CAD Files for clients!?

[Les Therrien]

I know we all send either full or partial file CAD files to subtrades for the creation of our beautiful buildings. However, I often get request from clients of the private sector for an electronic copy of the design.
I usually comply with their request knowing that they will never touch that CD-R again, however I am not fully comfortable in doing so.
Often times the client works for a Tool & Die or some other manufacturing outfit and have access to autocad and large format printing equipment. They simply want the file so they can scam free printing from the company they work for.

I am largely concerned that the drawings may get into the wrong hands and be re-used or altered without my consent. The people around here have no concept of the word copyright and if they think it's free, then it is!
I even question the ethics of the subtrades sometimes.

What type of policies or office standards do some of you have with this situation?

[marcosf]

This is a problem that I also have.

My clients are normally professional clients and when they ask me for computer files, sometimes is for filing purposes only, but in some cases I get the feeling that actually the file is to help some other less prepared "consultant" to produce a work that seems similar to ours, but lack substance. (We do a type of work that is very restrict in terms of market/knowledge and our clients are mostly major oil companies.)

The option of sending computer files in PDF format and lately DWF has helped a lot. But we still have the odd client that still requests the files in Autocad (Which I still use a lot. Currently I am about to finish the first Revit project.)

With the facility of having an unlicensed version of Revit as a drawing reader, the requests for the actual files will still stay for some time, if not indefinitely.

If the file that is given remains with the client, fine. If the file find its way to some other office, than it is a problem. Of course that there are legal ways of sorting this out, but the burden of the proof is quite something else. And it will most likely cost you the client.

This is something that I will include in my future contracts, although some clients will object to it, just because they got used to a different manner. But by adding a clause related to supplying drawing files, I hope to at leas make some clients aware of my concerns.

Regards

Marcos Fernandes

[BomberAIA]

You are opening yourself up for liability. Just send them PDF's and tell them you insurance company will not let you give cad files to clients.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

In the days before CAD clients would never have dreamed of asking for your original tracings. The client was never given more than a set of the 'as built' drawings. These were to be used for the purposes of facilities management through the life of the building. As electronic files became more prevalent clients requested (often demanded) virtual originals of the documents. Unless this is clearly spelled out in your contract I don't feel it is our obligation to provide them to the client.
You could try marketing your services at a later date or offer FM services as part of a full service fee.
I don't want to sound greedy but, as drawings become database this information is of great benefit and value to the client and it's my opinion that we should be compensated accordingly if we give up the rights to that database.
My $.02

[Wes Macaulay]

As things get more complicated, what are clients going to do with the file anyway? The Revit project file would be near useless to them. And too valuable to me to let go out of the office.

Even AutoCAD files are fine, IMO. They're nearly as dumb as PDFs anyway :mrgreen:

[BomberAIA]

I agree with all of you. Lets not give away the house. The only reason the client would want the cad files are to use them without compensating the architect.

[Wes Macaulay]

I guess I can see the reason for not giving AutoCAD files... those are easily modified, and they do have value, even if they're dumb. DWFs and PDFs are much harder to turn into a CAD format.

[SkiSouth]

I agree with all of you. Lets not give away the house. The only reason the client would want the cad files are to use them without compensating the architect.

Not true. I furnish drawings as required to specialists per request by the building owner.I also had a client who used the files for in house design - retailer who did their own merchandising. Many many looks at where to put the stuff to sell.

But, I agree, don't just send the drawings, you need to claim ownership, and also declare the condition you offer the drawings. In example, for those of you who do this, a way we have handled it before (include this in your contract or letter of agreement...)

The Architect will provide, upon request by the Owner and xxxxx, sets of drawings necessary, either printed or by electronic transfer. These drawings are provided to xxxxxx directly via request from the Owner. Use of these drawings is contingent on the Owner and recipient to agree to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify and hold the Architect harmless from any damage, liability or cost, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of defense, arising from any changes made by anyone other than the Architect or from any reuse of the drawings and data without the prior written consent of the Architect.

Drawings will be transmitted to help facilitate the construction of this project. There is no implied as built verification of these drawings, nor additional coordination of changes to the architect's drawings after these drawings are transmitted implied. All subcontractors who are using this data are recommended to visit the job and field verify all project related requirements.

Under no circumstances shall transfer of the drawings and other instruments of service on electronic media for use by the Owner or tenant be deemed a sale by the Architect, and Architect makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, of merchantability and fitness for any particular purpose.


you also need this type disclaimer in the text of your emails when you transfer drawings over the internet...

[PeterJ]

You're right, I think, Wes. There is no reason for a professional client who is not going to abuse the benefits of having a copy of the information in digital form not to have 'em. They may wish to pass on building layouts to endless other people for furniture layouts, fire zones, alarm systems, lease plans etc., and probably we don't want to be bothered each time they need one that information with opening an archived project and printing the plan or what have you. Equally one doesn't want to give away our corn too readily so a dumb format that they can reproduce for free and which others can work over, with a dated disclaimer for accuracy vs time and alterations to the building after one's involvement is probably the way to go.

If you want to give them data that would be really useful in FM terms then a set of plan in dwf with the all the attribute information that dwf can carry would be really useful, but you can't write that dataset from Revit yet. R7 anyone? Maybe that is a smarter output than you want to give out but until someone reverse engineers the dwf format it is essentially a dumb package with just a little more in it.

[Wanderer]

I agree with all of you. Lets not give away the house. The only reason the client would want the cad files are to use them without compensating the architect.
The question is, who is the client, and what is their use for the files?

I work for a facility, all of our as-builts are done by outside contractors' sub-contractors. Our standards and our legal agreement say that we have to have autocad files as as-builts, it is important for our legacy data.

Either the files will be distributed to future contractors exactly as they were delivered to me, or the data will be incorporated with composite plans which my department creates and updates; these uses are CLEARY outlined in our agreement.

BUT, I still have problems with the gc getting me proper files, everyone wants to send me plt files or pdf's because they think I am trying to steal something from them.

In some cases, eg, mfg, that might be a very serious worry, but, in my case, as the end user of a long-lived facility, I actually NEED files that I can update as changes occur.

So, just a note from the other side of the fence, had to get it off my chest... thx

[dg]

In my part of the world there are many similar house designs, and extensions/alterations are very similar too. It is very common to see neighbours and friends 'borrow' drawings for work they propose to do on their own property.

There is no way I would let a drawing with my blocks or families be potentially made available for people who want to do a bit of DIY plan submission.

I send out copies as pdf's - with printing/viewing restrictions, or watermarked images, or even Word documents - but not the CAD files.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

Our standards and our legal agreement say that we have to have autocad files as as-builts, it is important for our legacy data.
Not a problem if that's the deal going in. This is an obvious case where the the end product is the drawings themselves.
What I'm talking about here is something of an intellectual property issue. The 'design' generally belongs to the designer. The client is entitled to a copy of drawings for their records but, unless spelled out in the contract, the originals belong to the designer. I don't know any photographers who give away the negatives with the prints. It's not just an issue of being able to squeeze more money from the client later in the day if they want more work done, it's a question of the value of the original documents.

[Wanderer]

Not a problem if that's the deal going in. This is an obvious case where the the end product is the drawings themselves.
What I'm talking about here is something of an intellectual property issue. The 'design' generally belongs to the designer. The client is entitled to a copy of drawings for their records but, unless spelled out in the contract, the originals belong to the designer. I don't know any photographers who give away the negatives with the prints. It's not just an issue of being able to squeeze more money from the client later in the day if they want more work done, it's a question of the value of the original documents.
That, I completely understand. I just get SO frustrated butting heads all day long with contractors having subs employ guys doing drawings, and saying 'mine, you can't have it, I NEVER give out drawings'. Which is silly, because when renovating our spaces, NO ONE will ever be able to duplicate these designs in another project, so there is no worry for them on intellectual property issues.

I know my issue has little to do with yours, but, just had to vent... thanks

[mcuevas]

The way we've handled this issue is to put a disclaimer on the CD. Just like installing software, when you first insert it, a dialog pops up with the user having to agree to the disclaimer. If they don't agree then the CD tray ejects the CD. Now of course there are ways around getting the files from it anyway, so we just put a text file in there also. And we also charge them an additional fee for this.

[Wanderer]

The way we've handled this issue is to put a disclaimer on the CD. Just like installing software, when you first insert it, a dialog pops up with the user having to agree to the disclaimer. If they don't agree then the CD tray ejects the CD. Now of course there are ways around getting the files from it anyway, so we just put a text file in there also. And we also charge them an additional fee for this.
Oh, that's cool, how do you do that pop-up? I distribute my archive drawings all the time, and I have a text file that has a disclaimer, and a note saying we have standards and you have to use them, then, you have to give the files back to me when you're done.

the subs always claim that they didn't know we have cad standards or that they have to turn over as-builts. Our contracts say that, but, they can always claim that the gc didn't pass them on, so, I'd just like to have a way that I would know that they saw that info (just a little cya procedure).

[Wes Macaulay]

You create an autorun.inf file that loads an HTML file with your disclaimer in it, and if they don't hit Yes it runs a small exe file that opens the CD tray.

[Wanderer]

You create an autorun.inf file that loads an HTML file with your disclaimer in it, and if they don't hit Yes it runs a small exe file that opens the CD tray.
okay, makes sense, are those easy to make?

[PeterJ]

In my part of the world there are many similar house designs, and extensions/alterations are very similar too. It is very common to see neighbours and friends 'borrow' drawings for work they propose to do on their own property.

There is no way I would let a drawing with my blocks or families be potentially made available for people who want to do a bit of DIY plan submission..
I think you're a couple of hundred miles north of me here, DG. I understand that problem although I'm pretty certain it has yet to happen to me, though I have seen one of my drawings edited by hand with tippex and a felt-tip for resubmission after I had a falling out with the client. Earlier I said a 'professional client' could have some file data and I would tend to stand by that - it ought to be pretty clear whom are your professional clients who have real needs to have a digital copy of a file and non professional clients who don't and from that understanding of needs issue paper, pdf, dwf, dwg or rvt accordingly.

Now families have been exportable from a file for a while, and as a cut and paste action forever (I think) the question of issuing an RVT file is more complex. If I have worked up a beautiful window I may want control of it's issue. That's not to say it won't be on the Exchange here at some time, but I may not wish every detail I produce to be subject to public circulation. The flip side of that is that I know of no clients of mine who have neighbours with Revit and anyone who did have it would be likely to be able to do the work anyway. That is slightly different to circulating a dwg where half the drafting staff in Europe probably have a hookie copy of AutoCAD 2000 on a pentium 90 in the back bedroom and might do something with your work.

[Wes Macaulay]

okay, makes sense, are those easy to make?There's a fair amount out there on the net about this sort of thing. And it's all free if you can find the right site!

[Wanderer]

There's a fair amount out there on the net about this sort of thing. And it's all free if you can find the right site!
http://www.webpronews.com/webdevelopment/webgraphics/wpn-25-20021121EnhanceYourCDAHowTo.html (http://www.webpronews.com/webdevelopment/webgraphics/wpn-25-20021121EnhanceYourCDAHowTo.html)
this was helpful, a how-to article, containing a link to a free autorun.inf editor (karenware.com) nifty.

[SkiSouth]

a hookie copy .

I must confess that is a new one to me. (you know us yanks - even those of us who live in confusion....)

[PeterJ]

Hookie in this instance meaning, as I'm sure you gathered, 'of dubious provenance'.

[iawegian]

Well, an interesting discussion indeed. I agree with Melanie, the cad files, with manageable layers and access to data is part of the fees that are paid to the A/E for being the agent of change in providing thought, design, administration, coordination, management and the deliverables to create a structure which will live beyond our next few years of remembrance.

I've been on the Consultant side, as well as the Owner's. As a consultant, part of the pride of workmanship was creating things others could use. Think of the 'Doozers' from Fraggle Rock. Without the Owner providing the funding, I wouldn't have any work. Is it right to withhold the digital media because I view it as part of the 'tool' to get the final design down and out the door on paper?

More and more, the viewpoint has been shifting to providing information which is useful to others to perform their function. In the last 15 years, contractors and sub-consultants have increasingly been able to make use of data organized in a consistent - reproducible fashion. So, yes, the request came more frequently. The challenge became the management of getting the right information to the end user with the most integrity and least amount of effort. The issues of liability are huge, but manageable. The Professional Liability Insurer's are behind the times in my opinion. Especially if you look at the expenditure of energy - meaning brains and manpower - which is utilized if you have to duplicate efforts of work already performed. Now that we're in the 'Green Building' extravaganza and had another shock of rising energy costs, streamlining the work makes good sense.

[mlgatzke]

Sorry iawegian,

I've never worked for the client or contractor. When I practiced (still do part time, but teach full time), I always worked for a firm. Therefore, please understand that I see this a pretty black and white from the architect's eyes.

The CAD/BIM file(s) are part of the electronic data that is owned by the architect/designer (Any debate on this, see http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=30380). I believe that the client has a right to any data he/she has contracted to receive. However, the client should also understand that to receive "additional medium", beyond the standard sets of drawings, NEEDS to be contracted for and compensated for. After all, if we are going to make the intellectual and financial investment to use BIM, anyone (yes, even the client) should compensate the owner of the information for the additional intelligence that benefits the client with additional information beyond what he/she would have from the drawings. After all, isn't that why the client would want the CAD/BIM files in the first place?

Too many times I've experienced clients wanting everything relating to the project without paying additional for it. This might be a mistaken thought that they actually "own" the information to the project. Also, too many times I've seen partners and project managers agree to such demands simply to please the client and get more work. I see this as bringing the practice of architecture to the same level as KMart and the "blue light special".

Architecture is one of the five "accepted professions" along with doctors. It's time we start behaving like it and expecting the respect that is entitled to it. After all, I've spoken with a neuro-surgeon that was able to take his boards before we are allowed to take ours - and his were shorter too. Are our compensations the same - no way. Would your same client tell his/her doctor that they want him/her to "give" them a nose job at the same time they're getting something else done - and not expect to be charged for the additional work, technology used, and realized benefit? Remember, if a neuro-surgeon makes a mistake, one person could die - if an architect makes a mistake, hundreds could die.

Sorry for the rant. I didn't realize I was so touchy about this topic. I'll get off my soap-box now. Just my two cents - or maybe two-bits considering the length of this diatribe.

[David J Krope]

Once again, amen mlgatzke