Copyright control of families

[PeterJ]

This is something i wrote in another thread but it seems it ought to be over here....

I have been thinking a lot about commercial family creation lately. Over the past few months there have been a number of posts, such as people offering to ceate familes for cash (like surrogate mothering I suppose) or posting family catalogues, such as the casework families discussed in another thread.

It seems to me that there is a bar to this at present. If it were possible to embed a copyright notice in the family and to lock it for editing purposes then we might see a lot more content creation. At present if I, as a joinery manufacturer, make a range of well detailed window families, that display differently, but correctly, at different detail levels I cannot stop someone butchering them to represent a competitor's product or a bespoke product and I think that would put me off. I imagine the same thought process would hold true for a reseller or anyone else who was interested in producing quality families on a commercial basis.

P

[aaronrumple]

Yes. Revit, Autodesk and everyone else keep saying there is a lot of work for resellers in creating families. Unfortunatly until authors can protect their work, there is little money to be made in this area. If I go in as a consultant and set up one office's standards, symbols and families - within a few months that work will be spreed to every office in town. So my consulting stops after that first client.

The only logical model right now is an ongoing consulting servvice to keep a manufacture's content up-to-date. Unfortunatly this is seen as 100% overhead and of little value to the company. Of course we know this type of work is highly undervalued as designers are most likely to use the products they can get detailed and accurate information about.

With the parametrics of Revit - it becomes even more important to protect the designer's rights. If I gave a DWG to a client and they passed it onto the next architect, I've suffered some damage. But this next designer still has considerable effort involved in making revisions.

In a BIM system, as soon as I pass on my families or project - I've passed on all my embeded knowledge about "how" to design this project. I'm now irrelevent.

Revit needs a complete password/security system. There needs to be passwords at the workset level. Passwords at the project level. Passwords at the family level. You'll also need several levels of passwording. Some passwords should open the file for viewing, some for viewing and printing. Some for editing.

Until we have a administrative system in place for managing the access to the intelligence of a Revit project, I'd never pass out anything but PDF/DWF/DWG....

[Charlie]

Peter

Sorry, didn't see this thread. This should be a priority for Revit, for the reasons that Aaron laid out.

Content creation, which is the heart and soul of any model, is key to ease of use and adoption. I think we would see content creation explode if people had their rights protected.

[David Conant]

We are aware of this issue, the solution is not trivial. One of the important questions we need to answer is the level to which a family needs to be "locked down". Different levels will dictate different solution strategies. Too many options will create a prgramming nightmare.

What level of security would you want before building families for sale?

1. Allow family creator to lock down all aspects of a family including geometry, parameterization, type definitions, type names, etc. Do not allow copy/paste out of the family.

2. Allow family creator to lock down geometry and parameterization, but not type names and defintions. No copy/paste out. Family creator can emebed a non-modifiable identifier.

3. Allow family creator to embed a non-modifiable identifier, no restrictions on modification, copy/paste out prohibited

4. Allow family creator to embed a non-modifiable identifier, no restrictions on modification or copy/paste

[Wes Macaulay]

Hey David, I assume the "non-modifiable identifier" is the unique ID of an object in the Revit database?

It looks to me like option 2 would suit people best.

[Steve_Stafford]

Frankly, if I were buying families I'd want a money back guarantee. I haven't encountered many families that were so perfect that I didn't need to do a thing to them to make them work "right" for our practice. Those that weren't perfect were either close enough for now or easy enough to tweak to call it a day. That would not work well in a "lock down" scheme.

I'm being very general in that statement, no insults intended. But they are free!! You get what you pay for, right?

Now, pay for something that someone else created hoping it works for your firm only to find you can't do a thing except insert is great if they are "perfect". I'm afraid the "pay for families" scheme requires families custom built per client depending on the persnicketiness of the client. That will likely drive the cost out of the land of "reasonable"...?? (I know, it costs you something to do it yourself too....the experience of doing it has value too though)

I agree Mr. Conant, it is easier to say than do...

[Scott D Davis]

Part of it depends on the family. Lets say its something like Kohler plumbing fixtures. These should be locked so that changes to the geometry are not allowed. A particular sink may only come in one configuration, so changing its geometry with parameters does no good. But, while the geometry of the sink should be locked, other parameters such as 'height from floor' must be flexible.

[Steve_Stafford]

I agree, manufacturer's have an implicit need to be accurate and consistent so I'd tend to "trust" their families more. A proprietary object definitely deserves a limitation to changes A bed concerns me much less than more complex construction objects. I think Aaron summarized the level of control issues pretty well.

The ability of families to minimize effort in all views and detail level is where some families are not as well conceived. To often they work great in coarse but not in medium or fine or the reverse.

Handles on cabinets that show up in plan view in coarse for example. I guess I'd be wary of charging for my families since I have yet to make one that did everything it could/should. There's always something I could have done better.

[PeterJ]

The point made by Scott and Steve is valid, a manufacturer would need to lock editing of the family and to lock it to a locked type catalogue thus if I were specifiying an Ancon fixing (stainless brick support channels etc, if they ain't in your market place) the type catalogue would give me 5 lengths and 3 drop options with the fixing eyes remaining in the right location.

Doing that would ensure that if the Contractor ordered from Ancon the detalis would be correct or that if they ordered from elsewhere then redrawing etc would be required, or possible remodelling of the family, which the architect would probably not wish to do increasing the security of Ancon's position.

As an incidental, a structural engineer I do a lot of work with is in court with a contractor over delays relating to poor specification of fixing channels. Although it appears the contractor is in the wrong had the drawing been modelled with a locked type catalogue then it is likely the case would not have arisen saving insurers and so on a fortune in legal fees - which is always a good thing.

Steve's other point that a detail doesn't always work for him is something of a moot point. If the families were of a suitable quality then they would presumably be in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations for best practice, so why would you want to 'fix' them??

P

[Steve_Stafford]

Are you calling me Moot?? :shock: (thems fightin words on my street...) :D
I hope you're right about families for hire.

[PeterJ]

Steve, if the cap fits wear it Moot-boy.

[christopher.zoog51272]

Steve, if the cap fits wear it Moot-boy.

:lol: moot-boy.... that's a good one.

I too would like to see some control but also some flexibility. I think somewhere between level 2 and 3. Level two for specific manufacturers content and level 3 for generic-general use families made by a "content provider"

[PeterJ]

Is it not something which could be made optional thus the creator could have access to a dialog box much like the visibility box allowing you to check options for differing levels of control?

[bclarch]

The point made by Scott and Steve is valid, a manufacturer would need to lock editing of the family and to lock it to a locked type catalogue thus if I were specifiying an Ancon fixing (stainless brick support channels etc, if they ain't in your market place) the type catalogue would give me 5 lengths and 3 drop options with the fixing eyes remaining in the right location.

Doing that would ensure that if the Contractor ordered from Ancon the detalis would be correct or that if they ordered from elsewhere then redrawing etc would be required, or possible remodelling of the family, which the architect would probably not wish to do increasing the security of Ancon's position.

As an incidental, a structural engineer I do a lot of work with is in court with a contractor over delays relating to poor specification of fixing channels. Although it appears the contractor is in the wrong had the drawing been modelled with a locked type catalogue then it is likely the case would not have arisen saving insurers and so on a fortune in legal fees - which is always a good thing.

Steve's other point that a detail doesn't always work for him is something of a moot point. If the families were of a suitable quality then they would presumably be in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations for best practice, so why would you want to 'fix' them??

P

Isn't this issue present now with manufacturers or third parties providing blocks and drawings in .dwg format? Why would providing families be any different from a liability standpoint? Or am I missing something? Can .dwg files be locked? (As I said in the previous thread we don't use third party stuff other than manufacturer's details.) In case I am displaying my ignorance here I will be embarassed in advance. :oops:

[Steve_Stafford]

Internal Memo
TO: Z
RE: Mean Mistah Jay

Uh..Z, I can't seem to find the ZD employee complaint form? Did you move it?....oh, and you shouldn't encourage Mistah Jay. Remember you are the boss now and you have to LEAD by example!!

This has been a brief comedic interlude, you may return to serious matters

[christopher.zoog51272]

Internal Memo
TO: Z
RE: Mean Mistah Jay

Uh..Z, I can't seem to find the ZD employee complaint form? Did you move it?....oh, and you shouldn't encourage Mistah Jay. Remember you are the boss now and you have to LEAD by example!!

This has been a brief comedic interlude, you may return to serious matters


re: inernal memo

Memo to staff:

get back to work before i fire the lot of you <whip> :twisted:

Z

[bmadsen]

Can .dwg files be locked?

Yes, in AutoCAD 2004 you have "digital signatures" - but that is not optional by type of modification/save. David's 1,2,3,4 is much more complicated.

I agree with czoog that an option of 2 and 3 would be best.

About #2: Some manufacturers I have talked to have been burned by copy-cat producers. One has even gone to the trouble of copywriting each of their designs. (and paying lawyers to enforce it, I guess)

About #3: For those valuable "generic" families, the author of the work would want to get the credit (and the blame?)

[Vincent Valentijn]

I don't get the fuss.. who's talking about creating content for an architect's or building office?? that will -never- work or be copy-proof or something, and it doesn't have to.
Autodesk says, quite logically.. you could create content for product manufacturers, here copyright is NOT an issue at all.. the manufacturers simply want their content to be as wide-spread as possible. If other rebuilt their content to their needs, who cares? The only things you might want to 'lock' into the family is the original content manufacturer and the company [+hotlink] it has originated from.
Call me crazy..

[PeterJ]

Isn't this issue present now with manufacturers or third parties providing blocks and drawings in .dwg format? Why would providing families be any different from a liability standpoint? Or am I missing something? Can .dwg files be locked? (As I said in the previous thread we don't use third party stuff other than manufacturer's details.) In case I am displaying my ignorance here I will be embarassed in advance. :oops:

Robert

I don't know that the liability issue changes necessarily, but if a manufacturer creates a family it will get used from day one. In the dwg world if you make a window detail, maybe even an elevation block and a pan block, probably I will not use them at the scheme design stage as the windows don't need to be pinned down at the outset and I will be drawing details as a separate sheet, probably in a separate file. On the other hand if you give me a family I might use it from the outset because I won't want to change it during the drafting process if I don't need to and I will be adding greater detail within the same model as I go along. If the family is not right at the outset I may not wish to import a dwg to a detail sheet to indicate a detail I am not going to adhere to.

Overall my argument is more about needing families when the project is at scheme design stage than it is about whether details are correct etc.

P

[sbrown]

I'm not too sure many manufacturers would care about this, for example every big windoe mfg produces a CD of thier own windows and details, any cad user could copy those and edit them as needed. Why is a revit family any different. Someone took the time to draw those elevations and details in autocad, now someone will do it in revit. NO big deal.

If it is a big deal, then I would like a way to still modify the families you purchase, windows are an easy example where you would have diff. trim options you may try(maybe this could be handled with nested families, but I see problems just like today that the mfg creates all this content that we rarely use because its on the wrong layers or in revits case wrong object styles, can you imagine all the object styles that would be in a project if you had mfg content from multiple mfg all creating families with their own rules??? sounds like the layer nightmares of the past.

As this developes, Revit should set standards for diff object types(as they have allready)

Just my thoughts.

[Lashers]

I feel the need to comment here . . Peter has a valid point regarding the situation with manufactures, but I do feel that the problem is more related to the fact that manufacturers do not know what Revit can rteally do for thier business.

If I was a Ancon, I would make the wall ties, lock every possible dimension and get them out there! If some idiot "could be anybody" chooses to unlock the 15 odd locked dims and adjust the tie to suit their job - then they deserve all they get! I aggree with the point that I am more likley to use a product that is available for draughting than not.

Someone like a window manufacture I could see having a problem with butchery and use of a compeditor, but you can't win if you don't play!

Anyway, that's my 2p . . .
Lashers :wink:

[bclarch]

Peter,
Perhaps my comments were not as clear as they should have been but they were intended to make the very point that you are making. See my comments in this thread (http://www.zoogdesign.com/forums/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=692&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15&sid=a115eef50d41fc69de7258f78e6acc69). I think that manufacturer's should and will (eventually) provide content without worrying about locking and copyrights since they do it now in DWG format. After all, they want us to use their products. However, I see two reasons why we will probably have to wait for this to happen. 1. The manufacturer's need to be convinced that the user base is big enough to justify the costs of generating the families. I think this would be a hard sell to the bean counters at this point since no one really knows how many Revit seats are out there. 2. They either need to have someone in-house with Revit expertise or there need to be consultants out there that they can hire to do the work for them. This is where the entrepeneurial opportunity exists for the savvy Reviteer.

[gregcashen]

i think what we are talking about here is actually two different subjects.

On the one hand we want to be able to (maybe) control the level to which someone else can use our families. I personally do not want someone else taking my families and posting them on a pay-per-use site or bundling them in a CD and selling them.

On the other hand, we may want to limit the extent to which families can be edited/adjusted. There are several reasons for this. For one, a mfr may want to make sure that a component is not spec'ed wrong. They can essentially maintain "referential integrity" by making sure that a family can not be changed to reflect, for instance, a height that is not in production. Or maybe it simply adds a parameter stating that it is not a mfr spec but a customer defined spec, so the family can be tweaked, but it will be clear in the parameters that the type in use is not a mfr approved component.

Another reason a mfr may want to be able to lock the family is that they don't want their competitors to simply make changes to their families and release them as their own.

I know that there is a company that makes families for mfrs and that if they cannot guarantee that, for instance USP Lumber Connectors would not just modify the Simpson Connectors to suit their needs, that Simpson would not likely invest the money to have the families created. (The above is an example I came up with and in no way represents any actual situation; also, I am an engineer, so my example is over-engineery...sorry)

Anyway, I doubt I am adding anything new to this discussion, but I wanted to clarify the different reasons for this wishlist item. There are a lot of GOOD reasons for having some additional level of granularity in family-editability. There are probably some BAD ones too.

Greg

[Haden]

On the other hand, we may want to limit the extent to which families can be edited/adjusted. There are several reasons for this. For one, a mfr may want to make sure that a component is not spec'ed wrong. They can essentially maintain "referential integrity" by making sure that a family can not be changed to reflect, for instance, a height that is not in production. Or maybe it simply adds a parameter stating that it is not a mfr spec but a customer defined spec, so the family can be tweaked, but it will be clear in the parameters that the type in use is not a mfr approved component.
Greg
Many manufacturers have standard sizes, but can do custom sizes as well. It would make sense to be able to create a family with both "Standard Types" which could be locked by content creator/provider, as well as allow "Custom Types" to be created, whereby the geometry/parametrics were still locked. It could then be up to the manufacturer and the architect to coordinate so that the architect would not specify a size beyond the possible custom sizes (for example, a window which is too tall for a certain manufacturer to make, even as a custom size).

[Phil Palmer]

I dream of the day when we will utilise all necessary manufacturer;s content directly in our model and the have an option to electronically submit the model directy to them or the sub-contractor to then interogate the model and push back their tender with an instant price.

I wonder how long ?

[J. Grouchy]

On the subject of updates or changes to product lines that affect the model...

Might it be nice to have a clearinghouse site of some sort that manufacturers could post their families to (maybe not even just Revit, but other BIM parametric objects)? Then (and here's the dreaded S word) subscribers to that site (whether on a fee-based system or not) could be more up-to-date on any changes made to products they want to use in their project. I know there have been several occasions where slight changes in a product line have affected our CDs.
I don't know if there is currently a big enough user base to support a site like this...but as Revit and other BIM software become the norm, it sure would be a great way to know that you always have the 'official' and current version of the item you are using.

[hj]

hey guys, haven't posted here for a while but I was reading this thread and decided to jump in... as some of you know, the distribution of families is right down my alley. I think there is a level of personal responsibility that should be accepted when obtaining & modifying families created by others. To me it's like royalty-free stock photography images. You can buy them and modify them but not re-sell them (at least that's my understanding). If you do, you can be sued. Of course there's a few (or more) yahoo's out there who will try to Napster it but that's the way the world is. I don't think limiting what can be modified is good for all the free content out there. However a way to forever identify the original creator would be a good thing in my estimation.

[bclarch]

However a way to forever identify the original creator would be a good thing in my estimation.
There are two sides to every coin. What if someone else uses a family that you make that has a flaw in it which causes a construction error in the field? Will someone try to track you down and sue you because you created the family even though it was used on a project that you had nothing to do with? It might be a stretch but stranger things have happened.

[J. Grouchy]

There are two sides to every coin. What if someone else uses a family that you make that has a flaw in it which causes a construction error in the field? Will someone try to track you down and sue you because you created the family even though it was used on a project that you had nothing to do with? It might be a stretch but stranger things have happened.

Interesting...
Is a mere disclaimer enough?

[FK]

Purely personal opinion:

The technological solution (digital signatures/locks/passwords) to the social problem (copyright) is


expensive to implement
difficult to verify and maintain (it's fundamentally impossible to create a useable unbreakable system of controlled content sharing)
takes away more value than it adds (inconvenience, impediment of fair use, danger of losing keys vs. automatic extralegal protection of copyright) and

encourages an atmosphere of mutual distrust
Now, if the family you're publishing can be recreated by hand in a day (or a week), it will be recreated and the technological protection will be useless. The more inconvenience you build in, the quicker this will happen. You will have to go back to the legal system for protection. If your content is worth dozens of man-years you would keep it really close as a competitive advantage.

With software it's different - you spend millions on development, then you want to spread the product as far as possible. Still, generic things get reimplemented and set free (operating systems, productivity), but custom solutions for smaller markets (Revit) remain private.

So you want to think hard how many passwords you need.

[Prodev75]

Interesting...
Is a mere disclaimer enough?

It should be. In my mind content that is downloaded should be only as a guideline for your project.

[GuyR]

Still, generic things get reimplemented and set free (operating systems, productivity), but custom solutions for smaller markets (Revit) remain private.

Interesting thoughts Fedor. There would be many in the Construction Industry who would argue DWG is at the point it should be considered a generic solution. Therefore one would expect Autodesk to release DWG as an open standard or at least support the OpenDWG efforts :-)

The reality is the extent that copyright is protected has more to do with shareholder returns v's ensuring widespread adoption of the technology. Look at the tit for tat going on between Autodesk and Solidworks over Solidworks ability to edit DWG's. Why now? Because OpenDWG and Solidworks allows companies to be Autodesk free. Yet this is good for competition and the end user.

In many ways keeping families open to inspection is like Open source, It encourages innovation and learning which ultimately is good for all Revit users.

What I would like to see is the ability to make a family read-only. So to change the geometry in a family you have to save it with a new name. It would still allow new types but at least some control over geometry could be enforced. A createdby tag in a family would be good as well. This would get cleared when you save a family to a new name.

[PeterJ]

I would like to have copyright protection over families to prevent them being reverse engineered, not so much to prevent them being circulated. I appreciate that there is damn all that I can do to stop any family that I put out there being freely circulated if I choose to let it go a couple of steps beyond my direct control but I think that if manufacturers see that their family cannot be messed about with to change it to match the main competitor or, perhaps worse, the generic product they are more likely to be willing to model their products and put them out there.

Cheap content widely available but only only parametric to a certain predefined quantized type catalogue will surely make content delivery more attractive to key suppliers.

[aaronrumple]

expensive to implement
difficult to verify and maintain (it's fundamentally impossible to create a useable unbreakable system of controlled content sharing)
takes away more value than it adds (inconvenience, impediment of fair use, danger of losing keys vs. automatic extralegal protection of copyright) and
encourages an atmosphere of mutual distrust

.....uh - sounds like AutoCAD. ;-)

[FK]

...one would expect Autodesk to release DWG as an open standard or at least support the OpenDWG efforts :-)
Right. And one would expect Microsoft to support Linux.

Generic things become free because somebody can make them free, not because corporations choose so.


What I would like to see is the ability to make a family read-only. So to change the geometry in a family you have to save it with a new name. It would still allow new types but at least some control over geometry could be enforced. A createdby tag in a family would be good as well. This would get cleared when you save a family to a new name.
This looks relatively simple - no fooling yourself about "security", just an honest tag. If the file is altered, it's easy to verify that it's not a genuine copy by comparing with the published version, which would provide legal indemnity. No need for digital signatures.

[FK]

...if manufacturers see that their family cannot be messed about with to change it to match the main competitor or, perhaps worse, the generic product they are more likely to be willing to model their products and put them out there.
You know better, but I think it's not so problematic. The competitive advantage of the manufacturer is having the content on the site, or on CD with the catalog. Now, if a competitor rips them off and publishes the result, they can sue big time. Same for a generic ripoff.

If a private designer bends their content for their own purposes - big deal. The designer still has to do the bending and carry the legal risk. The manufacturer conveys limited advantage to the designer, while still creating a better name for itself.

[GuyR]

I would like to have copyright protection over families to prevent them being reverse engineered, not so much to prevent them being circulated


Right. And one would expect Microsoft to support Linux.

It's ironical the medium we are using to carry out this discussion was founded on the principles of openness and standards namely TCPIP and HTML. I have no doubt had MS and other been in control of the internet we wouldn't be having this conversation with such ease. In fact given their work on bastardising the HTML/ DOM model by implementing MS tags they've done a pretty good job already :-)

I once read one of the main reasons the internet expanded and developed so rapidly was you could view the source of a HTML document and learn from it.

So someone might learn something from your hard work developing a family. But you'll learn just as much from someone elses. For me this is why families should remain open. I do however think there needs to be someway a comparision can be done against a reference version. That is why I suggested the read-only switch.

Guy

Guy

[gregcashen]

My biggest problem, oddly enough, has nothing to do with intellectual property concerns at all. I am more concerned about being able to uniquely identify a family. I think the issue of updating a family only for it to be replaced during the automatic download by the base file is a real one. I know we should be managing our families ourselves and backing up etc, but the problem is, currently, even with a backup there is no way to tell which family is the one that you updated last. I would like to be able to add meta-data to a family in order to give it a description and then to have that description shown to me in a family manager.

[GuyR]

I would like to be able to add meta-data to a family in order to give it a description and then to have that description shown to me in a family manager.

Agree Greg. There is a definite need for this. It's on the wishlist already isn't it?

Guy

[gregcashen]

It is.

1234567890

[PeterJ]

You know better,
I should have married you, Fedor. She at home never says that.

[FK]

She at home gets upset whenever I say I don't know. :mrgreen:

[PeterJ]

We all have our crosses to bear