It is quite possible that specifications used by firm #2 that appear to be identical, or very similar, to those prepared by firm #1 may have been transmitted to firm #2 by a client common to both firm #1 and firm #2. Many, if not most, prime contracts between design firms and public owner clients (some private clients as well) make it very clear that when firm #1 prepares specifications for the client’s project, the client has the absolute right to use those specifications again and again and again, any way they want, and with any other design professional or consultant that they choose. The result is that many times, firm #2 (and #3, #4, etc.) will be handed a specification by the client. The specification may, or may not, contain information identifying it as the work of a specific previous design professional/consultant. Even if it is clearly identified as the work of another entity, the client can show that they have complete rights to reuse the work, including using it with a new design professional/consultant.
How have we come to this? Maybe we can tackle that in another discussion. In the meantime, public clients, in particular, feel perfectly free to obtain the work of one design professional/consultant, for which a one-time fee is paid, and use it, essentially, as the owner’s “master” specification. This, of course, begs the question that if the owner was so pleased with the first design professional/consultant’s work, why was that design professional/consultant not retained for the subsequent project(s)? Well, we all know the answer to that lies partly, but not completely, in public procurement laws (another good subject for a future discussion).
I know this conversation is 4 months old, but there is another twist to this issue that I wanted to address.
I was doing a web search on Google one day and was shocked to come across one of my own specification sections listed amongst the search results. Apparently the owner, a university, is in the habit of creating a pdf of the project manuals we give them and posting them on their website for the convenience of the contractor (and anyone else in the entire world that wants to use my specs.) My work for several buildings is now available to anyone on earth with access to a computer and a modem. Like all internet accessible text, any hope for copywrite protection is virtually impossible to attain. Is there anything in the AIA documents protecting us from having our work posted on the internet like a buffet for plagiarists? Should I be including text prohibiting the posting of spec information on the internet? Do I even have a say as to what an Owner can do with the project manual?
Your concerns about easy internet access to your documents will be compounded by increasing use of electronic plan rooms sponsored by reprographics vendors. The essence of the idea is that your documents are made available for download over the internet to bidders, consultants, subcontractors in short to anyone who is interested in the project.
The seductive upside of the electronic plan room sales pitch is that communication will be enhanced. For example, that last minute addendum we all try to avoid will be immediately available to everyone upon publication. The reprographics company can notify planholders by email, track distribution, and oh by the way, make a little extra in sales.
I have had very limited experience with this technology so far, but apparently there are levels of security available to limit access. Still, the idea of having everything hanging out on the internet is a bit disconcerting, although I guess if someone wanted to plagiarize drawings or specs in the good old days, they could do it from hard copies of the documents.
Has anyone else had experience, positive or negative, with electronic plan rooms and the plagiarism issue?
When one of our local reprographics vendors started their electronic plan room, they posted one of our projects without our knowledge or permission. We quickly put a stop to that!
We now allow them to use this approach if we approve it in advance, and users must log in to their site so there is a record of plan holders. I’m not sure we are completely comfortable with this, but it seems to be a decent compromise to ease the logistics of distributing large sets of documents to a large number of bidders. We do not use it on smaller projects.
Another concern with the electronic plan rooms is that it does not guarantee that a plan holder receives a complete set of documents. When distributing hard copies, we issue only complete sets, no partial sets or individual drawing sheets, to ensure that bidders have access to all of the cross-referenced sections, Division 01, and the drawings of related trades.
It seems a very sad day we we blame the tools of our trade for errors in judgement of human nature. It is not electronic distribution of documents that encourages plagiarism. For it is just as easy to retype a hardcopy.
I remember back in the late 1970s and early 1980s when our local Dodge Plan Room had problems with people stealing the documents on file there. Some local architects would also copy and use sections from Project Manuals by other architects.
Going back to Richards comment about finding his spec section on a website, I remember back in the early 1970’s when I discovered that the State of Maryland had adopted my entire Division 1. I had just completed a project manual for a State Police barracks a few months before. Back in those days, Division 1 was generally not very well developed so the text was, for the most part, original. First I was really POd, then I was flattered that they selected my work. But overall I felt I was ripped off.
Had I written the spex for CSI and given it to them to promote is one thing, but to have it just taken in bulk was another. Federal-state agencies claim that contract documents prepared for them are their property and they say they have a right to use them anyway they see fit.
Anyway, that is water under the bridge a long time ago. As a result, however, I have ever since placed a copyright symbol on every page I produce except for Federal/State/local agencies that just wont permit it. I have never once [in over 30 years] had a client object [only a few selected owners have ever objected].
The copyright symbol doesnt really protect you; only puts a potential user on notice.