egmehl

Corey - does Google etc. index metadata that you can then search, or are you referring to another method? dardanvukaj - how did you come across this misuse? I'm just curious how other people are discovering this sort of thing. The only time I've found out about it was after a company contacted me and asked for a higher resolution version for print (of the image they originally stole for their web site)

Along with, or before sending the legal notice maybe offer to license it to them for a few hundred bucks. I doubt they would go for it, but you could present it as either pay up or take it down. Who knows, you might just get lucky.

I don't recognize that font off hand, but you can try http://www.myfonts.com/WhatTheFont/ - it lets you upload an image and will tell you what it thinks it is. I've found it works pretty well. There are others too, do a search for "what font is this" or something similar and they will pop up.

I agree with both nicnic and Justin - keeping to all quads even if you don't use turbosmooth will save you hours when it comes time to make revisions. Enough time that I usually remodel client geometry like nicnic does and I bet I still save time over having less organized geometry. I'd add that one thing I don't like about turbosmooth for arch work is that it adds polys everywhere when you turn up the iterations - so if you are doing a wall and just want a nice chamfer on a corner, it will also subdivide the flat parts which can add up. I've also found the quad chamfer modifier that Marius Silaghi makes has saved me hours and makes changing edge radii in the future super easy.

That was interesting to read. They say "A transfer of all rights is by its nature exclusive." while most other sources I've read don't make that explicit connection. In my mind the term "all rights" is still somewhat vague. As an example, iStockPhoto includes this as part of their standard license: "Perpetual, non-exclusive, non-transferable worldwide license for use..." which seems to hit most of the important points and not give away more than intended (maybe). I guess that's why there are so many lawyers out there.

My understanding of the law here is in line with Adam's. Normally you as an individual hold the copyright unless explicitly given away. All the companies I've worked for in the past as a salaried employee included a clause in the employment contract stating that my work belonged to them, which made it work made for hire. But if you are independent from the architect, then you have the copyright and therefore can doing anything you want with the image. What you SHOULD do with it is another matter I guess - I usually just make a quick check before I post stuff to my portfolio to make sure I'm not damaging any relationships. And if you have signed a confidentiality agreement probably get permission in writing. I think granting limited rights is common in photography and maybe advertising in general, but I bet most architects would balk at a contract that gives anything less than unlimited rights. Though im interested to hear if anyone has experiences with this. My opinion is you should definitely spell this out in your contract, even though you are essentially saying "do whatever you want with it". To be totally clear, you probably need something that mentions sub-users Oh, and I'm not a lawyer so take this for what it's worth!

You could link all the objects to one common parent, like the table. That's essentially a group that's always open. Then use 'page up' (select parent), 'page down' (select children), 'ctrl + page down' (select children + keep parent selected) to navigate the selections. I believe those commands can be customized too.

Well yeah, pick the worst possible example I was thinking more along the lines of people (fully clothed) in a public park or tourist attraction or something. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I bet you'd find people to be more open to signing a release than you might think. Especially if you spell out that it is for architectural type work and maybe bring with you an example picture to show them, "this might be you, back here in the background under a tree" or something like that, though I admit I haven't tried it myself (bring along your most charming friend to do the talking) If they are really going to be featured prominently, especially on a billboard or magazine ad (i.e. an expensive space to rent), I'd explain to your client how important doing it right is and convince them to pay for a proper photo shoot with models. It would turn out far better than a stock image under generic lighting anyways.

I've seen some references that that add the stipulation that someone is "recognizable" before they have a legitimate complaint if you are using their image. That's pretty fuzzy though, I think a picture of myself would have to be very obscured before I wouldn't recognize it as me. edit: saw Scott's post before I got mine finished, I've seen conflicting advice on the photographing but not including a face, I think some people have won cases where they were able to claim they were still recognizable from behind, but that's part of what I mean by fuzzy - there's no definite line. But you can always try and get the subject to sign a model release if you are shooting your own photos. asmp.org, Getty Images and probably others have templates. There are a couple of apps in the Apple app store that look really handy, but I haven't tried any.

Another idea to consider is using Amazon ec2, or the equivalent from Microsoft (and I think rackspace has a similar thing). Good: Far less expensive than the render-farm specific services (per hour of use at least). You are fully in control of plugins, etc. on the nodes. You can save a lot of last-minute upload time by doing periodic syncs of your active projects to S3 (storage service). Then you'd only have to upload the assets that have changed since the last sync when you are ready to render. There are solutions for mounting the S3 storage like a regular drive for Windows & Linux which is convenient. Bad: you will have to do all your own IT work to figure out how to get it going with your software, render manager, etc. You might have to get more licenses if you are using software that wants a license for render nodes. There's still an upload to start / download when finished bottleneck. There's a 100 node limit, but the site says you can request that to be raised. At the least, it's something more to plug in to a spreadsheet and see how it compares.

You're right, I've been confused by those too - they are the only ones in his portfolio with that style.

Those pictures by Nic Lehoux are great, I'm definitely putting him in my list of people to keep up with. Another to look at that I really love is Scott Frances, http://www.scottfrances.com/ Anyone else have favorites to share?

Thanks guys, I'll check out those recommendations.

Hi everyone, This is a recurring issue that I'm facing again right now. Does anyone know of a book or other reference that gives typical dimensions or guidelines for sizes of various details of a building? This only comes up when working on secondary buildings, so not something given by a client or designer. And it only needs to look plausible rather than structurally accurate - think background buildings in a city scene. I'm thinking of just rough ideas for example for floor slab thickness, mullion thickness, i-beam dimensions, spacing of parts, etc. I know there will be a lot of variation from one design to another, so even just a case study sort of example would be useful. I'm imagining a book that would have maybe 5 or 6 different types of real buildings and it breaks it all apart and describes dimensions and maybe some rational and the thought that went into the placement or each part. Anyone know of anything like that? thanks!