new position. While CSI certainly has some copyright rights, MF2004 being a derivative work from MF1995 and back to MF1978, and being a compilation of input from many parties, including Federal agencies, I do not think the rights are as strong as they may think. The $1,600 first year fee is not my concern here. I can write that check and put it in escrow until we have a license agreement if CSI wants. My concern is one of a lack of transparency and lack of communication with CSI. What is happening and who this new licensing affects is unclear. When I read the terms of use, I can see it being expanded to cover a wide range of players. I am willing to pay a fair share - as part of many others agreeing to support CSI. I do not want to be the first to sign and pay - and be the basis of demands to many others. Colin Gilboy Publisher, 4specs.com 435.654.5775 - Utah 800.369.8008 Craig Haney Member Username: c_haney Post Number: 3 Registered: 01-2010 Posted on Thursday, January 07, 2010 - 05:34 pm:    It includes a lot of our websites. I wish that it were a simple open and shut, copyright or no copyright issue, but there is a tremendous amount of background on this that only those of us who have received demand letters from CSI, researched the issue, talked with intellectual property attorneys, and weighed it all against our business models can appreciate. There are questions concerning the validity of CSI's copyright, why they decided to try to enforce it 5 years after the fact and with no prior indication of licensing, etc., etc. All of us who have invested time and effort in CSI's activities, particularly at the Institute level, want to see CSI stay relevant, but they are going to have to stop making bad decisions and alienating their members. A 50% drop in membership did not occur because of a bad economy; it started long before that. I have been one of CSI's biggest supporters over the years, with 10 years work at Institute level and numerous years of 50,000 plus miles on airlines for CSI's benefit, but I refuse to be the victim of the kind of extortion that CSI is pushing here. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 822 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, January 07, 2010 - 06:00 pm:    Personally, I don't mind paying the intial fee (although I think it's a bit much for my situation), but it's the annual fee that really bothers me. In my case (publications), I have one (partially completed) document based on the 2006 IBC. There should be one fee. When I revise it for the 2009 IBC, I wouldn't mind paying another fee for the new iteration of the document. Just imagine the uproar if design professionals charged owners an annual license fee for the license to the DP's copyrighted design. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1073 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 07, 2010 - 06:40 pm:    What part of MasterFormat 2004 does CSI have copyrighted? The section names, numbers, 49 Divisions, etc? I have yet to find anyone that uses the EXACT numbers and titles. For example MF04 clearly indicates Section 081113 - Hollow Metal Doors and Frames. So does that mean if someone changed their section to Section 081114 - Steel Doors and Frames, would they still be infringing on copyright....even though the later is not an official MF04 number/title? Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 288 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, January 07, 2010 - 06:54 pm:    Without getting to much into this...my initial thoughts...it seems a bit strange that CSI would produce and market a system for organizing building materials and expend great efforts to make it the universally accepted system in the industry, and then expect license fees when the system is used in exactly the manner for which it was developed and marketed. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 380 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, January 07, 2010 - 08:10 pm:    It's not much different from AIA wanting to make the A201 universally accepted, then charging twenty bucks a copy for using it. In either case, there are benefits to using a standard, even if you have to pay for it. Again, someone has to pay for creating and maintaining it. I'm sure donations would be gladly accepted! Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 823 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 11:26 am:    Here is what I posted in the CSI Forums in response to Dennis Hall's post: "I believe CSI has had a licensing process in the past, but it hasn't really been publicized until the announcement at CONSTRUCT2009. That announcement led to the inquiry I sent to CSI in late June about whether or not a license would be required for a document that I was preparing called "A Code Checklist for Construction Specifications" that is organized IAW MasterFormat 2004. "I concur that CSI should be able to control the use of MasterFormat and its other products. Although I would like it to be free, I understand CSI’s position to set fees in order to cover the cost of developing and maintaining MasterFormat, but the process needs to be more transparent and equitable to potential licensees. For example, my little document, which I had planned to distribute for free, should not be treated the same as the mega users that use MasterFormat as a primary element of their business model. "I'm not a lawyer (thank goodness...and I don't play one on TV), but CSI may have a problem with their current licensing enforcement effort if it can be proven that CSI has had a lack of enforcement in the past. And, if enforcement has not been consistent in the past, a heavy handed approach to a revitalized enforcement campaign may prove to be detrimental to CSI and MasterFormat. I suggest proceeding with caution and a lot of legal advice." Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1074 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 12:40 pm:    Nobody has answered my question....so I will simplify my question. Does CSI copyright the MasterFormat 2004 BOOK or the CONCEPT of organizing work results? Specification Writer Senior Member Username: specification_writer Post Number: 13 Registered: 01-2009 Posted on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 01:04 pm:    CSI is trying to license the use of specification section numbers and names. This doesn't seem very feasible nor prudent. Sheldon, there is a major difference between using AIA Document A201 and using CSI specification section numbers and names. Masterformat, in the context of this discussion, is not a document akin to the AIA A201 document; where I completely understand that AIA should charge for the use of their standard documents. CSI has compiled a list of section numbers and names that are recommended, not required. Everyone tweaks both the numbers and names to suit their preferences; thereby negating any CSI claim to copyright violation. Specification Writer Architect Washington, D.C. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 381 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 01:18 pm:    So it's o.k. if I merely use the words from the A201 and tweak them to suit my preferences? I'm certain AIA would not agree. Apparently it's o.k. for AIA to license just a bunch of words, while it's not o.k. for CSI to license a collection of numbers. Should I infer from your statement that you do not understand why CSI should charge for the use of its standard documents? Not everyone tweaks the numbers and names. I use the assigned numbers and titles when possible, and the others use the unassigned gaps as provided for in MF04. That is quite different from tweaking assigned numbers and titles. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1075 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 01:57 pm:    I have run into a lot of Owners who essentially rewrite AIA A201...sometimes even blatantly. School districts seem to be the biggest offender. Here is something else to ponder. How long has MasterFormat 2004 been out and when did they start this licensure thing? It seems to me that MF04 was out years before they decided to license it's use. Does this mean that CSI is going to back charge for those years? William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 808 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 02:04 pm:    A number of issues here, such as related to the length of time CSI has been licensing MF, is answered in the "MasterFormat" forum in the Forums area on the CSI web site where this topic was separately raised. The 2 discussions (here and there) have a number of areas that do not overlap. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate WDG Architecture, Washington, DC | Dallas, TX Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 324 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 03:02 pm:    Hypothetical Situation: Suppose major product and manufacturing users, like 4Specs or Sweet's, all decided to use another filing system. Who would be hurt the most -- the users, of course. The architects, engineers, other design team members, contractors, estimators, manufacturer's, and owners would end up spending countless hours searching for materials and products. Time my fees do not cover. We would end back in the 1940's and early 1950's. It was the architectural specifiers that started CSI and have continually solicited other members of the design professions to jump on the MasterFormat band wagon. MF2004 has finally attracted those non-architectural disciplines. It was the 4Specs and Sweet's out there that have really made the MasterFormat system successful. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. I can understand users like Arcat, Arcom, or BSD paying a licensing fee [do they?] but the materials/manufacturing services like 4Specs or Sweet's are really providing a valuablle service to the design professions. "Fast is good, but accurate is better." .............Wyatt Earp Specification Writer Senior Member Username: specification_writer Post Number: 14 Registered: 01-2009 Posted on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 03:16 pm:    AIA is not licensing "just a bunch of words", AIA has a copyright and subsequently an electronic license governing use of their documents. Under the Copyright notice in our hard copy of Masterformat is the following: "All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. The Construction Specifications Institute." While CSI has every right to copyright Masterformat 2004 (the document), in both hard copy and electronic form, it seems fruitless for CSI to attempt to regulate the use of specification section numbers and titles, especially after all of the efforts expended on marketing this new Master List of Numbers and Titles for the Construction Industry. Specification Writer Architect Washington, D.C. Advocate (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 03:23 pm:    Every dictionary is copyrighted. Is every word, in every dictionary, licensed? David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1076 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 04:48 pm:    Spec writer and advocate, Good points. MF04 is a tool not an end product. It is a system of classifying "work results". It is also a system that is in continual flux, modification, and interpretation. As I mentioned before, nobody uses the entire MF04 document and nobody uses the section titles and number verbatim. Check 4specs, MasterSpec, Spectext, etc., they all have section numbers and titles that vary from the published MF04 document. Nobody here is against CSI making money off their labors (actually other peoples labors, but that is besides the point). It just seems like their heavy handed-extortion type tactics are not building any friendships or collaborators. It also seems like they are titling at windmills. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 368 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 04:51 pm:    heavy handed extortion? Oh I'm not sure we are anywhere near that yet.:-0 When Colin gets a call from Guido at 2 AM, or a predatory lawyer at 2 in the afternoon, THEN we can discuss those concepts. ;) Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 824 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 04:57 pm:    Be aware that copyrighting a system, not just a document, is permitted. The best example is the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) System, which is owned by the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC), and they are very vocal about protecting their copyright and trademark. Every library that uses the DDC must have a license to use it. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 251 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 05:28 pm:    Sometimes the difference between Guido and a lawyer is a good suit and some fancy words. While Guido will offer to break your leg, the lawyer will threaten to use the legal system to bankrupt you irrespective of whether you are in the right or not. While OCLC may be vocal they may not be in the right. They can protect their trademark and the publication of the DDC but that does not mean that they can limit the use of the numbers on the books. Often times it is more expensive to fight than to pay. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 325 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 05:28 pm:    XX XX XX XX XXXX XXXXXX XX XX XX.XX XX XXXX.XX XXXXXX.XX Has MasterFormat copyrighted each of the various variations or just XX XX XX? "Fast is good, but accurate is better." .............Wyatt Earp Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 53 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 06:53 pm:    I think this thread has gone way beyond a rational discussion. We should read the documents that relate to the subject: MasterFormat published document, Terms of Use and Licensing for MasterFormat, and Proprietary Use of MasterFormat (links provided in Colin’s original posting) before making a comment. Re Copyright: It is for the published document as stated in very front of the document and quoted in a posting above. The copyright is not for the system but that is not saying it is not possible to get such a copyright. The copyright of the published document is the common copyright that we see on many published documents including ones we produce. Re Licensing Fee: The Terms of Use and Licensing for MasterFormat document makes it pretty clear that a licensing fee is only required for commercial ventures that generate revenue off the sale of the numbers and titles, derivation of the numbers and titles, or the application of the numbers and titles in a derivative project or resource. Examples are given. The Organization Internal Use/Individual Use defines exceptions to that related to using MasterFormat to organize information and facilitate communication among participates on construction projects and internal uses. Licensing or a fee is not required for any project or internal use. Public Use (Public Use License and No Fee): This is a little harder to interpret for me anyway. Any public use of MasterFormat for education is covered as long as it is not for a commercial revenue generating purpose. Fees to cover costs of the program are acceptable. Non-profit organizations such as CSI chapters that may make a small profit on such programs to support their operations is a question that I think should be clarified. Tweaking MasterFormat: MasterFormat includes a list of titles and numbers. There are many unassigned numbers. The Application Guide states that they may be user defined titles and numbers in the unassigned areas. The user defined numbers and titles should fit within the system. The assigned numbers and titles should not be altered. Most of what has been called tweaking above is creating user defined numbers and titles. That is not tweaking; that is using the flexibility built into MasterFormat. Unlicensed users can of course do what ever they want in the application of the system. Licensed users are required not to deviate from the current published numbers and titles. The wisdom of the licensing policy as well as its details is of course open for discussion. The timing of enforcing licensing and the collection of fees should also be open for discussion. I think Colin started this discussion based essentially on these two topics. I, for one, would like to see the discussion come back to focus on those issues. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1077 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 08:08 pm:    Here is a great idea if I do say so myself. CSI members get to use MasterFormat 2004 for free. On the other hand, non CSI members have to pay a yearly licensing fee for the use MasterFormat 2004. This idea would accomplish several positive goals. (The carrot approach as opposed to the stick approach.) First of all it would encourage membership and that's a good thing since the organization has been losing membership for years. More members means more revenue and not just from membership dues but from various other means (conferences, certification, materials, etc.). This would more than make up for any perceived lost revenue from free MasterFormat use. Also the ability to freely to use MasterFormat would demonstrate that CSI membership does have real tangible benefits. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 825 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 08:23 pm:    The idea has some merit, but what about the MasterFormat mega users that generate a large revenue...do they get it free because Bill in their Documents Department is a CSI member? I think it would have to be a sliding scale just like the license fee should be: You generate little revenue...X memberships or XXX dollars You generate a lot of revenue...XX memberships or XXXX dollars etc., etc. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 809 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 11:08 pm:    Ron's position is valid. Doesn't everyone know that many industry associations base the membership dues of a company on its annual revenue? There is nothing new or extreme in this manner of pricing. Its a tried and accepted method of pricing. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate WDG Architecture, Washington, DC | Dallas, TX (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, January 09, 2010 - 09:15 am:    Am I to understand that independent spec writers must have a license because they produce project specs for revenue? And doesn't this statement apply to architects & engineers as well? Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 54 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Saturday, January 09, 2010 - 10:55 am:    No. Read the documents that are linked in Colin's original post. My posting above provides a short summary: "Re Licensing Fee: The Terms of Use and Licensing for MasterFormat document makes it pretty clear that a licensing fee is only required for commercial ventures that generate revenue off the sale of the numbers and titles, derivation of the numbers and titles, or the application of the numbers and titles in a derivative project or resource. Examples are given. The Organization Internal Use/Individual Use defines exceptions to that related to using MasterFormat to organize information and facilitate communication among participates on construction projects and internal uses. Licensing or a fee is not required for any project or internal use." (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, January 09, 2010 - 03:13 pm:    From a value added perspective what I receive from 4Specs is far more valuable to me than anything I ever received from CSI. It is a shame that so many that voluntarily adopted CSI standards for the good of the industry are being treated as no more than a market. Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 238 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, January 22, 2010 - 11:11 am:    I though the whole idea of MasterFormat was to try to set up an industry standard for the organization of construction documents and information. Charging a fee for it's use seems to be a disincentive to the goal of standardization. If, as a poster stated above, that CSI can copyright the 13 16, etc numbers, it's not a real effort to change them to 12 and 15 or 14 and 17. Then there is no copyright infringement. Since we rely on the use of MF04 by organizations such as 4Specs, Arcat, McGraw Hill and others to advance our argument to use MF04 to our clients and institutions, any action by CSI to negatively affect the use of MF04 is, in my opinion, detrimental to the industry as a whole. Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: rjray Post Number: 81 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - 06:15 pm:    Late to the dance again, but I concluded from a recent article in several trade magazines, that CSI is terminating all licenses to MasterFormat 1995 in order to boost (force) the use of MasterFormat 2004. They have realized that very few architectural firms in the country are using 2004 and hope to overcome this embarrassment. If they start licensing MasterFormat 2004, and terminate licensees for MasterFormat 1995, if any ever existed, then it eliminates anyone, such as Colin, MasterSpec, Spec Link, manufactures sample specifications etc, from using the MasterFormat 1995 numbers and titles. Plus, as many have pointed out, it creates another source of revenue for CSI while forcing as some would say, an unwanted and unneeded, system onto the industry. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 402 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, February 25, 2010 - 11:05 am:    I am not sure it is accurate to say taht "very few architectural firms in the country are using [MsterFormat] 2004. In the Houston area, most of the government entities at the state and local level have switched (school and university systems, county governments, local municipal governments). Some of these groups have taken the opportunity to update their master/guide specifications (especially Division 01). Only the City of Houston has remained in the 1995 camp; however, they do permit use of a hybrid system in which their Division 00 and 01 documents (which they provide and must be used) are in 1995 and "technical" Sections produced by design consultants may be organized using 2004. This looks especially strange if Division 01 must be supplemented with, for example, LEED requirements. I do work regularly for approximately 10 firms, only one of which resisted the conversion, and they have instructed me ths year to start following MF2004. In our experience, once the MEP consultants get into it, they really like it. While I do believe there are holdouts, I don't see very many. The relevant question 2 or 3 years ago is "Who is using MasterFormat 2004?" The relevant question now is "Who isn't using MasterFormat 2004?" Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 379 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, February 25, 2010 - 11:21 am:    have to agree with peter. not only are we using it exclusively but even several hold-out universities which were still using 1988 finaly changed to 2004. I do not know of any architectural firm in the NW that is still using 95 and of no public entity that is using it. Of course CSI wants people to bail on '95. '04 is better and it might sell a few books. What's wrong with that? Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 302 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, February 25, 2010 - 11:59 am:    The only agency i know that still requires 95 is HUD. Other than that, I have used '04 exclusively for apx 4 years now. Amy C. Kilburn, AIA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP Member Username: ackarch Post Number: 3 Registered: 11-2009 Posted on Thursday, February 25, 2010 - 01:49 pm:    Colin: You've been silent now for weeks. Any updates you can share, or did you get that 2:00 a.m. call from Guido? Jo Drummond Senior Member Username: jo_drummond_fcsi Post Number: 43 Registered: 06-2007 Posted on Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 05:25 pm:    I am looking at the preambles in MF95. The bottom of the inside cover says: Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. The frontispiece contains the copyright, and has the standard wording re copying a book, but nothing about licensing or fees for use. Page 4 under "Industry Acceptance" talks about how widely used it is, and the tone of the paragraph is how happy CSI is that it is widely used. Reading this, I see nothing about fees or licenses. Can you put licenses in effect after the fact, or charge fees many years after one has purchased the book? If not, the solution is easy, use MF 95. I haven't checked MF04 yet. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1331 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, May 29, 2013 - 03:43 pm:    I was recently contacted by CSI about licensing Mastformat for my website www.localproductreps.com . I don’t know what to do. I am a small operation with a very limited budget. I can’t afford $1600 now and $1100 per year after that. BTW, here is the licensing information. http://www.csinet.org/Home-Page-Category/Formats/MasterFormat/MF-use I am especially concerned that there is no guarantee that the price will not go up in the future. Also, as my website grows, I could get deeper into having my website setup with MasterFormat only to have CSI suddenly cancel my license, thereby forcing me into endless hours of redesign. Right now I am kind of leaning towards removing MasterFormat from my website all together. It would be the safest thing for me to do. It’s really a shame. My website is popular and only going to get more visible throughout the construction/design community. My website would be a great way of CSI getting (free) promotion. Your thoughts please? Username (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, May 29, 2013 - 04:06 pm:    If I were you, I'd remove MasterFormat from your web site. What's next? Will CSI charge specification writers for using Masterformat titles and numbers? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 525 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, May 29, 2013 - 04:49 pm:    David, while I doubt that CSI will send the MF police after you, is it possible to remove the Division numbers and slightly modify the Division Titles so you're not in direct copyright violation? Something like listing "Cementitious Products" instead of "Concrete." Anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, May 29, 2013 - 05:11 pm:    Mr. Axt, Is it really necessary for you to use CSI MasterFormat numbers and titles? It seems to me that just using key words like Insulation or Paint would be enough to group/categorize/search without needing to use MF. It appears that The Pharos project uses this method on their web site - no CSI numbering, just links to Carpets | Paints | Thermal Insulation | Resilient Flooring | Wallboard | Ceilings | High Performance Coatings | Decorative Laminates | Adhesives | Composite Wood Roofing Membranes | Wood Flooring | Flooring Finishes | Solid Surfaces | Wall Protection, and the site allows one to search and find things just fine. Is CSI going after Pharos for using the terms above as links to the website content? I don't see how CSI can make any claim that this is copyrighted stuff - generic industry terms... David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1332 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, May 29, 2013 - 05:32 pm:    Anon and Ken, Using generic terms is the direction that I am leaning towards. I spoke with my webmaster, Mark Terry, who says that very few people are using the MasterFormat facets (filters) to find reps anyway. Mark said that even fewer people are also searching my section title or number. Most people are performing searches by company, product, or rep name. Anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, May 29, 2013 - 05:42 pm:    pity. CSI could have been more reasonable in its request for a fee to use their system, something correlating to your actual revenue, and would have had an even bigger presence in the marketplace. Instead, its greed will result in web sites like Pharos and yours simply removing MF content - rendering CSI less and less relevant. Dumb move, CSI! Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 461 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, May 29, 2013 - 06:19 pm:    This is a tough one David for a couple of reasons (1) it does seem counterintuitive to CSI's goal of making MF the industry standard, as discussed above (2) it's difficult to define exactly what is copyrighted. Is it the entire list of #'s, the Division headings, what? If you simply say "concrete" instead of "Division 03 - concrete", would that be acceptable? They can't copyright the word "concrete" (3) Under the Fair Use doctrine, copyrighted material can be used for several purposes - teaching, research etc. Search engines may fall into this category, but it's still not clear. Seems like some of the advice above makes sense - remove the references to MF04. (This is not intended to be legal advice) Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 233 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Thursday, May 30, 2013 - 10:20 am:    You might want to look at OmniClass Table 21 - Products (http://www.omniclass.org/pdf.asp?id=8&table=Table 23) for terminology for your listings instead of MasterFormat. MasterFormat is based on work results and the Products Table is based on products. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 234 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Thursday, May 30, 2013 - 10:21 am:    Sorry - that should be Table 23 - Products. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1333 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, May 30, 2013 - 10:57 am:    Robert, OmniClass is an interesting idea. Who owns OmniClass? I don't want to run into the same situation with a different classification system. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 235 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Thursday, May 30, 2013 - 11:34 am:    Terms and Conditions at bottom of OmniClass webpage: OmniClass License Rev 2011-07-21 As expressed in the September 2000 Statement of Intent for Development of the Overall Construction Classification System, OmniClass is intended to be an open standard, freely available to all. Although the system is free to acquire and use, there are some conditions of its use, designed to protect the efforts that have gone into OmniClass development and its integrity and uniformity as a standard. The Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) (hereinafter “The Secretariat” “the Secretariat for the OmniClass Development Committee” or “The OmniClass Secretariat”) in its role as Secretariat for the OmniClass Development Committee will retain and enforce the copyright on the OmniClass in regards to these limits on licensure. By using, copying, and/or implementing all or any part of OmniClass, you (the licensee) agree that you have read, understood, and will comply with the following Terms and Conditions: 1) Intellectual property rights are held for the OmniClass Development Committee by the Secretariat; all rights are reserved. Implementation or use of OmniClass does not imply any transfer of any intellectual property rights to the licensee. 2) Permission to use, copy, implement, or distribute the contents of OmniClass in any medium for any purpose and without fee or royalty is hereby granted, within the following restrictions: a) OmniClass numbers and titles must be presented without deviation (excepting formatting changes or inclusion or exclusion of spaces from numbers) from their presentation in the OmniClass tables. The licensee will not present OmniClass numbers and titles in a way that implies or suggests that they reflect the content of any other classification system. Any deviation from the numbers and titles as presented in the OmniClass publication will render this license invalid. b) No right to create modifications or altered versions of OmniClass is granted pursuant to this license. The OmniClass Development Committee may grant specific and limited licenses for modifications or alterations on an individual basis. Visit the OmniClass website (http://www.omniclass.org/) for email addresses and other contact information. c) OmniClass can be used or implemented for nonprofit (research and development or personal) or commercial uses. Within the context of these license terms, commercial uses or purposes are defined as any presentation (including online and educational presentations) or sale of a product or service using the OmniClass numbers and titles, or the application of the OmniClass numbers and titles in a product based on or using OmniClass, for the purpose of generating revenue for a profit. d) OmniClass itself may not be resold by any user in any form without explicit licensure to do so from the Secretariat. e) Credit shall be provided for OmniClass and the OmniClass Development Committee on any implementation or republication of OmniClass, by including, where possible: i) A web-link or reproduction of the URL to the OmniClass website (http://www.omniclass.org). ii) The following copyright notice: "Copyright © 2011 the Secretariat for the OmniClass Development Committee. All Rights Reserved. http://www.omniclass.org/” iii) The release date and status of the OmniClass documents that you are implementing or republishing. THIS DOCUMENT (OmniClass) IS PROVIDED "AS IS," AND COPYRIGHT HOLDERS MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, OR TITLE; THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT ARE SUITABLE FOR ANY PURPOSE; NOR THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CONTENTS WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY THIRD PARTY PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS OR OTHER RIGHTS. COPYRIGHT HOLDERS WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY USE OF THE DOCUMENT OR THE PERFORMANCE OR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONTENTS THEREOF. Some OmniClass tables are based on or derived in part or in whole from other copyrighted standards and publications. The above terms of license do not extend to licensure of these “legacy sources.” The copyright holders of those publications should be contacted individually for use or license of their standards and publications. The name and trademarks of copyright holders or the OmniClass Development Committee may not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to this document or its contents without specific, written prior permission, obtained from the OmniClass Secretariat. Title to copyright in OmniClass will at all times remain with the OmniClass copyright holder. This version of the OmniClass license supersedes any previous versions. End – Terms and Conditions Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1116 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 30, 2013 - 01:10 pm:    Bob: That's very interesting that OmniClass is an "open standard." Which begs the question, since MasterFormat is Table 22 in OmniClass, does that make MasterFormat an open standard, too? Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 526 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, May 30, 2013 - 01:36 pm:    Ron, my guess is that you'd have to follow OmniClass format, 22-02 00 00 for Existing Conditions instead of Division 02. I wonder if you could "shorthand" that to 02 00 00 without violating MasterFormat copyright. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 236 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Thursday, May 30, 2013 - 02:47 pm:    Ron I think you missed one the statements in the Terms and Conditions: "Some OmniClass tables are based on or derived in part or in whole from other copyrighted standards and publications. The above terms of license do not extend to licensure of these “legacy sources.” The copyright holders of those publications should be contacted individually for use or license of their standards and publications." So the answer to your question about does this make MasterFormat an open standard is no. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1117 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 30, 2013 - 05:10 pm:    Bob: I didn't see that at the end of the terms and conditions. That does answer the question. Thanks. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com David Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1334 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, June 03, 2013 - 01:36 pm:    I have now completely removed MasterFormat from my website (www.locaproductreps.com) The process was not as difficult as I had originally anticipated. I am glad I removed MasterFormat since now I have the flexibility to create more intuitive categories. For example "Doors & Windows" is easier to understand than "Division 03 - Openings". Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks! J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 572 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Monday, June 03, 2013 - 03:21 pm:    So are you relocating louvers back to Division 10 and skylights back to Division 7 as in previous editions? David Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1335 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, June 03, 2013 - 05:08 pm:    Peter, There are no Divisions on my site. How I am structuring the site is with keywords. For example if you are looking for "louvers" or "skylights" those are the keywords that you would either type into the search engine and/or would be on the left hand side under "Product Types". I am trying to make my website as easy and intuitive as possible. No numbers to memorize or complicated hierarchy to figure out. Juste Fanou (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, November 25, 2023 - 04:46 am:    Not to revive a decade-old discussion, but I have recently published an article on this very topic: [link did not work, see below] Note: my situation is slightly different as I am in Canada. I am also not a lawyer, but I have had several discussions with lawyers and have done some research on this topic. [Colin - this link did not work and I found the posting on LinkedIn and saved it as a pdf linked just below. https://www.4specs.com/articles/Open-for-Business.pdf ]