California Surveyors Forums

Question: The Cal Surveyor is available for download from our website. Anyone can download a copy. The material is copyrighted. What is the difference?

See: https://www.californiasurveyors.org/cal ... urv185.pdf

Ian Wilson wrote:Thanks, Evan. If it were up to me, I have Kim Oreno at Central Office eBlast these brochures to everyone who has an email address i the ineterst of education.

However, the issue is not about this brochure; it's about copyrighted material. If we do not hold the line on one of our copyrights, we cannot hold the line on any of them. It's that simple. If we went after someone on a much more significant copyright, they would turn around, and rightly so, point out that we failed to press the issue on this one therefor we have no right to press the issue on that one.

If anyone has a solution, other than posting the statutes alone, which are not copyrightable, let us know!
Ian

mpallamary wrote:Question: The Cal Surveyor is available for download from our website. Anyone can download a copy. The material is copyrighted. What is the difference?

For what its worth, I am of the belief that it is simply a matter of BOD direction. If the BOD, as owner of the copyrighted items, decides to freely distribute one item, but yet restrict another item to members only distribution, then that is a decision the governing body made as owner. Freely distributing one and not another does not void either items copyright, but rather simply is a policy decision. Both items are still copyright protected, no one else can then take the item and use it in a manner inconsistent with the copyright protection and BOD distribution policy. But if, like Ian so duly noted, distribution of a copyright item is noticed and allowed to continue in conflict with BOD distribution policy, then the strength of the BOD copyright could be in question.
As I said before, I would have no problem with the BOD deciding to open the distribution of the ROE brochure, as that would be their right. However if I was on the BOD I would very much cast a vote against opening it up for several reasons. One of which is that once it is allowed to be freely distributed, there is no longer any control over its distribution. Even if the BOD decides a change in the brochure is necessary or there is a change in the law. Once the BOD allows free distribution without license to do so, there is no going back.
Now if the BOD wanted to provide Evan with license to distribute on this forum or another venue, it could certainly license him to do so, and even without charge. I would suggest if that were an avenue to be taken, that such a distribution venue would include a statement bringing attention to the copyrighted protection of those items being distributed.

And on a related side note, a saying on a T-shirt caught my attention the other day that reminded me of certain forum posters. It said: "just because you're offended doesn't make you right".

Geez, I can't even say "you were right" without the guy using the opportunity to say "I told you so" and to get a dig in rather than graciously accepting his little victory.

Anonymous with professionalism + respectful comment is OK. Anonymous with vaguely directed snarky remarks ("certain forum posters") as unnecessary taunts = No class.

Just because you might be right doesn't mean you need to be offensive.

Now that the copyright sub-thread has been bifurcated, and Evan has been properly scourged, back to the Right of Entry discussion.

The right of entry statutes and the inclusion in the Penal Code (an effort by Past President Ray Mathe), while strong tools in our arsenal, are not bullet-proof, as one of my mentors would tell you.

I have successfully used them with officers called to protect me or called out by an angry party. I have also been unsuccessful at times.

Each time I was unsuccessful, I was able to contact the local Police Chief or their immediate deputy. In every case, I was successful in making my point, gaining the respect of the enforcement officer and gaining backed up access to the property I need to visit.

I may not have got on the first time, and it may have cost me time, but I have never been completely barred.

Look at this as an opportunity to work with local law enforcement and make life better for everyone.

If you need help in contacting the local agency, reach out to your Professional Practices Committee or another member of your chapter, or the State PPC.

You’re absolutely correct. This is an issue that CLSA, locally and at the state level, can should and are addressing. But, with over 500 counties and incorporated cities, that’s a lot of contact o work through. Help us out. Perhaps you have an idea that can be shared as to how to reach out to the agencies and inform them of our rights.

Ian Wilson, PLS
CLSA President - 2017

I found the CLSA brochure on the County of Santa Clara website. Should it be removed?

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsFo ... ochure.pdf

The easiest way is to make a video available online. I have an attorney we can work with to put it together. We can make it a simple Youtube link.

As some of you may know, I was sued for $2,000,000 several years ago for surveying a boundary line. I went through all the necessary noticing requirements. The police showed up and served as escorts.

https://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/ ... by-david-/

CLSA cashed my $100 check for the right of entry brochures I donated to the members of the association to use as they see fit. Happy holidays to everyone.

What copy right? I just googled what Evan posted:"CLSA ROE flyer for homeowners and law enforcement"
and it popped up right as the first thing in PDF.

The real question, at least for me, is if it's our job as surveyors to educate the LEO regarding the right of entry law. I have tried it on 2 occasions to no avail.
I asked the officer " you talk about protecting the right of property owner, how about protecting my right of entry?" I think that was a question too much.
I learn from this thread that there is no need for convincing the LEO, just climb up the ladder.
I believe it's the Board's job to educate the PD, not us.

I have made numerous offers to work on a public relations campaign and work to educate others. The BOD has no interest in this topic. I have suggested it for years, to no avail. This and public relations are not important to the association based upon my repeated inquiries into this topic.

Good luck!

This article is 30 years old. Related to right of entry.

mpallamary wrote:The BOD has no interest in this topic.

I don't believe that is true. I think it has to be addressed on a case by case basis and is best handled at the local or individual level rather than a state campaign.

Perhaps CLSA could send a speaker to a state convention of municipal police but I wouldn't expect much LEO interest in a seminar like that

Hi Dave,

I am on record at least half a dozen times making a number of suggestions to address this and overall matters related to public relations, etc. Over the last five years I never received a response to any of these suggestions, offers, and recommendations. I can assure you I maintain impeccable records with regards to this topic. CLSA should reach out to some law enforcement organization and see if we can have someone speak. I can do that as can you but it should really come from CLSA. That being said, I am offering myself as a speaker on behalf of CLSA (again). Any thoughts?

I suspect, like CLSA and surveyors, there are police officers associations, and/or unions, where continuing education on their part is encouraged. Speaking briefly at one of their meetings/conventions from time to time might spread the word.

Of course! I am prepared to speak. All CLSA has to do is give me the green light.

https://cpoa.org/

https://www.policeone.com/partners/cpoa/

https://www.facebook.com/CalPOA/

mpallamary wrote:Of course! I am prepared to speak. All CLSA has to do is give me the green light.

I'm fully supportive of your volunteering to speak to law enforcement groups about right of entry.

Or, is your intent on CLSA footing the bill for you to be a paid speaker?

mpallamary wrote:Of course! I am prepared to speak. All CLSA has to do is give me the green light.

I support you making a video as you discussed earlier which CLSA could endorse. I’d be happy to help you do it. I don’t know how far my support will get you but you have it. I would attend a ROE seminar at the conference if nothing more interesting was billed at the same time. I’m not sure if there is enough there to talk about it for 45 minutes but it’s worth a try.

There is some ambiguity in the law which ought to be addressed before anyone does anything. Do we know for sure if technical staff working under LS supervision has ROE? Or does it have to be an LS that enters?

I’d like to hear an opinion on this aspect from our legislative committee

Given when the law was created, it had to be inclusive of crew members that were working under the direction of a licensed land surveyor. A one person crew did not exist until recent times and many crews to this day are still comprised of 2 persons or more (Caltrans). The law would be absurd to not allow unlicensed survey crew members right of entry.

How could a licensee complete the fieldwork, if the tools required more than one person on a hostile owners property?

Mr. Magee, as you know, I spend a lot of time working on programs that benefit the association and have for the last 40 years. I have lectured at many chapters to raise money for scholarships and other programs at my own expense. You are aware, no doubt, of the monetary contributions I have made to Fresno and Pomona over the years.

If CLSA wants to make a video, that would be great. If that is the case, I would recommend several surveyors participate. We should develop a script and lay it out. I can probably get an attorney to develop an opinion. I can have an outline after the first of the year.

You also recall, years ago, when I organized the association with regards to the San Dieguito case, it was at my expense. (See the attached). If you would like, I can send you copies of all the letters I have received from various chapters across the state, thanking me for helping raise money over the last 40 years, something I continue to do, many times quietly and discreetly. I did so in spite of all the obstacles that were put in my way by your close friend, the former Executive Director.

Mr. Magee, when will you come out of your closet and work with me like you used to do? You should abandon your mask and start making some positive contributions.

This is what the state board says:
*****************************************************
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/row/landsurvey ... _rules.pdf
******************************************************

Right of Entry to Perform Surveys

Professional land surveyors and their subordinates have a right to enter private or public real property, except the
access-controlled portions of freeways, to perform surveys. The owner or tenant who owns or is in control of the
property should be notified of the proposed time of entry where practicable and the person in possession has a duty
to provide reasonable access without undue delay.
Additional right of entry exists related to condemnation (eminent domain) surveys.

(See Trespass for Liability for Damage to Real Property).

(Bus. & Prof. Code § 8774, Code Civ. Proc. § 742, 1245.010-.070, Civ. Code § 846.5)