Copyrighting? 4

[Rich2001]

Does anyone but a copyright notice on your CAD drawings or other documents? Do you register them with the US Copyright office?

By the way, details and forms are available at

http://www.lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/

 

[Hush]

I'm not completely sure on this but in Canada I don't think it is necessary to obtain a registered copyright in order to have the same protection under law. I would imagine the US & UK have very similar laws. However, registration of a copyright does provide you with stronger evidence that you are indeed the creator if it goes to court. Also the words patent, trademark, and copyright tend to scare off a lot of would be pirates and R&D (ripoff & duplicate) artists.

In addition a copyright would only prevent someone from copying a drawing. It would do little towards stopping someone from recreating a drawing, for that you need a patent. Actually, even a patent won't stop anyone from recreating the drawing as long as they don't produce anything for profit using the info.

You can however get protection under contract law. We put proprietary notices on our drawings, specifications, and standards as well as in the terms of agreement on our purchase orders for subcontracted work. All of our competitors do the same and some have successfully sued vendors and competitors for contract violation.

 

[dougantholz]

As a part of our company logo, we have the copyright symbol so it is included in our drawings. Then, in our general notes we have verbage similar to:
These drawings are the property of OUR COMPANY, its client CLIENT COMPANY, and THE BUILDING OWNER. These drawings may not be reproduced for purposes outside of those relating directly with this building. The information may not be copied or transcribed without the written approval of OUR COMPANY.
We also have it better defined in our client contract as to what copying may be done. We have had a problem with this in the past - client's taking our details and using them on other jobs, for other clients, in projects that we are not associated with.

 

[Rich2001]

"...client's taking our details and using them on other jobs, for other clients, in projects that we are not associated with."

This is what I am wanting to protect from. If I seal the drawing or documents and the client, or anyone else, then steals the details and reproduces it, can one be held liable for a project where there was not have a contract nor any money exchanged?

With the advent of electronic media the thief is very easy and quickly accomplished.

How would you recover damages from someone that stole your design?

 

[Hush]

If you provide drawings to a client say for a bid or even just for information his acceptance of those drawings forms a contract, whether or not money changes hands. Therefor, if your drawings have a proprietary notice on them that requirement also becomes part of that contract. If the client then uses or releases information from the drawing the client is violating the contract and can be sued for damages.

 

[redtrumpet]

From "Law for Professional Engineers, 3rd Edition, Canadian and International Perspectives", D.L. Marston, McGraw-Hill Ryerson

"Registration is not essential to copyright. However, registration of copyright in a work may assist the owners in obtaining damages for infringement. Additionally, registration of assignments and licences of copyright are advisable in order to protect assignees and licensees from claims of other subsequent assignees and licensees who may register."

Also,

"Copyright in engineering plans generally belongs to the engineer who authored the plans or to the engineer's employer if the plans were created in the course of such employment. Where an engineer prepares the plans for a client, and unless otherwise agreed, the client is precluded from reproducing the engineer's plans or repeating his or her design in a new structure without the express or implied consent of the engineer. Engineer-client agreements should include a provision that draws attention to this aspect of the engineer's copyright."

Kind of ironic that I violated Marston's copyright on his book just now. Good thing I'm anonymous.

See also

http://www.encon.ca/english/lcb/

and click "Architects and Engineers Liability Insurance Programs", then click "Professional Liability Perspective", and finally click Bulletin 3, "Coping with the Question of Ownership of Documents".

 

[RDK]

I don’t think that you violated any copyright laws. Under Canadian copyright there is a “fair use” exemption. You can quote someone’s otherwise copyrighted work as long as you credit the source. The quote just cannot be as the entire work.

I wish AutoDesk would provide some sort of password protection on AutoCAD. That way there would be some protection from casual copying of drawings.

I also put my copyright notice in two sizes, one obvious so you will see it and then I shrink the text box to point size and copy it several places in the drawing. If you copy one of my drawings you will also copy the copyright notice and I can prove it’s my work.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[austim]

RDK,

I really like your cunniong trick with the micro copyright notices. But surely you can only prove that your copyright notice is on any drawing if you can get access to an electronic copy - otherwise all that you can show your lawyers is a few meaningless dots on the paper?

 

[RDK]

All it protects against is if someone cut-paste from my drawing to theirs. Yes I would still need acces to an electric copy but I would demand it as part of the discovery process.

I've never had to defend this in court but it would prove originial authorship of an drawing (or significant portion).

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[Rich2001]

What do you think of this copyright notice?

THIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND THE PROPERTY OF XXXXXX. NO USE OF, OR DISCLOSURE OF, THIS DRAWING OR THE INFORMATION CONTAIN THEREIN SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF XXXXXX, AND THE DRAWING SHALL BE RETURNED THERETO UPON REQUEST. ACCEPTANCE OF POSSESSION OF THIS DRAWING SHALL CONSTITUTE YOUR AGREEMENT TO THE FOREGOING TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
COPYRIGHT XXXXXX © YEAR

 

[gibfrog]

Rich2001:

Your notice is fine but, I as a civil engineer would need to add blanket permission to the regulatory authorities to copy and dissseminate the drawings, because once submitted for a permit, they become public record.
Clifford H Laubstein
FL Registered PE 58662

 

[PM]

What's the engineering ethics issue(s) in this thread?

Is it the principle that of offering opinions only on the basis of "adequate knowledge and honest conviction" or is it the statutory prohibition on practicing law without a licence? (ie. I presume we haven't all been admitted to the bar.)

I don't quite mean to be as blunt as the above terse paragraph may otherwise appear, but I've seen at least two responses that contain factual errors (based on US and Canadian federal copyright statutes). Perhaps the original question (post) is too ambiguous.

It would appear most responses have focused on the concept of "giving credit for engineering work to those it is properly due". If this is the point, I would suggest that concern should go far beyond the enforcement problem.
Best Regards,

 

[redtrumpet]

PM - you may have noticed that not all threads in a given forum fall within the strict mandate of the forum. I don't think this post is meant to bring up an ethical issue. It is more in the realm of "practice management" or "risk management."

Your point that we are not lawyers is well taken. However, engineers routinely deal with items that have a legal component, such as contracts, and if they are unsure of themselves they should retain legal counsel. Why do you imply we are trying to practise law without a licence?

I think the fact that no one gave an opinion as to Rich2001's proposed copyright notice should tell you none of us is operating under the illusion we are lawyers.

I also think that opinions solicited through the Internet should be taken with a grain of salt, and that anyone soliciting opinions through this or any other forum should evaluate those opinions carefully and not accept them unquestioningly.

 

[Rich2001]

My posts were to stir the pot and see what others are doing with respect to copyrighting.

In the past I had a county engineer that took my electronically submitted design (part of a bid, requiement) copy it, add the county title and re-issue it for a revised bid. (All bid exceeded the county's budget). My concern is if it is built using my preliminary design, how do I limit my liability? If I do not get the project I would not get paid for my time (about 20 MH).

The copyright notice, was an attempt to get others to post any notice that they may attach to their drawing,( id est I was trolling for examples).

Electronically submitted drawing and details, make it very easy for items to be copied and used where they should not be.

We as engineers, I hope, have more common sense then lawyers. It is rare to find an attorney with an engineering degree or that truly understands the construction/fabrication world.

 

[PM]

Snipped from: redtrumpet
"I don't think this post is meant to bring up an ethical issue."

Interestingly enough, I believe that some of the responses in this thread do in fact bring up ethical issues.

redtrumpet goes on to say: "if they are unsure of themselves they should retain legal counsel"

I would argue that if the hazards or risks are great, they should retain legal expertise long before they become unsure of themselves.

I take redtrumpet's point about accepting comments on the internet at face value, but it seems to me that if engineers stand for anything other than their specialist technical skill and knowledge, then it should be their ethical standards. Among other cannons they embrace, engineers should be more circumspect in their comments (including on the internet). If engineers complied with this rule, more of us could at least rely on the content in these "engineering" fora.

I'm amused with Rich2001's comment about the common sense of lawyers, but I doubt we engineers have any more (or less for that matter) common sense than any other well educated professional. Lawyers do have the distinction of having more jokes told about them than most other professionals combined.:-D

Perhaps to better visualize my point, imagine if we all were reviewing a lawyers ethics forum and reading about their take on design of welded connections or construction of deep foundations in a marine estuary.
Regards,

PS I have no problem discussing the merits of applying a copyright notice on our documents, but I think we should be careful not to slip into a realm within which we're not competent to practice.

 

[redtrumpet]

PM - I would be more inclined to agree if we were engineers participating in a Law-Tips forum. Rich2001 asked a question about copyrighting drawings. This is mentioned in my textbook "Law for Professional Engineers", required reading for my P.Eng. exam, and is also covered in the loss control bulletins of Encon, a major provider of liability insurance for engineers. My monthly engineering association magazine has a column every month on legal issues.

Yet you are suggesting that as engineers we refrain from commenting on the legal issues that affect us. You further imply that we are somehow unethical and are "practicing" outside our realm. Are you serious or do you just like to play devil's advocate?

You should also have realized by now that at best 50% of the people in these fora actually have an engineering degree and even fewer are P.Eng.'s so I wouldn't rely on engineering ethics as a means of guaranteeing the validity of responses.

This issue of copyrighting and limiting third-party liability is very real to engineers and I believe engineers have a proper right to comment on it as many of us have firsthand experience with the problems that can arise. I wrote a specification for a 600 hp motor, issued on the letterhead of the consulting company I worked for at the time. The client reissued the specification for another motor purchase without removing my name or the consulting company's name. Imagine my surprise when I got a call from a vendor asking for clarification of my specification for a motor I knew nothing about (and for which my company was not getting paid, but was now being exposed to all sorts of liability as there was no copyright protection in either our service agreement or in the specification itself).

 

[redtrumpet]

PM - in addition, if you noted factual errors in two responses, why don't you point them out so we can all benefit from your wisdom? Wouldn't that be the ethical thing to do?

 

[Rich2001]

One of my best friend is a lawyer, so the ribbing goes both ways. Each profession and person has their own unique quirks, good thing.

I used to think that lawyers had more joke about them, then I had to work with some Registered Sanitarians, they seem to have quite a few jokes about engineers.

All in all, what truly counts is who catches the most or biggest fish at the end of the day. (By fish I mean large mouth bass Micropterus salmoides floridanus ) Though, at time it is who can tell the best lie.

 

[PM]

As my smiley demonstrates, I can't always claim to be serious, but even with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, I think it is appropriate to challenge engineers on how they think about ethical issues.

I believe you will find my posts are relatively free of judgement and certainly do not attempt to supplant the views of others with my own.

I simply raised the point that the content of this "engineering ethics" forum seems to have factual errors introduced by one or more of it's respondents. Given the context, I find this ironic.

As to me posting corrections of these errors, it would seem duplicitous on my part.

Rich2001 your comments are right on the mark. I would ask you to explain what in heck is a Registered Sanitarian?

 

[Rich2001]

In short a RS is a Health Inspector. (If you are an RS no disrespect meant. It is just the shortest defination I could think off, too many hours in the sun today.)

From the NEHA website

http://www.neha.org

Registered Environmental Health Specialist/Registered Sanitarian (REHS/RS)· The REHS/RS is the premier NEHA credential. It is available to a wide range of environmental health professionals. Individuals holding the REHS/RS credential show competency in environmental health issues, direct and train personnel to respond to routine or emergency environmental situations, and frequently provide education to their communities on environmental health concerns. The advantages of NEHA's REHS/RS registration program are: the nationwide recognition of the REHS/RS credential, the continual update of the REHS/RS examination and study guide based on an ongoing assessment of the environmental health field, and the tracking of individuals continuing education by NEHA.

http://www.neha.org/pdf files/rehs_web.pdf

Local city and county health departments genrally have RS's. It become a battle at time on who is responsible for designing waste-water, sewer & septic systems.