TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => Topic started by: Mark on July 21, 2015, 07:16:10 AM
-
After January 31, 2016, new perpetual licenses of most individual Autodesk software will no longer be available for purchase. The time is now to take advantage of two great offers that, when combined, will help your business address these changes. This offer ends July 24th so act now to obtain the best option for your business.
What is a perpetual license?
-
Is that a rhetorical question?
-
That's a license where you pay for the software once, and can use it as long and as much as you want. The alternative is a rental scheme, misnamed 'desktop subscription', where a user pays the vendor every month/quarter/year for the right to keep using the software. And the day you decide to no longer continue paying for a seat, it quits running.
The latter scheme lets businesses hire and fire pretty freely, since they can expand and shrink their licenses number pretty readily, and have less of a sunk cost or ongoing maintenance fees. Vendors believe they will increase revenuses by renting software rather than selling perpeptual licenses, since the total expenditure is higher over the long term.
-
After January 31, 2016, new perpetual licenses of most individual Autodesk software will no longer be available for purchase. The time is now to take advantage of two great offers that, when combined, will help your business address these changes. This offer ends July 24th so act now to obtain the best option for your business.
What is a perpetual license?
It's what you have now. You buy it then pay a yearly subscription (maintenance) fee and get "free" upgrades.
-
Thanks! I thought this would make an interesting discussion. Adobe went this way a year(?) ago. I have heard a few complaints but nothing major. Well until the customers could not connect to the license server network. :)
This could be great for the small business folks if the price is right!
-
Pricing will be interesting.... initially, the five year cost of software rental is going to have to be lower than the 5 year cost of maintenance subscription to get any traction. Once customers have bought in, and will have great difficulty migrating away, I would expect the cost to begin incrementing rather steeply. That first taste of heroin is always free after all.....
Tas wise, it's a decent option in the US, since subscription costs are immediately deductible as a business expense, vs a capital expenditure for mutli-thousand dollar software that has to be depreciated over multiple years. No different in that regard than buying office space vs renting one.
From a human perspective, it (IMO) encourages the treatment of staff as disposable commodities. bring people on board when needed, kick them out the door when not. Short term thinking.....
As a shareholder, I think it's going to be a nice short term gain in Adesk revenue, but I'm not optimistic that it will be sustainable, and could very well crash. As a _customer_, Bricsys, Carlson, and Graebert are looking much more attractive in the long run.
After all, one of the lessons we've learned from maintenance subscription (eg paying for the next version in advance without knowing what's going to be in it) is that the putative upgrades only rarely improve productivity, and often reflect software fashionability instead of what I need or could use.
-
In the end this is NOT good for the consumer (user) this is about revenue stream for autodesk.
As mentioned above, and as I have been pointing out for YEARS this is really BAD for overall
reliability, interoperability and improvements to the product in the long run.
Really, IF all you are getting from your subscription fees is knowledge of the cost of the software license and
a few minor improvements and fewer bug fixes what are you really getting for your money?
The ONLY people this makes sense to are accountants and or shareholders, to all others there is little valid reasons to consider this a 'good thing'.
-
Once again, your biased to all things AutoDesk is clouding your vision.
Desktop Subscription can have a real value to the occasional freelance drafter or someone starting a new business. No longer is it necessary to come up with a huge investment for the software. In fact, the cost is so reasonable that it could be worked into the fees for a contract or spread out over multiple jobs. I see it as an opportunity.
-
That's especially true for some of the more esoteric products. Somebody may be doing presentation work part-time, so there is no way they could afford, say, a full-on perpetual 3DSMAX license for only a month or three of work.
Something that just occurred to me is this is like a more personal version of token licensing. Use what you need, when you need, and get charged for that and not when you aren't using it.
-
Really, IF all you are getting from your subscription fees is knowledge of the cost of the software license and
a few minor improvements and fewer bug fixes what are you really getting for your money?
With the subscription model couldn't Adesk focus more on bugs than improvements?
-
Really, IF all you are getting from your subscription fees is knowledge of the cost of the software license and
a few minor improvements and fewer bug fixes what are you really getting for your money?
With the subscription model couldn't Adesk focus more on bugs than improvements?
Yes it seems that is exactly what they do....produce MORE bugs and fewer improvement!
Think of all the things that do not YET work inside C3D which you use....and ask why has the subscription model not yet rendered all those defects
'fixed'? The thing should be nearly perfect by now, yet most of the annoying aspects remain broken. right?
-
The occasional rental option might be a good thing for some, however I think for the majority of full time users of the product
users this is not a good thing.
I think this shift is also exposing customer reluctance to continue to buy in to the current subscription model (product suites).
And autodesk is simply rebranding that model, while at the same time attempting to extract more revenue for less development effort.
-
Really, IF all you are getting from your subscription fees is knowledge of the cost of the software license and
a few minor improvements and fewer bug fixes what are you really getting for your money?
With the subscription model couldn't Adesk focus more on bugs than improvements?
Yes it seems that is exactly what they do....produce MORE bugs and fewer improvement!
Think of all the things that do not YET work inside C3D which you use....and ask why has the subscription model not yet rendered all those defects
'fixed'? The thing should be nearly perfect by now, yet most of the annoying aspects remain broken. right?
You completely missed my point.
If they put everyone on a perpetual license they don't NEED to keep adding, so called, improvements and calling it a new product so we, the consumer, think we're getting something new for our money. They can focus on actually fixing bugs and making real improvements to the software.
-
Really, IF all you are getting from your subscription fees is knowledge of the cost of the software license and
a few minor improvements and fewer bug fixes what are you really getting for your money?
With the subscription model couldn't Adesk focus more on bugs than improvements?
Yes it seems that is exactly what they do....produce MORE bugs and fewer improvement!
Think of all the things that do not YET work inside C3D which you use....and ask why has the subscription model not yet rendered all those defects
'fixed'? The thing should be nearly perfect by now, yet most of the annoying aspects remain broken. right?
You completely missed my point.
If they put everyone on a perpetual license they don't NEED to keep adding, so called, improvements and calling it a new product so we, the consumer, think we're getting something new for our money. They can focus on actually fixing bugs and making real improvements to the software.
They won't do that, as they will still feel a need to attract new customers and or continue to respond to 'wish list sh!t' to maintain users....
I find it interesting that people don't ask loudly or often enough to have the crap in all of this stuff fixed before asking for something new;
given that it (the new thing) doesn't quite work either when introduced, or creates other problems to deal with as well.
-
Really, IF all you are getting from your subscription fees is knowledge of the cost of the software license and
a few minor improvements and fewer bug fixes what are you really getting for your money?
With the subscription model couldn't Adesk focus more on bugs than improvements?
Yes it seems that is exactly what they do....produce MORE bugs and fewer improvement!
Think of all the things that do not YET work inside C3D which you use....and ask why has the subscription model not yet rendered all those defects
'fixed'? The thing should be nearly perfect by now, yet most of the annoying aspects remain broken. right?
You completely missed my point.
If they put everyone on a perpetual (pay as you go) license they don't NEED to keep adding, so called, improvements and calling it a new product so we, the consumer, think we're getting something new for our money. They can focus on actually fixing bugs and making real improvements to the software.
Sorry, screwed that up.
-
That's especially true for some of the more esoteric products. Somebody may be doing presentation work part-time, so there is no way they could afford, say, a full-on perpetual 3DSMAX license for only a month or three of work.
Something that just occurred to me is this is like a more personal version of token licensing. Use what you need, when you need, and get charged for that and not when you aren't using it.
At one level, that makes sense. Just rent 3DSMax for a month, get your presentation done, and terminate the sub.
Except -- that pretty much guarantees that whomever is doing the presentation graphics has little to no professional experience. Pragmatically, the situation where rental of complex makes $ense, also requires high end, professional talent. The tools are cheap to rent - the ability to use them well is not. A realstic assesment of the needs would almost always result in hiring a professional on contract, one who is in that line of business,
Renting a Hasselblad H5D-50 for a month does not turn a snapshooter into a fashion photographer.
-
Except -- that pretty much guarantees that whomever is doing the presentation graphics has little to no professional experience.
I don't see the correlation. In fact, someone who works for a company that supplies the software who does the occasional side job can afford a desktop subscription and would be more likely to offer their services and pay for a short term subscription, than if they had to pay full price or illegally use company software for personal business.
-
I see all these 'innovative projects' adsk launches and develops and wonder who really is paying for this. AutoCAD is the money cow that needs no big maintenance. As a result of this new approach customers will think much more. And with good competition around the corner there might actually be more innovation brought into AutoCAD. Especially in the combination with Revit and inventor..
-
Desktop Subscription can have a real value to the occasional freelance drafter or someone starting a new business. No longer is it necessary to come up with a huge investment for the software. In fact, the cost is so reasonable that it could be worked into the fees for a contract or spread out over multiple jobs. I see it as an opportunity.
Sure, this is awesome. All of your points are valid.
If only this were an OPTION.
The problem is we are all being forced into this model, regardless if perpetual licenses fit our business better. (I know not all perpetual licenses are being dropped now, but it's coming)
-
I understand. I was only posting an OpEd to the broad brush comment that this is not good for the consumer, pointing out that this could generate more consumers. I did not say or imply that it was good for everyone, or even the majority. Just that there are some people that are going to benefit from this.
-
I understand. I was only posting an OpEd to the broad brush comment that this is not good for the consumer, pointing out that this could generate more consumers. I did not say or imply that it was good for everyone, or even the majority. Just that there are some people that are going to benefit from this.
And likewise, I was simply pointing out a flaw in "the new system"... not directing that reply at you per se. Your reply simply contained good reasons to offer a rental plan.
-
Except -- that pretty much guarantees that whomever is doing the presentation graphics has little to no professional experience.
I don't see the correlation. In fact, someone who works for a company that supplies the software who does the occasional side job can afford a desktop subscription and would be more likely to offer their services and pay for a short term subscription, than if they had to pay full price or illegally use company software for personal business.
To become really capable of professional grade work with a complex application like Max requires a substantial investment of time and passion. Doing hack-level work may be easy - and I've done it at that level - but to get to be really good is not for everyone. Doing AutoCAD all day long, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, with a lot of back and forth, means that I've gotten competent at doing Acad. It doesn't mean that a month or three of access to 3d Studio will let me do professional grade work.
It seems much more reasonable for the organization that can't justify a full time animation and rendering guru on the payroll, to _hire_ that expertise on a contract. It will take that person much less time to accomplish far better results tha Jane Designer will in a month of exposure.
Like any professional level of work, whether designing subdivision or writing code, you don't get good without a lot of critiquing from experts.
-
Really, IF all you are getting from your subscription fees is knowledge of the cost of the software license and
a few minor improvements and fewer bug fixes what are you really getting for your money?
With the subscription model couldn't Adesk focus more on bugs than improvements?
Yes.
That is major benefit of this model which we do not get and pay for.
Continuous delivery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_delivery)
It has so many benefits from smaller release's that can be easier managed,
to IT knowing if there is a problem they do not have to wait months to a year for a chance for fix, and will know quickly if feasible or not.
Also allows company to easily have users give feedback with new features.
Mark started a thread about new windows.
Would anyone use a company that you sent a description of windows wanted, then the company would come a year later, fully install the windows, then ask if these windows meet your description.
-
To become really capable of professional grade work with a complex application like Max requires a substantial investment of time and passion. Doing hack-level work may be easy - and I've done it at that level - but to get to be really good is not for everyone. Doing AutoCAD all day long, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, with a lot of back and forth, means that I've gotten competent at doing Acad. It doesn't mean that a month or three of access to 3d Studio will let me do professional grade work.
It seems much more reasonable for the organization that can't justify a full time animation and rendering guru on the payroll, to _hire_ that expertise on a contract. It will take that person much less time to accomplish far better results tha Jane Designer will in a month of exposure.
Like any professional level of work, whether designing subdivision or writing code, you don't get good without a lot of critiquing from experts.
I see what you are saying but...
Just because an individual or a company decides that they are going to rent the software on an as needed basis does not mean that the experience is not there.
Does it make sense for a company that is almost full blown Revit to maintain a full time AutoCAD license for the occasional AutoCAD job?
-
So far I have not seen many people or companies working 'revit only'. There is just to much involved that needs cad (acad) be done. I read many devoted revit users how crap AutoCAD is for there workflow, but can they work without it?? I doubt it really. Otherwise it would make more sense to pay AutoCAD per day. Tru SaaS.
-
So far I have not seen many people or companies working 'revit only'. There is just to much involved that needs cad (acad) be done. I read many devoted revit users how crap AutoCAD is for there workflow, but can they work without it?? I doubt it really. Otherwise it would make more sense to pay AutoCAD per day. Tru SaaS.
The only reason we still use AutoCAD is for the older projects that are still kicking around. We're at the point where we'd rather link a DWG into Revit and use it as a background rather than try to work in AutoCAD again. For the most part.... :)
-
I see what you are saying but...
Just because an individual or a company decides that they are going to rent the software on an as needed basis does not mean that the experience is not there.
Does it make sense for a company that is almost full blown Revit to maintain a full time AutoCAD license for the occasional AutoCAD job?
If the expertise is there, it could make sense. But I'd think that's somewhat of a niche market for Autodesk. Frankly, if all I did was a sporadic DWG job, and I spent my 40+hours/week running some other design application, I would be awfully rusty on Acad after a year or two of not touching it, and more likely to simply get Bricsys so it was _always_ available for accessing DWGs, rather than having to rent yet again. Of course I might be jaded both on pricing, and the hassle around here of getting approval to spend any money on anything. YMMV
The context of getting a short term license for sidework also makes sense for the user (say a person who does C3d all day, and once or twice year lands a side job that could use C3D). But again, that's a pretty niche market that doesn't impact Adesk's bottom line either way.
-
Who owns the content?
I wonder how that works if contractor sales the content used and cannot use it again, etc....
-
Who owns the content?
I wonder how that works if contractor sales the content used and cannot use it again, etc....
That would always depend on VERSION the work was done in and IF autodesk bothered to maintain version compatibility.
It might not matter who OWNS the work that was done 'fore hire', if the file can not be opened again without loss of data.
-
Ownership of the content of the drawings would depend on the contract. Normally, 'work for hire' belongs to the person doing the hiring, not the laborer producing the drawings. One would have to work with a lawyer to craft a contract that did something different and allowed the drafter to haave any 'ownership' of the design or drawings.
example. Billy Bob Jones freelances evenings to draw up houseplans. If hired by a contractor to develop the custom house plans for Mrs Robinson, the contractor has frull ownershio of the plans and design. If Mrs Robinson hires our hero Billy, she owns the drawings and design. If Billy want to resell his work, he needs their authorization to do so.
Now, if he generates an original design on spec, and sells that design to either Gieseppe Builder or Mrs Robinson, he can resell those plans to anyone else (unless the agreement to prior purchaser included something on the order of exclusivity).
The question of long-term viability and readability of any file format, be it DWG, DGN, or DocX, is always questionable. If that's a real concern, then one should restict their archiving to non-proprietary formats, or at least documented ones. For Acad, that would mean using a non-Autodesk application that conforms to the OpenDWG spec. Autodesk has never gone out of their way to enable interoperablity between _any_ vendor. (And I include the DGN Import 'feature' in that assessment. the Brothers Bentley got snookered....)
-
The only reason we still use AutoCAD is for the older projects that are still kicking around. We're at the point where we'd rather link a DWG into Revit and use it as a background rather than try to work in AutoCAD again. For the most part.... :)
I believe you can. We do it in cetain design stages. But when we get to detailling more complex steel and concrete it really stops for us. At that point autocad is involved (again). Besides that, we have to deliver dwg to clients as deliverables.
-
If the expertise is there, it could make sense. But I'd think that's somewhat of a niche market for Autodesk.
The context of getting a short term license for sidework also makes sense for the user (say a person who does C3d all day, and once or twice year lands a side job that could use C3D). But again, that's a pretty niche market that doesn't impact Adesk's bottom line either way.
TBH, I don't know about the bottom line. That's above my expertise to comment on.
I'd be surprised if it is really a niche market. I think the month long subscription is aimed at this portion of the market. A brief survey in my head of drafters that I know that do CAD for companies confirms this.
Most of the good drafter/designers do side work on a sporadic basis and most of them do not own a license for AutoCAD. Some of the drafters also do side work. IME, the monthly cost on an as needed basis can easily be budgeted into most of these projects and I think AutoDesk was aiming at the part of the market with that option. There has to be money there.
-
A brief survey in my head
:blink: :blink: :blink:
-
So far I have not seen many people or companies working 'revit only'. There is just to much involved that needs cad (acad) be done. I read many devoted revit users how crap AutoCAD is for there workflow, but can they work without it?? I doubt it really. Otherwise it would make more sense to pay AutoCAD per day. Tru SaaS.
The only reason we still use AutoCAD is for the older projects that are still kicking around. We're at the point where we'd rather link a DWG into Revit and use it as a background rather than try to work in AutoCAD again. For the most part.... :)
The company I work for plans on dropping AutoCAD for production on new projects. The company that M@yhem works for is a competitor of ours and there is at least one other large company in our area that has dropped AutoCAD.
-
A brief survey in my head
:blink: :blink: :blink:
It's valid because I am working with previous knowledge.
I only counted one of the drafters that live in my head.
-
Congratulations on dropping 2D AutoCAD Rob.. I guess for the business you work in the new subscriptions will work out fine then.
-
@ Mayhem
Rob appears to have spies in your office
-
TBH, I don't know about the bottom line. That's above my expertise to comment on.
Carl Sagan voice: 'Billions and billions".
enough to buy Instructables.com so CB has something to play at being a 'Maker' with.
re: limited need for DWG deliverables. Seriously, if I spent my time with a non-DWG design package, but occasionally need to create or tweak some 2D drawings, I'd jut get a seat of BricsCAD. Permanent license for the cost of a few months of desktop subscription. Which reminds me, I need to DL and install Carlson this weekend to play with their Intellicad engine. (wonder why Intel hasn't sued them for trademark infringement? they seem to have sued most everybody else that uses those five letters in a brand)
-
Will we get upgrades every month or 2 without knowing what they are or do?
The pdf thing in acad 2016 is truly ridiculous, not the only time they have added something new without an off button.
-
Will we get upgrades every month or 2 without knowing what they are or do?
The pdf thing in acad 2016 is truly ridiculous, not the only time they have added something new without an off button.
highly doubtful
Will we get NEW bugs every year? Oh yes!
-
The reason I asked who owns content is because if company does not want to buy software and only rent for three months, I doubt they have standard content(details, familes, blocks, etc...) laying around so a contractor would have to provide them. I'm sure the contractor would charge much more if sold rights to content, and could not use it after job, or does he tell company not allowed to share it, but just wondering how that got handled.
-
The reason I asked who owns content is because if company does not want to buy software and only rent for three months, I doubt they have standard content(details, familes, blocks, etc...)
or they do have content, its usefulness is diminishing, and does not warrant a full time subscription.
-
The reason I asked who owns content is because if company does not want to buy software and only rent for three months, I doubt they have standard content(details, familes, blocks, etc...) laying around so a contractor would have to provide them. I'm sure the contractor would charge much more if sold rights to content, and could not use it after job, or does he tell company not allowed to share it, but just wondering how that got handled.
It is 'work for hire'
they own all created content....
unless the contract worker had a very specific contract that said something like:
you are purchasing only 2d printed output, i.e. PDF or otherwise, actual CAD files will remain in my possession and you may not ever have them,
unless you purchase them for and additional fee based on your desired usage of the material therein
I don't see that person getting much work under those restrictive conditions.
-
I don't see that person getting much work under those restrictive conditions.
I've actually gotten side jobs at a premium for small contractors because I was creating all the content. Subsequent jobs using same content were at normal prices. All project .dwgs were handed over.
-
Exactly why sidework requires a written contract and a lawyer to review. Beyond Ownerrship and re-use, what is the drafter's liabilty exposure? Everryone makes mistakes or misses something. Example, house in port st joe was 4" over maximum allowable height. Do you want to get stuck with the bill for tearing off the roof and third ffloor, and rebuilding to required height? In this case, the contractor had to fooot the bill. If a junior drafter had cadded up the plans for hire, what portion of the bill would he get stuck with.
-
What?! That's ludicrous. That's what engineers are for. I'm not responsible in any way, even if I do design work.
-
What?! That's ludicrous. That's what engineers are for. I'm not responsible in any way, even if I do design work.
If the person drawing the plans that included the problematic dimensions is not responsible.... who is? (presuming side work for a contractor using rented software, no PE or RA signature or seal required).
If you're going to reject responsibility (and I agree that you should) then either you work solely with a contract that specifically disclaims all liability, or only perform design work under the umbrella of licensed professional who is legally responsible for the content of the drawings. There's a reason that engineers carry liability insurance, and errors & omissions insurance, and pay the hefty premiums. And that's exactly why all the side work I've done in the last couple of decades has been for a PE.
-
Drafters cannot be held responsible for anything more than accurate plans. My name does not appear on any documentation. If a stamp is not required, the responsibility would fall on the contractor, as they are required to ensure everything is to code. They are the ones that have to deal with the building officials. If there are drafting errors, the plans should be fixed. A verbal contract to deliver accurate drawings is all I've ever needed. If I do design work, the person reviewing my drawings is responsible for the final design. I just follow their direction.
-
I don't see that person getting much work under those restrictive conditions.
I've actually gotten side jobs at a premium for small contractors because I was creating all the content. Subsequent jobs using same content were at normal prices. All project .dwgs were handed over.
And those are NOT the conditions I was speaking about.
-
Drafters cannot be held responsible for anything more than accurate plans. My name does not appear on any documentation. If a stamp is not required, the responsibility would fall on the contractor, as they are required to ensure everything is to code. They are the ones that have to deal with the building officials. If there are drafting errors, the plans should be fixed. A verbal contract to deliver accurate drawings is all I've ever needed. If I do design work, the person reviewing my drawings is responsible for the final design. I just follow their direction.
I'm not sure why you would think that a drafter doing freelance design work has a get-out-of-jail-free card. My liability for the work I perform on my own is part and parcel of my responsibility, and is only limited by whatever contract I'm working under. When the fecal byproducts encounter the oscillating air handling unit, a verbal contract is worth exactly the paper its written on. One good reason to perform side work only with a PE or RA who is signing and sealing the drawings, & taking professional responsibility.
The contractor you are drafting for may bear the brunt of responsibility for permitting and compliance, but unless your written agreement with him spells out clearly that you decline, and he accepts, all liability for conformance, buildability, accuracy, compliance, etc. and he agrees to indemnify you, it's entirely possible that you could be held accountable for part of whatever damages are awarded in court. Heck, a lawyer may decide to include the drafter in the owner is extremely pissed off and want to nail everyone associated with the job to the proverbial wall.
Not putting your name on the sheets is zero protection. If the contractor goes after you for that 4" elevation glitch, he already knows who you are. And if the owner who's suing the contractor asks, you better believe the GC will identify you in a heartbeat when he's deposed and the plaintiff's attorney asks who put the dimension in the plans.
Really, the smart thing to do if you are going to do house plans for a GC, is to set up as an LLC and run all expenses and payments through the LLC's separate bank account. At least that way you're only liable up to the limits of the LLC's assets. That makes the IRS happier too. And when the Infernal Revenue Service is unhappy, everyone's unhappy.
-
If I had to protect myself in the way that you are describing, I would have to charge a lot more money. My clients take the responsibility and get good work at a reasonable price.
For side work, I'm hired as a drafter. It's that simple. Can you put liability on a CAD jockey? I don't think so. I help with the design but I'm not a designer. Everything I do is checked and/or verified one way or another by the client. I do not submit the documents to anyone but my client and they do the actual submissions. You tell me how I can be held responsible by any stretch of the imagination. Courts require contracts stating responsibility and/or proof.
What can they say? "Oh, the drafter made a mistake and I didn't catch it. Make sure you get some of that from him." Like that's going to fly in court.
The places that I've worked full time can not put any design liability on their drafter/designers. If there was any risk there, we would get paid a lot more and we would need a contract spelling out our liability.
-
If I had to protect myself in the way that you are describing, I would have to charge a lot more money.
Setting up an LLC and business bank account would probably run a couple of hundred US$. That's a lot cheaper than having all your assets seized and your wages garnished to settle a civil judgement.
For side work, I'm hired as a drafter. It's that simple. Can you put liability on a CAD jockey?
For side work, you're an independent contractor, performing work for hire. Why on earth do you believe you are immune from responsibility and liability? That's not the same thing as selling software licenses with an EULA.
Courts require contracts stating responsibility and/or proof.
uhmmmm, nope. Better talk to an attorney. Lawyers and insurers are really good at allocating percentages of liability when they can convince a jury or a judge that there's a reason to do so. And all the 'proof' required would be the deposition of the contractor stating that he hired you to create building plans. Unless you propose perjury and denying under oath that you drafted the plans?
What can they say? "Oh, the drafter made a mistake and I didn't catch it. Make sure you get some of that from him." Like that's going to fly in court.
The plaintiff attorney can certainly say the independent contractor performing the work failed to perform due diligence, and as a direct result of his negligence and errors, my client has sustained damages of $XXX,XXX.xx dollars. Whether the judge/jury buy that is a question that can only be answered in court. If the drawings you generate end up being signed and sealed by a registered professional, that's a different kettle of fish. The PE has legal responsibility and liability for your work then. A contractor who hires you to draw up house plans doesn't have the same standing as a licensed professional.
The places that I've worked full time can not put any design liability on their drafter/designers.
Yes, and that's one of the differences between an employee and an independent contractor. In the former scenario, you are working as an employee under the direct supervision of a manager,and the company is liable for your activities. in the latter, you are working for yourself as an independent businessman, and responsible for yourself. I'm willing to bet a cookie that your full time employers have either Inc. or LLC as part of their business name, and that's the name on the invoices they send out, and the checks they write. Almost certainly they are not writing your paycheck against their personal checking account. Equally certainly, they carry liability insurance and if licensed professionals, errors and omissions insurance.
Look, if your plan works for you, great. And as long as you understand and accept the risks, that's your choice. Just make sure it's an informed choice. For some free advice and guidance, see if there's a SCORE group you can meet up with near you. www.score.org.
-
I would agree with you about protecting myself, IF we were talking about something other than the occasional side job AND I was taking responsibility for the design. My product is drawings. I hand them off to the client. They review them. Changes and corrections are done throughout the course of the project. This happens multiple times. The client pays me at the end of each project. I don't get paid until they are satisfied with every square inch of every sheet. I don't get more money when the drawings are accepted for permitting. In fact, if there is anything on the drawings that needs to be changed or fixed in order to get a permit, I get paid for the extra time. It's kind of like photo processing. I'm not responsible for the content and once you accept the prints, my job is done. I just happen to be able to use my experience to offer advice and/or point out dependencies in the drawings.
-
And, you are more than likely good under those circumstances. But for most I would still recommend incorporating as an LLC. Its not that expensive for the benefits it provides.