Maxwell Render | Official public forum

Hi all,

I could use some advise if anyone's got the time.

I've had a request from a client agency of mine to release some 3d models [built for said design agency's client], the only reason these could be wanted is to re-send them to another gfx agency.........which is not a problem, but is there a ballpark figure I should be asking for the release license?

The models took about three weeks to produce........does this have any bearing on a nominal cost, or should I just pull a figure 'out of the hat' that I'd be happy with?

Any thoughts much appreciated.

glebe digital wrote:Hi all,

I could use some advise if anyone's got the time.

I've had a request from a client agency of mine to release some 3d models [built for said design agency's client], the only reason these could be wanted is to re-send them to another gfx agency.........which is not a problem, but is there a ballpark figure I should be asking for the release license?

The models took about three weeks to produce........does this have any bearing on a nominal cost, or should I just pull a figure 'out of the hat' that I'd be happy with?

Any thoughts much appreciated.

Yeah Stu ... I'm going with the 'out-of-the-hat' pricing scheme .....lol..

Reason being, ... unlike the photography field, .. where they have a very general pricing for full-copyright release --- we have no such guidelines (that I know of..)


I think that sometimes people in this position perceive this as an oppurtunity to extract some 'free' dollars that would ordinarily not even be available. I'm not saying this is you, ... just mentioning that I've seen photographers ruin client relationships over some proprietary type work that would otherwise do nothing but collect dust, ..in this case, ...digital dust. lol.


So, ..given 3 weeks worth of work and that you'll be fully releasing any copyright, ..just come up with a price that leaves you satisfied. I'd say the most important aspect is that you leave them feeling your an ace kind of guy.

Thanks Chris, yes I want to keep my client happy that's for sure.......so a 'fair' and agreeable sum from both perspectives is what I'm angling for.......want to keep all those bridges in tact!

Cheers big man.

we lost a job once when we sent a client a model....thing was that was the only
part they really needed....doh!

i would suggest that perhaps you hold a royalty on usage

with the actual models and textures, they have all they need to produce unlimited variety on them....

not sure if this will hinder your relationship but may be worth a shot to get a couple of points for each usage

there is a handbook for digital artists that presents fair and balanced pricing for
all aspects of digital work.... will find and post the name of the book...

good luck

sidenimjay wrote:... will find and post the name of the book...

good luck

That would be much appreciated.

Thanks for the advice, yes handing over one's source data is a sticky area..........

glebe,

Contrary to what many think, 3D artist's work is covered by automatic copyright, at least here in the States, just the same as a photographer. The images you create as well as the models they are rendered from are yours and to release them is the same as giving universal rights to the client, or 'work for hire', not a wise thing to do.

A good reference is, The Graphic Artists Guild, Handbook of Pricing & Ethical Guidelines. Lots of very helpful information regarding pricing for various types of jobs, print, web, film, T.V., etc., as well as contracts and billing. Every graphic artist should become a member.

Look here: http://www.gag.org/

I believe they recommend if it's really necessary to release source files, to charge from 200 to 500% of the project fee.

I hope this helps some.

Cheers, Ron

Also (this should go without saying) remember before you send off your scene or models that you collapse your modifier stacks, any modification work that you do is whats really yours. Just give them a final mesh form. I also know people that on top of collapsing stacks, give everything a general white diffuse texture. If you are using commercial texture packs that you purchased for YOUR library there is no need to potentially give those to another studio.

Good advice Ron, Jeff cheers fellas.............however, 200%+ of project cost will make them fall off their collective stools........I'll have to test the water and see what they come up with.
Yep, I was thinking along the lines of a 'package' of the object data, not the complete scenes with camera/mesh animation etc.........luckily I don't use any 'commercial' texture sets as that's yet another minefield one can run into.

Really appreciate the input everyone.

I say you collapse your stacks and then reverse every mother-f-ing normal in the model

That way when they try and use the model themselves they'll have funky results at render time and will have to come back to you anyways.

I'm kidding of course but that would be cool

Luis

^ ^ Delete a poly here and there...

This an issue near and dear to my heart.

If you want to charge your clients more for using the models later on would you also give them a big discount if they decided they only wanted to use it once? What if they only want to use the render really, really small - can they have it for 1/2 price?

The issue with charging usage for photographs, or models, is - to me - a bit ridiculous in the grander scheme.
(and please: I do not require a lecture on what copyright or usage is there for - I have been in the photography business for long enough - I know: but I don't agree with it). The only times I feel you should charge any further usage is if they wish to have exclusive rights to it - in which case you could reasonably charge more - or if they did not pay your full normal rate for the initial job.

My advice is decide what you are charging your client for and stick to it. I charge for my time to work on images, I don't charge for usage beyond that. I wouldn't like it if my mechanic charged me for work on my car based on where I was going with it, or who I was driving, so why would I do that to someone else? Because I'm an "artist"? In any case, the notion of maintaining your clients "need" for you through holding work hostage is not a good way to build long term relationships or business IMO - not in a service industry at least. Better to be good at what you do so that they come back to you for the quality of work regardless. YMMV

Stuart: if you are happy to be paid to build the models then give them the product at the end. Who gives a s@#t if they use it later or pay someone else to work on it again as long as you are happy with what you were paid to build it?

Sorry for the rant: usage issues are bit of a hot one for me
b

That's no rant Brett ....

Pure common sense gospel.

I don't believe this subject should be treated as carefree as one might be tempted to based on good faith. If you actually designed this product and give away the requested works without any licensing or copyright agreement, not only will they profit from your labor, but you possibly open yourself up to be sued later if they claim you did the project as "work for hire" and you "infringe" on parts of said design while creating some new works.

Being nice and honest is definitely a good philosophy, but regardless of how you choose to bill them, make sure the terms of use and ownership are clear.

Brett, I totally agree with that point of view in 95% of cases........if I build a house [for example] for a render and afterwards they want the model too, well I generally have no problem as there's no commercial benefit either way, and the 'bespoke house' has no value beyond that project.

However, the client in this case is a multi-$bn global corp and the on-use value of the models is most likely substantial.
I can see your point regarding the mechanic analogy.......but could it also be argued that the 3d-data is a 'tool' in creating the final image, and would a mechanic give you the spanners he used to fix up your ailing motor?
Or the artist, having painted a landscape on commission, surrender his brushes so another artist could replicate his brushwork exactly?

At the end of the day, another gfx agency will recieve these models and probably make a better margin because they've been saved the time of building the data from scratch.........I dunno........

Luis, I hear ya.
However, I've been on the recieving end of models 'botched' in a fit of pique, it ain't fun.........it could be you next time!

Basically I'm trying to decide on the 'ethically correct' approach whilst at the same time not souring any client relationships.........I'm normally pretty good at treading on eggshells but with this one, it's a particularly difficult balancing act.

Fascinating and important subject/discussion. I have no idea how useful this suggestion is but I will make it anyway: how about posting your quandry on a "business ethics forum" (that is what I googled)? If you do, let us know what was suggested.