| Author |
Message |
John Guill AIA, CCS, SCIPa
Senior Member
Username: johng
Post Number: 16
Registered: 07-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 02:03 pm: |    |
I suggested creation of this topic on another thread. The discussion there is becoming off-topic to that thread.
In order to separate two productive discussions with diverse opinions on all sides, post comments on this topic here.
I am interested in hearing opinions from the Master Guide Specification (MGS) publishers on the re-use of their language and intellectual property by the specifier community.
What licenses, fair use and copyright (copyleft, open source, GDFL etc.) restrictions are considered appropriate:
By the MGS publishers?
By product manufacturers?
By other specifiers?
I am posting for Personal Curiosity Only and for purposes of this discussion only, my comments on this topic are offered to all of humanity everywhere without restriction. |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 359
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 02:16 pm: | |
Perhaps a good starting place is this--
www.mslawyer.com/rwise/articles/Copyrights_for_Design_Professionals.html |
John Guill AIA, CCS, SCIPa
Senior Member
Username: johng
Post Number: 17
Registered: 07-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 02:30 pm: | |
To ensure continuity of discussion and debate, I am re-posting a relevant excerpt of my post on the other thread.
>>Begins
>>Publication does not equal release into the public, regardless of the contract conditions or status of the work product.
The rules concerning public domain and copyright are a complex topic worthy of it's own thread.
For a full and complete discussion of copyright refer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright.
Also: This quotation from Wikipedia "(Almost) everything written down is copyrighted. ...According to U.S. law, at least, an author's original works are covered by copyright, even without a formal notice incorporated into the work. But such laws were passed at a time when the focus was on materials that could not be as easily and cheaply reproduced as digital media, nor did they comprehend the ultimate impossibility of determining which set of electronic bits is original. Technically, any Internet posting (such as blogs or emails) could be considered copyrighted material unless explicitly stated otherwise."
See also for public domain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#.28Almost.29_everything_written_down_is_copyrighted
Postings in this forum can be construed to be the copyrighted intellectual property of the poster, unless specifically noted otherwise. I have not seen an editorial policy addressing this, but that does not mean it does not exist.
Also, for those interested in questioning my free use of the long quotation above, please note that Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL).
Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
for a description of the GFDL.
Information wants to be free.
>>ends |
Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA
Senior Member
Username: don_harris
Post Number: 64
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 02:52 pm: | |
Information does want to be free, but you get what you pay for. IMHO Wikipedia should be used and trusted only with extreme caution. Anyone can post anything and I can't believe that there are experts in everything reviewing all the posts.
"Caveat Readare" or whatever the proper Latin is for reader. |
John Guill AIA, CCS, SCIPa
Senior Member
Username: johng
Post Number: 19
Registered: 07-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 02:56 pm: | |
Refer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Who_writes_Wikipedia
In a related link, there is an article on how to assess the accuracy and relevance of an article in question. Much of this applies to other arenas as well.
In this regard, wikipedia is much like real life. It is also very much like 4Specs.
It is not always true that "anything free is worth what you paid for it", for if it were, none of us would read this forum either.
It is a fair criticism of wikipedia to note that there are a number of unidentified contributors, not all of whom are vandals.
It is also fair to note that similar caveats apply to discussion forums of this type. This wikipedia article is useful for 4specs users as well. |
George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 147
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 03:13 pm: | |
I am a bit surprised there has not been more discussion here about BIM, after the convention. I find myself more confused than before, or perhaps find myself with tons more questions than before. Here's one question:
"Who owns the model?"
As was pointed out in various presentations at the convention, THE Model is not just the snazzy manipulable 3d (or 4d or 5d or “n”d) representation of the building, but it includes lots and lots of other stuff, like specifications. The information that the model comprises is contributed by lots and lots of different folks, like by fabricators and by owners and by consultants beyond those normally part of the a/e group. And that information is extracted, compiled, and manipulated by lots and lots of folks.
So, in the system we are used to, “contract documents” = “instruments of service” and are owned by the a/e, are copyrighted either by inference or explicitly, and are not to be used in any other project. So while lots and lots of folks use the instruments of service to complete the work, only one entity owns them, and may legally modify them. And this discussion so far has been fairly straightforward, because it is about the rights of one author.
But, speaking about "free information", what about the “lots and lots” authorship? When you have this BIM, created by everyone, accessible by everyone, used and modified by everyone… is it in fact owned by no one?
In the best tradition of Monty Python, BIM = My Brain Hurts. |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 360
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 03:26 pm: | |
Yet another source from the legal perspective-- questions and answers--www.aepronet.org/ge/no8.html
Seems this might be a good topic for Gerald Katz, who gave an ed course at the CSI convention, to address.
Just seems we need to look to more definitive sources than online encyclopedias. This is a matter of law, with case law histories and prescribed parameters and nuances. |
John Guill AIA, CCS, SCIPa
Senior Member
Username: johng
Post Number: 20
Registered: 07-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 03:02 pm: | |
Ralph, you are correct on all your points.
George, your points are very interesting, I recall the speaker from Gehry saying they had ways to trace who posted (owned) which data, he did not specify how this was done.
Anyone with experience in this latter topic?
Please do not mistake my references to Wikipedia as a suggestion to find legal advice there. Wikipedia for me is primarily an easy to use on-line resource which can help clarify a definition, suggest related topics and offer links to specific topical sites.
It has the added benefit of being completely "quotable" as none of the contents are copyrighted.
The concept of "free information" has several facets.
First: Does the information cost anything? Price not always in dollars (currency), is an exchange or quid-pro-quo required to receive or re-use?
Second: Is the information "re-usable". Can it be transferred from place to place, or format to format? Is it encumbered by encoding in a proprietary format that cannot be read without ownership or licensing of expensive software? Can it be quoted without reprisal?
Third: Information must be valid. It must be traceable to a trusted source. Now the "validity" attribute is often ascribed by information consumers to the price paid to receive the information, or sometimes, to the format in which the information is encoded; "I trust Walter Cronkite" or as the quote above..."you get what you pay for".
You will find links to many manufacturer and association websites through the 4specs portal. These sites offer a great deal of information for no cost or little (registration required). Should this information be regarded as suspect because it is offered free?
Of course not, since the quid-pro-quo expected by the provider (trusted sources as manufacturers or associations) provide the information as a semi-public good in return for the hope or expectation that their products will be specified.
In similar ways, there is a great deal of information on this bulletin board, offered free. Should this information be considered untrustworthy since it is provided free by unknown sources who may post anything, without expert review?
Of course not, since the providers (trusted sources as specifiers and architects) provide the information as a public good in return for the knowledge that they have shared their experience with the community, or possibly for the good reputation they might gain by doing so. |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 362
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 04:06 pm: | |
WHAT TO DO.........WHAT TO DO?
by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Cincinnati, OH
A young married couple walks into the building code agency. They asked to see the drawings for a house project at a given address. The agency clerk retrieves the drawings at which point the couple asks if they can take the documents out of the office and copy them. They say that they like the house so much, they want to build one just like it.
What to do?
When the copyright law was changed, a number of years ago, this exchange came into focus much more clearly. The documents in the files of the code agency were then and still are “public documents”—i.e., for use by the general public.
To a point!
By an opinion from its legal counsel, the code agency was advised that the physical copying of the drawings was NOT permitted-- other copyright consideration took precedence. The couple could look at the drawings [in the presence of an agency employee] could make their own notes and drawings [but no overlays or tracings]. They were free to take as log as they needed to gather the information they sought.
The overriding precedence was the copyright held by the design professional—while unseen and perhaps not even insinuated, its there . While the standard © indication is not required, nor any expression of copyright, the law was written so the work of the design professional was protected. No re-use of the documents for any reason could be made without written permission of the copyright holder [or author].
Copyright problems exist in other areas of professional practice. For example, copyrighted material may be reproduced and use for educational purposes, but mass re-reprinting for general distribution is prohibited [without proper permission]. In fact, it is as illegal to merely copy a copyrighted piece [i.e., like a Kinko clerk making a copy for you], as it is to distribute [in mass] the material.
There have been cases where unscrupulous persons have gotten hold of documents by design professionals [not now involved], removed the originator’s identity, etc., and tried to pass the documents off as their own. usually this “re-issuing” failure merely because of inadequate “refining” of the information.
The AIA has addressed much of this, if not all, in Article 1.6, of Document A201, “General Conditions of the Contract”. Here it is explicit as to hard copies and electronic documentation, and the various possible scenarios involved. Owners often have a hard time understanding this, and it is a very good point for up-front, early-on explanation. The Owner pays for the services involved to produce the document, NOT for the documents themselves. The Owner-Architect [similar for engineers] Contract is for professional design and other services, including the process of documentation as a vehicle to producing the desired project-- it does not convey ownership of the documents from the design professional.
Two good references by attorneys give added light to this topic:
www.aepronet.org/ge/no8.html and www.mslawyer.com/rwise/articles/Copyrights_for_Design_Professionals.html |
David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI
Senior Member
Username: david_axt
Post Number: 655
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 04:41 pm: | |
Doesn't this all revolve around "intent"?
Is your intent is to copy the drawings/specs and hand them out to subcontractors on the project? That is okay.
Is your intent is to steal the work of someone else and use it as your own? That is theft and fraud. |
Robert E. Woodburn
Senior Member
Username: bwoodburn
Post Number: 110
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 07:02 pm: | |
Regarding "...documents in the files of the code agency were then and still are “public documents”—i.e., for use by the general public":
Books in the Public Library are "public documents" -- the public owns them. It owns copies for reading, not the property rights to the intellectual content. Their use is still subject to provisions of copyright law, as the notices customarily posted on the Library's copying machines always point out.
So it is with documents submitted for permit. Public use doesn't include "any use," only legal use, which includes "fair use" for scholarship, etc.
The city owns only the copies submitted, and an implied license to use those copies only for the specific civic purposes permitted by law (i.e, regulation of construction, tax assessment, etc.). As with a library book, the public doesn't own any other rights; they are retained by the copyright holder. |
Marc C Chavez
Senior Member
Username: mchavez
Post Number: 149
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 07:07 pm: | |
Define intent.
"I did not intend to kill anyone officer!"
"No, but you were driving drunk and struck another vehicle" says the officer. |
David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI
Senior Member
Username: david_axt
Post Number: 656
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 08:15 pm: | |
Marc,
Your attorney wife would know more details, but here is my understanding.
"Murder" is where you set out to kill someone and succeed.
"Manslaughter" is where you just want to due harm to someone but not kill them. Unfortunately they die due to your actions. I believe that manslaughter also includes being reckless and causing someone's death.
*****
"Your honor, I did not INTEND to copy the architect's specs verbatim without permission and use them on my next job. It just happened! It was an accident!" :-) |
|
4specs.com Home Page