For those of you writing product guide specifications, what are you telling manufacturers about CSI MasterFormat Licensing?
@David Axt see the latest pricing page - updated today. Looks like manufacturers are exempt unless they sell guide specs or provide spec consulting services for a fee. I cannot imagine manufacturers selling their guide specs to designers that want to specify the products. It may be that only door hardware manufacturers are selling consulting services. So, most manufacturers will be exempt. This is a huge change from what was described before this exemption was offered.
Thank you, David. I guess “Dynamic” means check the website frequently since MasterFormat licensing is a moving target!
I was really concerned about writing a product guide specification, then turning around and telling the manufacturer that they needed to pay for a license (which was probably more than I charged them to write the specification).
Interesting, that a few days after a few of the companies that the Board members work for get tagged on social media, the website gets updated to exclude them from needing a license.
The way I see it, CSI relies heavily on income from building product manufacturers. This income includes advertising in Construction Specifier magazine, sponsorships of the Master Specifier Retreat, and conference sponsorships, etc. Therefore, the last thing CSI wants to do is piss off manufacturers by requiring an expensive license.
David S,
Can you send a screenshot or say where you see that info about the manufacturers not paying? I do not see that info when I hit the link you sent. And when I hit the various classifications of users, it still seems to generate the same numbers based on revenue.
This conversation interests me greatly, not so much about whether my manufacturer clients need to go get a separate license or not, but more importantly, if they are charging different licensing rates for different CSI membership classifications.
Thanks!
-Rosa
Wow. That is absolutely ridiculous. Why should the definition of “commercial use” differ between a specification writer and a product manufacturer. They are both for-profit companies, supposedly using CSI’s copyright-protected work as part of their profit-making activities.
Commercial use should be commercial use. Period.
The solution to their self-imposed problem should not be to charge only certain types of for-profit companies a fee, but rather, it should be to set a single, reasonable fee for the licensing.
Bonus…make the product you are selling actually worth the money companies are being asked to pay.
@David and @Rosa, I was looking at the manufacturer pricing page that included similar text, in an abbreviated form.
A lot of manufacturers post sample specs. I wonder if that might subject them to the fee.
Rosa,
I agree with you. CSI should set one price for everyone. That is what they did with the dues structure. It is my understanding that the dues became too complicated for CSI to track, with different chapters charging different dues and members belonging to a few (or many) chapters.
The licensing fees are similarly complex, with different people charged different amounts depending on their industry, revenue, and membership status.
I also believe CSI would have more people sign up if the licensing fee were reduced. Why not make the fee the same cost as what the book sold for?
Paul,
It is my understanding that the manufacturer’s sample specifications are not subject to a licensing fee unless the manufacturer is selling those specifications and/or charging for their preparation.
The type of manufacturer that comes to mind, who would probably pay a fee, is door hardware representatives who prepare door hardware specifications and hardware groups for projects.
I am an architecture firm…but I identify as a Manufacturer…of construction documents
LOL!
And you work for free but ask for donations.