Thread: ASTM E 2018

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

JP: And, how does that square with an attorney copying verbatim an entire copyrighted website and trotting it out to use as ammunition against an expert? Which, by the way, is perfectly legal.

I'm not so sure that is "perfectly legal", but ...

... his use is for "educational purposes", which is not the same as an inspector using a copyrighted form to inspect to and make money from.

The Fair Use doctrine has limits, and while nothing is spelled out, there are 'accepted uses' which are - well, "acceptable" and there are 'unaccepted uses' in which one may have to defend that use, and incur high legal fees doing so, and may eventually lose the legal battle.

... his use is for "educational purposes", which is not the same as an inspector using a copyrighted form to inspect to and make money from.

JP: Hold on a minute there. Are you implying that the attorney is not profiting from his "educational" use of the material. How is an HI using an ASTM standard to "educate" his client not the same thing?

For that matter, how is it that quoting building code citations in a report is not also taboo?

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

JP: Hold on a minute there. Are you implying that the attorney is not profiting from his "educational" use of the material. How is an HI using an ASTM standard to "educate" his client not the same thing?

Nope, not the same thing.

The attorney is using that as an example of what the inspector stated on their web site and for whatever other examples it is being referenced to.

The home inspector is using that document as a guide to perform their inspection to, and that document as the form and format for their report.

BIG differences in the use of that copyrighted material.

For that matter, how is it that quoting building code citations in a report is not also taboo?

Because, like the attorney in the example above, the HI is using that as supporting documentation to educate the reader, not printing the document to sell (as the HI using that document for their inspection and report is basically doing).

Do some more reading of the Fair Use doctrine and what is said about it and the differences will become obvious as to why one may be allowed (the attorney's use) and one is not allowed (the HI's use as their report).

The attorney is using that as an example of what the inspector stated on their web site and for whatever other examples it is being referenced to.

The home inspector is using that document as a guide to perform their inspection to, and that document as the form and format for their report.

BIG differences in the use of that copyrighted material.

JP: You stated that about as clearly as mud. Care to try again?

Because, like the attorney in the example above, the HI is using that as supporting documentation to educate the reader, not printing the document to sell (as the HI using that document for their inspection and report is basically doing).

JP: Wrong thinking. The attorney is plying his trade, i.e. making money, by using the copyrighted material to "sell" his opinion to a jury. The HI is essentially doing the same thing by using the copyrighted ASTM material in the plying of his trade to "sell" the readers of his reports on his opinion. There is no difference, in my way of thinking.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

Care to try again?

Okay, here goes a simpler description of the differences.

A) I print 1,000 copies of the NEC from a pdf file and sell them, pocketing the proceeds of the sales for my own.

I am sure that you agree A) is not allowed and would be considered copyright infringement. Right?

B) I post a particular NEC code section here to help you understand why I said what I said and to help with your knowledge level of understanding what is required and why. That falls within the Fair Use doctrine for using excerpts for educational purposes, and, there is no monetary value gained from the non-sale of that excerpt.

I am sure you agree that B) is allowed and would not be considered a copyright infringement. Right?

C) I supply the court with a particular NEC code section to help the judge/jury understand why I said what I said and to help with their knowledge level of understanding what is required and why. I made no monetary sale or gain from that particular section of the NEC and it was an excerpt and not the NEC in its entirety. That falls within the Fair Use doctrine for using excerpts for educational purposes, and, there is no monetary value gained from that non-sale of that excerpt as that NEC excerpt itself was not sold and therefore was not given a monetary value, even though it made me a more creditable expert and as such added to my value - it was only supporting MY EXPERT OPINION, and it was MY EXPERT OPINION and time which was being sold.

Do you now understand why that is not an infringement of the copyright and falls within the Fair Use doctrine?

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

Yes, the International SOP for Inspecting Commercial Properties is regularly pointed to (in court) as the standard by which inspectors should inspect commercial properties to. Many home inspectors trying to enter the commercial inspection business, erroneously try to apply their residential SOP to a commercial property inspection and get themselves into a jam.

Prove it.

A) I print 1,000 copies of the NEC from a pdf file and sell them, pocketing the proceeds of the sales for my own.

JP: Then you're busted.

I am sure that you agree A) is not allowed and would be considered copyright infringement. Right?

JO: OK, so far.

B) I post a particular NEC code section here to help you understand why I said what I said and to help with your knowledge level of understanding what is required and why. That falls within the Fair Use doctrine for using excerpts for educational purposes, and, there is no monetary value gained from the non-sale of that excerpt.

JP: That sound legit.

I am sure you agree that B) is allowed and would not be considered a copyright infringement. Right?

JP: Yes, I would think so.

C) I supply the court with a particular NEC code section to help the judge/jury understand why I said what I said and to help with their knowledge level of understanding what is required and why. I made no monetary sale or gain from that particular section of the NEC and it was an excerpt and not the NEC in its entirety. That falls within the Fair Use doctrine for using excerpts for educational purposes, and, there is no monetary value gained from that non-sale of that excerpt as that NEC excerpt itself was not sold and therefore was not given a monetary value, even though it made me a more creditable expert and as such added to my value - it was only supporting MY EXPERT OPINION, and it was MY EXPERT OPINION and time which was being sold.

JP: Agreed. But, that is not consistent with the facts surrounding the origin of this conversation.

Someone posted a link to a website that had an old, tired, dusty copy of an ASTM standard resident there. The person who posted that link was merely acting as a search engine. He did not post the ASTM document, nor did he even recommend that the readers of his post go there and read it. In fact, before he posted the link, he recommended that one should purchase a copy of the ASTM doc. How is that copyright infringement? It is not. Period.

Now as to your last comment, the fictitious attorney in question only used experts of the NEC and not the entire document. So then, your analogy breaks down a bit there, when you consider that the attorney in my example used the entire website - not just excerpts - by way of making a point and a buck. Follow so far?

So, if the attorney is OK using an entire body of work by way of proving up his opinion, i.e. "educating" the jury, then why is a home inspector remiss if he uses an entire copy of an ASTM standard to support his opinion in an inspection report?

What's good for the goose . . .

JP: Additionally, and I did not want to go this far - but was provoked - from U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair (bolding and underlining is mine):

• 1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
  2. The nature of the copyrighted work
  3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
  4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.
Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

How do you propose to substantiate your notion that the attorneys in question are using the copyrighted material for nonprofit educational purposes? That, my Flahidian friend, is a stretch of spandexian proportion.

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

Upheld all the time. InterNACHI is the world's largest inspection trade association, operating in 55 countries and nine different languages. Residential and Commercial inspections are our only focus (we aren't into jet fuels ).

2018 isn't an SOP at all. It is a Scope of Work permission form that requires little, prohibits little, and puts the inspector in the precarious position of providing repair estimates.

Have you read International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties - InterNACHI ?

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

Yes, the International SOP for Inspecting Commercial Properties is regularly pointed to (in court) as the standard by which inspectors should inspect commercial properties to. Many home inspectors trying to enter the commercial inspection business, erroneously try to apply their residential SOP to a commercial property inspection and get themselves into a jam.

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

Scott, you are ignorant of the role of our judicial branch. A judge doesn't print off an SOP and nail it to a courthouse wall under a big "Recognized" sign.

More realistically, one party in a commercial property disupute will submit into evidence the International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties as the "industry standard." No argument has ever been proffered that the International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties is anything less than THEE industry standard for inspecting commercial properties, because it is the industry standard, worldwide.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

L.E.:

Something isn't "Tested" until it has met and withstood Appellate challenges, and oftentimes further review. How about a Federal District Court? Even one? A single case citation? A single venue? how about a list of more than one - since the claim involved multiple courtS (let alone differing jurisdictions in one state or country) in multiple countries!

I suggest she get a handle on what expert testimony and credentialling is all about.

Peer review, known or potential error rate, existance AND MAINTENANCE of Standards and CONTROLS concerning operation, and the degree to which the technique or standard is GENERALLY ACCEPTED. CONSENSUS and REVIEW - something Nacho doesn't have. Outside auditing, etc. (Oh my Gosh, I read like R.W.!).

I pity the sorry bloke who learns the hard way defending such a "certificate", "credential" or NACHO "standard".

Is it just me, or is the whole Nicko organization tree becoming even more "Kevin Trudeau(sp?)-esque" (the ex-con, self-publishing, infomercial guru who backs many more "front" heads) then ever? Why is it anyone who questions even one bit of obvious overstatement, let alone downright falsehood, be instantly branded some sort of devious troublemaker?

Ms. Lisa or someone needs ONLY SUPPLY THE CITATIONS or RETRACT the erroneous overstatement. These other persons (or alter egos) serve to throw mud and attempt to derail the subject and BURY (e.g. HIDE) the unsupported exageration from Inter-NACHI's "Director of Communication" in more manure.

A short while back some paid advertising for Nacho appeared. I haven't seen it lately. At the very least something not-quite-right with a marketing/communications director posting PUFFING for an organization that SHOULD BE PAYING for the UNSOLICITED ADVERTISING/promotion for Inter-Nachi (N.G., et. al.) on this site.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

HG: Wouldn't it be grand if it were so simple with these particular folks?

Inter-NACHo's "Director of Communications" is apparently the one "ignorant" of how the court systems work in this (and many other) countries.

A Court doesn't "point to" an outside "standard".

A Court makes "findings" and "rulings".

A "finding" or "ruling" isn't "Upheld" unless it has been subject to an appeal and the "Finding" or "ruling" has been "upheld".

I never said otherwise.

The point is that International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties - InterNACHI is now THEE international standard for inspecting commercial properties.

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

The point is that International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties - InterNACHI is now THEE international standard for inspecting commercial properties.

Just who says it is the international standards, outside of INACHI?

The forklift driver at Inspector Outlet 's book warehouse.

Lisa

Not arguing or picking a fight or denying you of what ever you believe but I do have a few questions

Number one.....How can you even call it the International Standards of Practice for inspecting commercial buildings. To even be called such that means that is is *THE* standard that has been accepted over all others in every country and not just by some of the inspectors.

Number 2.....Who says it is the Standard beside yourself and some inspectors?????

Please do not come back with the court thing. I have scanned and scoured the planet for anything that says that NACHIs standards are the sought after world wide commercial standards for the inspection of commercial buildings or any court finding that based their ruling on *your* standards being followed or more importantly that NACHIs standards were not followed.

I am just not finding it anywhere at all with the exception of some inspectors.

Then we have this thing that there really are no standards as some one else or many someones already brought forward. Many if not most clients I have are interested in particular items for the inspection. There is nothing anywhere that says that I cannot just inspect those items or what I have to or have not to inspect or what I write about them. Again, the question is.........Where do you get your statement from

"is now THEE international standard for inspecting commercial properties."

I am not finding it anywhere besides you on this forum.

Don't get upset or feel bashed or harassed. I would simply like a straight forward answer besides quoting what a few folks on the planet say.

There are no standards that have to be adhered to at all in any state that I know of that says that the commercial inspectors must follow NACHIs commercial inspecting standards and report by those standards and that every inspector must inspect and report on these items.

Just some simple questions that should have very simple, straight forward answers to.

In my state one does not even have to adhere to the ASTM E 2018 in the slightest (but I know it is the somewhat adhered to standard) but is pretty much followed when it comes down to particular items.

I can inspect any item in any commercial building and report on it as I wish (obviously there may be some repercussions but I am sure you get my gist)

Where does it say anywhere in any state guidelines that the INACHI standards have to be adhered to and where in any court system anywhere has someone got penalized for not adhering to the INACHI standards for inspecting commercial standards. One of those has to have happened to be THE ACCEPTED STANDARD

Take each point individually and take your time and look up the info somewhere. I would truly like to know. I am not just being a sharp spear in ones butt. Please, real solid fact filled answers. Why? Because if what you are saying is fact I would like to know for my well being in business. If it is something you and INACHI are out just promoting to get to be the standard then just say so. There cannot be an in-between.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

The forklift driver at Inspector Outlet 's book warehouse.

The forklift driver says this is now the international standard?

OK, if you say so. So according to the Forklift driver the INACHI International Commercial Inspection Standard is now the accepted standard that is used by folks around the world.

Can't argue with the forklift driver!

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

The forklift driver at Inspector Outlet 's book warehouse.

Please

Do not answer my last post like that.

All that was , was a shameless plug for the website. You are starting to make me believe that everything you posted here is a plug for INACHI and if it is bring it to Brian's attention for advertising fees.

No, it was merely to reinforce my previous assertion that International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties - InterNACHI is by far our best selling book, worldwide. We sell and ship pallets of them every month.

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

No, it was merely to reinforce my previous assertion that International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties - InterNACHI is by far our best selling book, worldwide. We sell and ship pallets of them every month.

Yet another shameless plug for INACHIs businesses.

Seriously. That is all you ever do when you come on here. Isn't that what there is paid advertising on here for. Get with the program and stop with the relentless no reply, plug, plug, plug answers. We are not a bunch of brain dead fools. Try it some where else. Come out of the fog. Open a window or something.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

Yet another shameless plug for INACHIs businesses.

Seriously. That is all you ever do when you come on here. Isn't that what there is paid advertising on here for. Get with the program and stop with the relentless no reply, plug, plug, plug answers. We are not a bunch of brain dead fools. Try it some where else. Come out of the fog. Open a window or something.

Ted, they are paying for advertisements on this website.... You can click on the ad and it takes you to their site, you should try it... They also have some paid placement Google ads that you can click on as well.

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

Ted, they are paying for advertisements on this website.... You can click on the ad and it takes you to their site, you should try it... They also have some paid placement Google ads that you can click on as well.

I know that. That is why I said "Isn't that what there is paid advertising on here for"

They are already paying for advertising on here so let it be as it is. The only reason she keeps it up is for the direct hits back to there business pages. To play it up as much as possible she acts like a valley girl that does not understand and continues to do the same repeated act.

They are now advertising that all their online courses are now accepted as by Texas for CEUs which is hard enough to believe by I am about to check it out. Did you notice I am not using their name for another shameless plug.

asafg

Originally Posted by Mark Howe

asafg

OK, I will ask.... What does it mean?

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

OK, I will ask.... What does it mean?

Nothing. Just rolled my fingers on the keboard because you have to have at least 5 letters for the post to take. I didnt like the tone of my OP and took it down, but you have to have something in there.

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

The forklift driver at Inspector Outlet 's book warehouse.

And here I was expecting you to come back with a cite for Scott's request. Since you haven't (or can't) your response above has just blown any credibility I thought you might have had.