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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Colins 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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.”
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.
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.
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.
