spledeus, post: 423334, member: 3579 wrote: Oh, I am not saying that I would make a new client not pay for the services. I am just making the reasonable distinction that the work product is mine and I can resell it to whomever I desire with or without the permission of the former property owner. In most cases, the seller sends the buyer to me for the information to expedite the sale.
Now if the client told me something in confidence, I would hold that information as confidential. Facts are generally not privileged information, especially if those facts can be recreated by others.
I disagree with you on this, If I do a survey for a client's property, and his neighbor comes to me with a check and ask how much to buy a copy of that survey. I would tell him I am sorry I did that work for your neighbor, you need to ask him to sell you a copy,
It occurs to me that client mix may play a large role in views on this matter. About 90% of my work comes from repeat clients who place a high value on trust. That might not be as important in a business that relies mostly on a constantly-changing client list.
Scott Ellis, post: 423341, member: 7154 wrote: I disagree with you on this, If I do a survey for a client's property, and his neighbor comes to me with a check and ask how much to buy a copy of that survey. I would tell him I am sorry I did that work for your neighbor, you need to ask him to sell you a copy,
Yes I agree that you can't sell the exact same work product or map to a neighbor, but you do have ownership of the boundary info and if you were to do a "little" extra field work for a neighbor you could charge a similar price as the first survey even if it took only a fraction of the time.
I have had many a neighbor to approach me while I was surveying in the neighborhood and ask me to survey their property.
Most of the time I did just that and charged everyone accordingly.
On other occasions I would have to tell them that I would be back soon to finish if that was agreeable to them.
When I return to a property to update a survey, I do make enough changes in the drawing that it is very different in appearance to the former drawings.
Hack, post: 421287, member: 708 wrote: I've run into this a few times now and would like the opinions of others.
About a year ago we prepared Elevation Certificates for a client. The client was the developer of a condo complex. He sold the unit at about the same time. I received a request (actually a demand) from the insurance agent of the new owner for a copy of the EC. She needs it today because her client wants a new insurance quote. She did not ask to make any changes such as owner, date, etc. In our area the going rate is somewhere around $1,200.
Would you give her a copy? Would you charge? If so what would you charge
Hack
I agree with Frame, the original work product belongs to whomever your contract was with. If the current owners obtain approval from your client in writing, then you provide them a copy. If not, they can either pay for a new one or figure something else out.
WA-ID Surveyor, post: 423365, member: 6294 wrote: I agree with Frame, the original work product belongs to whomever your contract was with. If the current owners obtain approval from your client in writing, then you provide them a copy. If not, they can either pay for a new one or figure something else out.
My contracts say the complete opposite.
As a business point, I don't give out copies of surveys to anyone other than the party that paid me. If they can get it through other channels then more power to them. This does not mean that I will use the original data to create product for a new client. It just means that they do not get enjoy for free what another paid for.
I tell them to go to the courthouse where nearly all work is readily available.
Joe the Surveyor, post: 423542, member: 118 wrote: My contracts say the complete opposite.
Every proposal includes an Attachment that covers a whole bunch of things including document ownership. I hate it when an attorney us the client and they attempt to rip the attachment apart. They usually want to own the document and the data... They have neither the expertise to properly handle the data not the likely desire to bear the liability...
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk