Portfolios (was: Guidance for someoneinterestedinyour field)
15 Apr 2004 - 8:43pm
At 7:34 PM -0700 4/15/04, Pabini Gabriel-Petit wrote:
>In response to Elizabeth Dykstra-Erickson's statement: >> >> >But a spec is the property of the company for whom it was developed. >> >They are *always* considered proprietary and confidential as far as I >> >know. > >Elizabeth Buie wrote: >> Not if the "company" is the US Government. >> If the spec is a formal deliverable, and if the project is not classified >> or "for official use only", I suspect the spec might be made public. US >> Government documents are not copyrighted. > >Thanks for your reply Elizabeth. Interesting. You may just have motivated a >lot more of us to do some government work. :-) > >Pabini Gabriel-Petit
I've never seen a copyright on a spec -- marking a document
proprietary is different than copyrighting. Copyrighting implies
access but no privilege to copy. Proprietary (confidential,
proprietary, for x eyes only, etc. - many companies have different
levels of protection on internal documents) means that it is
explicitly NOT sharable outside the company, and sometimes outside
the team that developed it, especially when copies are numbered and
Just commenting here on the difference between the two, which is considerable.
Since a spec in commercial work is generally a detailed blueprint of
a product that contains intellectual property, it is a competitive
resource. Apple finally wised up and quit posting pages of specs in
the hallways when Steve returned and wanted to stop the leaks. That,
by the way, was also the reason he cancelled usability studies - too
much external exposure.
I daresay it would make a good many companies uncomfortable to think
that their designers or design consultants were sharing information
this way. Open source is of course a different animal.