Crossposting from LinkedIn:
Yesterday, a U.S. federal court ruled that #MasterFormat is not protected by copyright. CSI lost on all counts.
Congratulations ZeroDocs.com for being resolute in your conviction!
Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.
Let me know if you want a copy of the decision.
That is great news.
David, why does a post have to be 20 characters in length?
Juste, I’d appreciate a copy of the court decision. Thanks.
You can find the decision here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uTuaArNP2wgEgciZ5KHCDJU7uEigR0Ba/view?usp=drive_link
So, CSI invested $3.5M to $4M in CIN, a for-profit whose whole business plan revolves around extorting design and construction professionals to buy a license to use CSI’s copyrighted product, except that there is no longer a copyright CIN can use as a cudgel? Wonder what that investment is worth this evening? 
This scheme was purportedly concocted by Mark Dorsey (CEO of CSI), Rick Bawcum (former CIO of CSI as a consultant, and some of their cronies shortly after Dorsey entrenched himself as CEO. [Ref: https://www.getmespark.com/wp-content/uploads/NoBSGuide-DigitalTransformation.pdf Page 25]
Over the succeeding decade, Dorsey was able to persuade the CSI Board of Directors to set up and provide funding for CIN, to sell licenses and continue development on “Crosswalk,” Dorsey’s and Bawcum’s original software product. On July 1, 2025, a day after the CSI’s Fiscal Year 2025 books closed, a series of transactions took place between and among CSI, CIN, and 18 Below LLC. As a result, CSI’s interest in CIN was converted from a controlling financial interest to a non-controlling investment. CSI retained 46.55% of CIN, while 18 Below became the controlling member and parent of CIN, holding 48.45% of its equity interests. CIN Board of Managers comprises 18 Below principals Chris Anderson and Paul Addy, and CSl’s CEO Mark Dorsey. [Ref: CSI’s audit reports available to CSI members CSI Audited Financials - Construction Specifications Institute ]
Prior to Fiscal Year 2026, CIN’s financial numbers were consolidated with CSI’s for tax purposes, so it is impossible to get an exact accounting of how much CSI’s 46.55% shares are worth. We won’t know until the 2026 audit report is released, which may not happen until the fall of 2027. But here’s what we do know: as of June 30, 2025, CSI had $5.5M in total investments, representing 3/4 of the organizations $7.4M in total assets. [Ref: CSI FY2025 Financial Statements, see link above]
My assessment that CSI has $3.5M to $4M invested in CIN is based on a preliminary review of publicly available information and public statements made by members of CSI’s governance and management teams. Assuming this is accurate, CSI has 2/3 to 3/4 of its total investments in a company that just suffered a serious roadblock to its business model. How can CIN persuade potential customers to purchase licenses to use a taxonomy that a court has just ruled cannot be copyrighted? Before they invested half of the organizations total assets in a startup company selling an unproven product, did our board and management consider the worst case possibility that their investment could be totally lost? If so, what’s the fallback position?
Members of CSI who care about the future of this organization should be worried. Members of the CSI board over the last decade who put the organization in this precarious position should be VERY worried.
Continuing the discussion from Court Declares No Copyright in Masterformat Numbers and Titles:
I hope CSI has sense enough not to appeal.
Filing a third amended complaint and losing is like issuing bid addendum 11.
Because 20 was the default that I did not change. It may help preclude spam bots. What do you think it should be?
George: in my opinion, this is one of several dumb things that CSI has done over the years by mis-reading the market. The temporary alignment with the National Glass Association (30 years ago, more?) was another one of those things. CSI has never really embraced the idea that it is an organization made up of multiple competing but aligned interests. First it was the establishment of “Industry members” as second class members. Secondly, it was their insistence that while establishing certifications, the organization couldn’t market the certifications to anyone to establish their value. There are other issues comparable.
I am glad for Adam and Zerodocs that they prevailed. I believe CSI entered the suit thinking that Zerodocs would not fight back. CSI would win on summary judgement and have the precedent to help reinforce their copyright claim.
As it turned out Zerodocs is small but mighty and prevailed in the suit to the benefit of all who rely on MASTERFORMAT(r) for daily business activities.
I like it because it forces you to use the reactions for short comments like “yay!”. Those could quickly clutter the thread.
I visited the CSI website yesterday. Prominently displayed was the statement, “Site maintenance September 2, 2026. We’re working on a website update that may result in brief access disruptions to communities. Thanks for your patience and if you need help, email us at memberservices@csinet.org.”
Today the same statement appears, but with a September 3 date.
Certain communities remain accessible, but conspicuous by its absence is CSI Connect. Is it a coincidence that this has occurred the day after the ZeroDocs ruling?
I believe it is purely a coincidence as that change in the CSI website and forums had been planned for a while. Our chapter was long aware it was coming in the first week of September because it will affect our chapter microsite.
What won’t be a coincidence is if/when they use the new forum setup to clamp down even further on “squeaky wheel” comments. When that starts to happen, you can trust it was a planned change dictated by an increasingly authoritarian leadership. There are some disgruntled members who seem to be getting too close to the truth with their pointed questions.
As for me, I’m completely gruntled with the new changes going in. 
I just logged in to CSI Connect. It seems to be working. Though it was an effort to get there. Login takes me to my profile page with no way to get to the main CSI page.
Thanks, David; I stand corrected. I did find CSI Connect and as you noted, it wasn’t obvious, as it is no longer grouped with the other communities.
“Dusty old Buick,” indeed. Hope Dorsey decides to keep his insults about us to himself.
Spoken with the banality of an uninspired used-car salesman, which may be his true calling.
So… BIG question…
Does this now mean for UniFormat and OmniClass? If they fail the same tests applied by the judge, and very conceivably do without any stretch of imagination, then CSI’s claim of copyright becomes moot for them as well?
My guess is, and this is only a guess, that the parts of the various formats beyond the numbers and titles, such as the Application Guides, are copyright able. But that doesn’t mean that CSI did so competently. Someone recently did a check on copyrights of MF, and found no copyrights filed for some versions. So it’s not clear for those other documents.
Well, this is what AI say’s:
The CSI v. ZeroDocs court decision means that the core frameworks, numbers, and descriptive titles of construction taxonomies lack copyright protection because they are functional, utilitarian short phrases rather than creative works. [1]
“The asserted numbers, titles, divisions, and taxonomy of CSI’s MasterFormat are not protectable by copyright.”
-- [Build Enclosure].
Impact on UniFormat and OmniClass