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, 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:
- Seeming to single out Colin - not fair
- Poorly constructed requirements (copied from the CD)
3 (or 2a). Requirements not fully thought out or applied - Other Issues?
- Lastly; the price
Marc
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.
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.
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 didnt 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 wouldnt 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 havent 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, its 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.
Craig,
- the licence specifically allows the use by architects, that’s why we all wrote MasterFOrmat in the first place.)
- 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.
Yea Sheldon!
Well spoken.
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.
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.
CSIs 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.
Thanks Mike you reinforced a lot of good points but I disagree on a few
- For the most part this discussion has not discussed 4specs per se, but the copyright of MasterFormat in general.
- 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
- 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.
What organizations have already licensed their use of MasterFormat 2004?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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 CSIs 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.”
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?
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.