Specifications built on licensed master specs: what you cannot license

Why a project manual is rarely all your own text#

A project manual is rarely all the firm's own text, because many firms start their specifications from a commercial master guide specification licensed by subscription, such as MasterSpec or a similar product, and then edit them for each project. The specifier deletes, adds and adjusts, but large parts of the published text often remain.

Other sources sit alongside it: manufacturer guide specifications downloaded from product websites, owner front-end documents and Division 01 templates, consultant sections from structural and MEP engineers, and quoted passages from codes and reference standards. Each source carries its own terms.

That mix is normal for producing project specifications. The narrower question here is what the firm may do with the resulting text outside the project, including licensing it.

Screen list: third-party text inside firm documents#

Third-party text in A/E documents usually comes from six sources: commercial master specifications, manufacturer guide specifications, owner front-end documents, consultant sections, quoted codes and standards, and office masters built on a commercial master. Treat every row below as restricted until its terms have been checked.

Citations differ from quotations. A section that requires compliance with a standard by name and number is referencing it; a section that reproduces paragraphs of that standard contains third-party text.

What does a master spec license usually allow?#

A master spec license usually allows the subscribing firm to edit the text and issue it in project specifications for its clients, and restricts most other uses. Licenses commonly limit redistribution of the master itself, sharing with non-subscribers outside a project and use for purposes other than producing specifications. Terms differ by publisher and change over time.

Licensing a set of project manuals to an AI developer is a use outside producing project specifications, and a large set of edited sections could carry much of the master's text. Whether any license permits that is a question for the agreement and counsel, and the safe starting position is that it does not.

Read the current agreement and, where possible, the terms in force when each specification was produced. If the firm wants a broader right, the route is written permission from the publisher, not an interpretation of what the license leaves unsaid.

What usually remains licensable#

What usually remains licensable is the firm's own judgment around the specification text, recorded in its own words. That material is often more useful to AI developers than the spec text itself, because it captures decisions rather than standard language.

Each item still passes through the ordinary rights review. Client contracts, confidentiality terms and owner-drafted ownership clauses can restrict the firm's own records too, and personal details of contractors and reviewers need removal before anything leaves the firm.

• 1Substitution request reviews: the request, the reviewer's analysis and the decision.
• 2Submittal review comments that cite spec sections.
• 3RFIs about specification requirements and the firm's responses.
• 4Specifier coordination notes and internal QA/QC comments on the project manual.
• 5Product selection memos explaining why a system was chosen.
• 6Sections written entirely in-house, where the firm can show no master text was used.
• 7Metadata such as which sections each project used, without the section text.

How to separate firm text from licensed text#

Separating firm text from licensed text means comparing each section against the master release it came from. The comparison is manageable for recent work and difficult for older archives.

Where licensed spec text turns up outside the project manual#

Licensed spec text turns up outside the project manual more often than firms expect, so the screen has to cover drawings and correspondence too. Specifiers and project architects copy paragraphs into general notes, keynote files, proposal boilerplate and internal templates, and the origin of the text is rarely marked.

The same applies in the other direction during construction administration. Reviewers often paste specification paragraphs into submittal comments, RFI responses and substitution decisions to show the contractor what was required. Those records are otherwise among the firm's most licensable material, so preparation should flag long quoted passages and either remove them or replace them with a section reference, keeping the reviewer's own reasoning intact.

A simple test catches most cases: if a passage reads like standard specification language rather than a person's judgment about a specific situation, check where it came from before it goes into any shared or licensed copy.

Illustrative: counsel screens a specification archive#

Illustrative: a fictional architecture firm, Pell & Ashdown, produced specifications for schools and municipal buildings from a commercial master spec, with an office master layered on top. When the firm explored licensing its project records, its general counsel asked what the specifications would contribute.

The screen showed that nearly every section derived from the commercial master or from manufacturer guide specs, and that the firm had not kept the master releases used on older projects. Owner front-end documents from school districts carried confidentiality terms of their own.

Counsel excluded specification text from scope. The firm instead put forward its substitution request reviews, spec-related RFIs and internal spec review comments on projects under standard-form contracts, with long quoted spec passages replaced by section references. The master spec subscription continued unchanged for project work.

How SourceX handles third-party content in a package#

SourceX screens for third-party content in the Rights step of the SourceX five-step transaction, and licensed master spec text, manufacturer content and quoted standards are excluded unless the rights holder grants permission in writing. The SourceX Evidence Packet records the licensing rights basis and the exclusions for each record family, so the firm and the buyer see the same account of what was left out and why.