Hello, I have enjoyed reading through a lot of information on this website. I need to set up an account. I am wondering though, among independent spec writers, how many of you use protect/secure your documents with a password?
I am asking from the perspective of protecting your copyrighted specs from unauthorized use by clients.
And, I guess a second question would be do you provide spec manuals to your clients in Word format?
I resist efforts to provide specifications on Word format, usually successfully. Locking the PDF file creates other issues related to publication. I usually furnish unlocked PDF files and do not have any problems.
Agree with Peter, never give your client editable files. Sure they can use software to convert the PDF’s, but most don’t for fear they will lose something in the conversion. I had one client who did just that and left out an important prep instruction, and of course the client proceeded to reuse the spec on several jobs, can we say millions of $ in litigation.
This topic comes up frequently. Is your concern that your client will re-use the specs on future projects and not compensate you? Or, just the possibility that someone (anyone) may re-use them down the road. There is an argument to be made that specs are not an “original work of art” and are therefore not able to be copyrighted. Instead, they are an arrangement of information (similar to a phone book). I have a number of public owners that require word files, i send them over and go about my day. Everyone else gets PDF, which are easily converted to word if someone desires. The majority of my clients are honest and the few that aren’t, eventually i find out and stop working for them.
Dishonest clients only hurt themselves. There are many reasons why professional specifiers do not reuse specifications from one project on another one, why we start fresh each time. It’s not just the missing information Jerry mentions, but the risk of of useless, incorrect, or contradictory instructions from the previous project being incorporated in the new project.
Saving the price of your future fees pales next to the “millions in litigation” that the client risks. If they want to take that risk by stealing your specs, caveat praereptor (“Let the thief beware”).
(Robin) I had several concerns and one is use without compensation.
I think the feedback from the four of you who have responded is good clarification that;
Its best to stick to PDF’s and avoid sending out Word files. At least significant effort has to be invested in converting the PDFs to Word documents.
Better not to worry about password protecting the PDFs, it can cause basic usage problems for the client.
Also best not to worry about unauthorized/uncompensated use. It can happen but the risk is high for the client and the professionals I work for are generally going to be honest.
This all makes sense and is what I suspected. I thought it would be a good idea to get some feedback from others though.
Thank you all for taking the time to respond.
Dear Special Guest,
“Conformed Set” – Please define.
A “Conformed set” is a term typically used by USACE for the construction documents set that has been updated immediately prior to contract signing to include all addenda added/deleted to the project during bidding. This is the set that the contract is based upon.
When I had my own independent specification consulting practice, the letter of agreement with my clients specifically stated that I would only provide locked pdf files of the Project Manual. I password protected the files but allowed printing.
For the projects where the owner/architect agreement stated that the architect was to provide MS Word files of the Project Manual, I resisted as long as I could, sometimes successfully. When unsuccessful, I sent the Word files directly to the Owner.
This practice resulted from one client copying my Division 00 and 01 files, and who knows how many technical sections, for use on a project of which I was not involved.
Everyone has made good points about A/E client’s future re-use of “our” instruments of service, but no one has mentioned indemnity. I include in my agreements that A/E clients indemnify me for any future re-use of specs without my permission (which of course would require add’l compensation).
The idea of indemnification is interesting, but implies some degree of responsibility on the specifier’s part. I would insert a provision stating the instruments of service were developed for a use on a specific project and the specifier assumes no liability for the use of the documents, either as a whole or in part, on another project.
Peter, how do you “get” responsibility in the picture? Responsibility is a separate issue/subject. Indemnity strictly provides assumption of liability and defense costs for another party. Do you want to front “defense” expenses for yourself regardless of your proven fault? Consult your attorney (or insurance broker) about such language in your agreements (whether your’s or your A/E client’s form). And if you have no such agreement language addressing indemnity, what is your state’s default/statutory laws?
For those of you who use ARCOM’s MasterSpec or their other products, you might be interested in the following pertinent language that I gleaned from the latest copy of “MasterSpec Specification System with SpecWare License Agreement, Terms and Conditions.”
License Grant:
(c) Licensee must use MasterSpec and the applicable SpecWare product only at the physical site (e.g., the physical address) expressly set forth in this Agreement (which address is listed in Licensee’s Order Form or, in the case of an Enterprise License, the applicable addresses are listed in Exhibit A attached hereto)(the Licensed Site) or, in the case of Linx and Altarix products, the number of central processing units or Seats identified in Licensee’s Order Form (the Licensed Seats);
(d) Licensee is permitted to use MasterSpec only to produce office-edited versions (office masters) for Licensee and/or construction project specifications prepared by Licensee for use on Licensee’s specific construction projects;
Limitations:
(a) Authorized Licensees. This Agreement is intended for individuals and organizations preparing construction project specifications for actual and identified construction projects. It is not intended for building product and component manufacturers as a marketing, sales, training, or technical support tool.
Additional Categories of Authorized Licensees:
(a) Specification Consultants. If Licensee is a specification consultant, Licensee may prepare project specifications for other firms but may not prepare specifications for manufacturers or their products, or prepare office masters for any end user without the end user obtaining a separate MasterSpec License Agreement from ARCOM.
Permitted Uses:
(d) Licensee may reproduce and distribute to third parties a project specification produced through the use of MasterSpec provided that distribution of the specification is solely and exclusively in connection with the single construction project for which the specification was originally produced;
(f) Licensee may upload or otherwise place a project specification prepared by Licensee for use on Licensee’s specific construction projects on a project extranet, provided it is in locked PDF format and extranet is provided by a commercial firm.
Wow…I guess I’m in violation by not locking my PDFs that I give to my A/E clients? Although I’ve yet to upload to any to a project extranet! but then again, I don’t know what my A/E clients do with the specs after I transmit to them?
An ARCOM rep once told me that they don’t actively enforce/pursue license violations, but again, that was under previous “regime”.
I don’t know what good locking PDFs does anyway. I used to have a program that could unlock almost all locked PDFs, except most complex locking. I “lost” the license when I had to restore my computer…and can’t remember which, of many available online, it was.
This raises an important issue - how much of our specification work is truly our own?
How much can we claim to be our own, how much can be claimed by another entity, and how much do we owe the professional environment?
Each project is, to an extent, unique. But, when you think about it, a substantial part of specification writing is using style, format, and even content that was around well before we came along. A relatively small part of each project manual is original work.
I think when we say we don’t want unauthorized use of our work, most of the time we mean we just want to get paid every time it is used for a project.
If you do this job long enough, you will get stiffed no matter how careful you are.
The CSI Specifying Practice Group session on 3 August will have Joshua Flowers as a guest speaker on the subject of copyrights for construction documents. Josh (I used to work with him) is both a registered architect and a licensed lawyer in Tennessee. Watch for the announcement.
If we get past the words, part — all of us are not providing only words arranged in a specific fashion to our clients. If that is all it was, we could have them buy a subscription to a spec master and be done with it. Our clients are buying our unique judgement and advice. Those things are not transferable to other projects, and they can’t really be reused, either. I certainly produce a lot of project manuals for my employer (who I think of as my client) but over the course of the project, I spend just as much (or more) time interpreting the documents, providing my assessment of products, systems and contractors, swearing under my breath at some question or another and generally rounding out the experience of the project manual. My words (for the most part) come from Arcom. But the 40 years of experience that edits those words comes from me.
I’ve never worried about giving my clients Word files – if they wanted editable files, I kept a sealed record copy of what I gave them in case of a problem later. They can get words from anyone.
As others have pointed out, the actual Word documents a specifier prepares are built on the work of an entire community, and for that reason I consider the final Word documents only a small part of my work as a specifier. I hope and expect that this is true of other specifiers, in-house or independent. What besides Word documents do we provide? In addition to the document interpretation, product assessment and experienced viewpoint mentioned by Anne, we offer a willingness to take information that comes in a variety of forms from a variety of sources, fill in some gaps and make it into a coherent document called the Project Manual, organized and written according to industry standards (thanks to CSI) that can be understood by the entire Owner/Architect/Constructor team. In this process we also add a level of quality assurance/quality control to the documentation of the project. We are engaged in educating our colleagues or clients, and after the documents are issued, we are available to help interpret and explain the specifications during construction.
However, I am reluctant to distribute editable Word documents for a particular project, not so much because of ownership, but as a document control strategy. My hope is to avoid the confusion of too many similar-looking - but modified - documents from floating around.
Anne’s and Greta’s thoughts are very well expressed and I agree with them. What they are writing about rarely gets brought up. The unique traits and abilities of an experienced specifier comprise the intrinsic value she or he brings to the project. As Anne stated, that value is far beyond the “words.” It cannot be quantified, it is often under-compensated, and the effects of it are different in every new situation.
But, I think, an important issue in this discussion is the mere words. What part of a document can one genuinely claim to the extent that one could legitimately copyright it and enforce it (if one had the time and other means to do so)?
It reminds me of the great Elizabeth Warren’s idea that many attribute to Barack Obama: You didn’t build that.