As the firm owner and architect of record, you designed it and documented it. You are the author and it is legally your intellectual property. Like any other author, artist, or song writer, you may have been contracted to produce it, but you still own the copyrights.
Construction data companies are independently re-publishing and reselling your intellectual property without your written consent or any compensation to you. It would appear we’re okay with that. I’m going to try and make the case that we shouldn't be.
Recording artists refused to put up with Napster, and you shouldn't put up with major corporations that behave like Napster. With all the subscribers that pay these data services to gain access to your construction documents and the information they contain; they can and should pay you a few points for republishing your intellectual property.
They refer to themselves as “news agencies” and “reporters.” Are they just trying to scoop the competition? What’s their news? What’s their “breaking story”? It’s that you’ll be putting a project out to bid, and it will be so many square feet, used for something, it’s made of-this-and that, has a budget of so many dollars, will be located somewhere, that you are the architect, and this is your contact information.
Fair enough, I suppose you could call that news. A “reporter” called you wanting a scoop and you gave it to them. But is that the real story? I don’t think so. That's like the opening 10 seconds of the evening news. It’s little more than a headline, a prologue, or a teaser to help sell the actual story.
The actual story is told between the pages of your drawings and specifications. You are the writer, author, and owner of that story, not them, and not your client. They are hyping the basic project data/information as news to promote the sale of your story – the one you wrote. They do it because there is lots of profit in its sale, derived in many forms. They are collecting and keeping all the proceeds from the sale of your intellectual property to their subscribers and clients.
Based on the early leads you provided to them, big name Building Product Manufacturers dispatch sales reps to your office in the hope of influencing you.
Duplicating and republishing your intellectual property either in printed or digital form for downloads, without compensation, or your written permission, is in my view an act of intellectual piracy and copyright infringement. As such it is also your missed opportunity to receive payments I believe you’re entitled to as its author. To learn about our Royalty payments follow this link
To be fair, like any publisher, they should receive something to cover their marketing expenses (the headlines gathered from you and published), distribution costs (the physical and online planrooms they operate), their many other expenses, and they should be allowed to turn a profit like any business. But this is only after you have elected to provide to them the right to republish your instruments of service. That should always be done in the form of a “terms-of-use” agreement. And you should at least have some say in those terms.
Sound like an unnecessary headache? Maybe trying to meet your monthly payroll is an unnecessary headache. You need to fully grasp the value of the decisions you make that affect a trillion dollar industry. Nearly half of that is directly related to the sale of building products. 8% of that is directly related to the marketing of building products. In other words roughly $40 billion dollars is spent annually in an effort to convince you, and others like you, to either stick-to or rewrite your stories. In this age of trillion dollar deficits, $40 billion doesn't sound like much. But it buys a lot of sandwiches and pays for some very inefficient marketing.
Because of the inefficiency it introduces to the entire supply chain, the cost is actually much greater than $40 billion. The $40 billion BPMs and their suppliers spend on marketing to you doesn’t include a lot of hidden costs. Your wasted time for example. It includes the sandwiches and bottled water they feed you. It includes the salary and commissions of sales reps dispatched to sway you in your decisions. And it includes the billions spent with those “news agencies” that are pirating your copyrighted instruments of service.
In Part 2 I'll cover the potential golden lining for you and your clients
Very good article. Points raised are on the mark.
ReplyDeleteTo take things a bit further...
1. While Napster collapsed, it and companies like it, forever changed music. Lower cost digital distribution is now the norm, with author's rights preserved... as it should be. Artist thatn wish to publish without royalties, but with "rights reserved" also can do so. In fact, publishing songs for free has become a major new method of marketing.
2. Datamining, while certainly an IP related issue, should not be discouraged. What is important is the users right to elect what can be mined, how, and how it can be republished, whether a fee or attribution is required or not, etc. etc.
New technologies and new collaborative practices bring new issues, however, they also bring significanly enhanced capabilities.
Thanks for your comments. Excellent points and I strongly agree with both.
DeleteI've written and rewritten part 2 a number of times. I believe it will be far more controversial. I hope to post it shortly.
Kind Regards,
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"As the firm owner and architect of record, you designed it and documented it. You are the author and it is legally your intellectual property."
ReplyDeleteI couldn't disagree with this premise more. I work as an enclosure consultant to architects. Does that mean that the outside of the building and continuous air barrier are mine? The roofing? My architectural client had nothing to do with the selection, specification or knowledge that went into the selection of these products.
If I were the structural engineer, does that mean that the structural members are all mine?
Many players create and take "ownership' over a structure, not just the architect. It is the owner paying for all these services that "owns" everything when the job is complete.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDaniel,
ReplyDeleteI apologize for your misreading of my statement. I didn't say that as the architect you own the completed project. I said that as the architect you own the "intellectual property." The architect legally owns the rights to his design work. This is not my opinion but a matter of well established copyright law.
While you may have purchased and own a legally published compact disc containing a collection of Metallica's songs, you do not own the publishing rights, and are in violation of copyright law if you duplicate those songs and resell them or share them without written permission from the copyright owner(s). This written permission generally includes proper compensation to the copyright owner(s). And this is the difference between iTunes and Napster.
In the case of an architects instruments of service, our construction drawings and written specifications, are protected by copyright law. We, not the building owner, own the copyrights. There are exceptions when an architect will have a special contract that grants copyrights to the owner (for additional compensation). This is common in the case of corporate branded design work that must be duplicated.
Further, employees of architecture firms, though responsible for architectural design work, do not hold copyrights to the work they produced. Hired consultants are another matter. Generally, the structural engineer maintains the copyrights to his structural design, but obviously does not own the structure.
ReplyDeleteThis SITE is information is so clear,
ReplyDeletesell your art work
I have express a few of the articles on your website now, and I really like your style of blogging. I added it to my favorite’s blog site list and will be checking back soon… Are you having trouble finding the default IP address for your router, please check link 192.168.254.254
ReplyDelete