Copyright control of families

[PeterJ]

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

[christopher.zoog51272]

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

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. ops:

[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>

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. ops:

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.