Clients Requesting Renderings Without Logo/Name

[3D Plans Jason]

Hey everyone,

 

This topic has already been discussed, but it's been a little over a year and I thought I'd revisit it - perhaps get some new opinions.

 

Every once in a while I get a client who doesn't want my name/logo/signature anywhere on the completed rendering. To be honest, it pisses me off, but I usually end up doing it anyway. Has this ever happened to you, if so how does it make you feel, and how do you deal with this or prevent this?

 

If I had my way, my company's name would be big and bold and on every rendering we produce.

 

Jason Jacobs

 

Here is the link to the old topic but please post new replies here. Thanks:

http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/showthread.php?t=752&page=2&pp=10&highlight=logo

[Donkey81]

Jason

 

Even worse, my signature gets rubber stanped out! Yes, it pisses me off too. It's not the architects, it's usually the marketing agency. I think they like it to appear an in-house job rather than an outsourced. I've complained, but it still happens.

[STRAT]

Jason

 

Even worse, my signature gets rubber stamped out! Yes, it pisses me off too. It's not the architects, it's usually the marketing agency.

exactly the same often happens with me.

 

to the point, you cant deal with it or prevent it. you can certainly talk to the client about a compromise, or put in a special clause in the contract, but if he wants his imagery with absolutely no credits to the artist on them then thats what he should rightly recieve. unfortunatley it's tuff luck on you. the last thing you want to do is alienate a client.

 

just dont worry about it. one of those things.

[Fran]

I never put watermarks on client renders.

[Chad Warner]

I used to put up a big stink about it, wanting to make sure that the name got out there. Lately, the only time the logo goes on the image is if I know the image will be in the paper or on a billboard.

[mbr]

Honestly, I've never considered putting my name/logo (still working on the logo part, almost there:-)!) on a rendering. They pay me to make an image, just as a graphic designer would be paid (or an architect, for that matter) to design a letter head, but you would not expect to see the name of the designer or architect on their work.

 

I sometimes like to be given credit (like here: http://www.livemodern.com/glidehouse/), but I wouldn't expect anyone to want a logo that isn't theirs seen by their clients/customers.

 

Plus, what if someone has an ugly logo?! j/k

 

You could offer them an 'opt out', where you give them $50 off if they include your logo. Other than that, I'd keep it clean (a watermark could be useful, I suppose, but I've never thought it worth it).

 

My 2 cents.

[Chad Warner]

If they are asking for the MAX file, then they are effectively cutting you out of any future work on the same job. I make it perfectly clear that all the client recieves is the delivered images or animation or whatever. If someone wants the files as well, they are going to pay a lot of money for it.

 

-Chad

[csven]

imo spell it out in the contract. best to be honest and up front. if it's only an image, that's what they get. if they want the file, that's different (b/c it'll include geometry/shaders/textures/images and maybe stock models that can't be re-sold).

 

i usually don't watermark. depends on the client and circumstances. but for standardization, maybe give them two versions:

 

without - used for the project and to show their client.

with - used for any non-related advertising (like on their website showcasing their work).

 

i like the discount approach. good way to find out what it's worth to someone. i've not thought too much about this but probably should.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

Thinking for us, 3d visualisers, we have to put our signature on drawings, even we sell that image. Making a paralel with painters, what do you think about buying a Picasso and erasing the signature before hanging that on the wall and showing that to our friends? Stupid I think.

Comparing our work with a letter head design is not the best. I will leave my watermark on the image, it is my intelectual product.

 

But what if they asking also for the brush and colours too. Taking about the 3dmax file. How do we charged them? Should we give them the 'file' too?

exactly. when was the last time you saw a traditional architecture rendering created by hand that did not bear the name of the artist who created it? logo's do not belong on an image that you are being commisioned to produce, but i.m.o. (i don't bother with humble ones) you have every right to place a signature somewhere in the image. ...but it should not draw attention to itself.

 

if you are giving the images to someone to use without charging them, or like discussed previously, a planner commisions the work, but the architect asks for a copy. then put your logo on it however you like, and tell them that removing it is a violation of the copyright because they do not own the image.

[Jim Mann]

I never put watermarks on client renders.

 

Me neither, but I do put a digital watermark on.

[mauarduz]

I agree with mark about the artists signature, but what about cropping the image, once the image is delivered to the client, it becomes their property correct ?

 

Can they crop out the signature, edit it further in photoshop ?, do you all include these aspects in the contract ?

 

Can they do enything they want with the image ?

[Susan]

I've always felt very strongly that it is the right of the creator to have his signature on his work, just as any artist. The American Society of Architectural Illustrators is advocating very strongly on this issue. They cite an example of a recent newspaper article where a rendering ( traditiional variety) by a very well known renderer was published but only the architect's credit was published, not the renderer.

 

 

In a freindly conversation with a client I mentioned this story and he was very dismissive. He said that there was no room to give credit to all the people that deserved it: the builder, the developer and so on. He seemed to have no sympaythy for or concept of "intellectual property". I of course was quietly outraged.

 

And now I'm not so sure. It was the comment that someone here made above comparing this work to the work of Picasso. But this isn't supposed to be art for art's sake ( it is artistic yes) but it is supposed to be a piece of advertising. It never has been the practice to put signatures and logos on billboards, magazine ads, commercials etc. I guess the thought is that it would detract from the message or for them it is really a team effort. But then one doesn't usually even know which ad agency did the ad. Hmm. Now I don't know what to think.

[Fran]

An Architectural Illustrator is paid to represent someone else's work, usually an architect or interior designer. The best way for ego to serve an illustrator is to have them make damn sure that they are well-paid, have the copyright, and that the product they ultimately release is the best work they can possibly do. A good and satisfied client will gladly tell everyone who did the viz. A good client will recommend you to other clients that they think will be good for you too. I have two rules:

 

1. Never accept work from someone you know is a jerk.

2. Never work again for someone you find out is a jerk.

[Susan]

You are absolutely right Fran. It's actually this thread that has given me a whole new perspective on this subject. I've acutally changed my mind.

 

 

A note to Mark: I realize that there is a diffculty with English, but this is more a philosophical discussion and not one of "knowledge" or fact. It is not necessary to insult a stranger in order to try and get your point across. This is supposed to be a discussion and we should listen to each other's points of view with respect. I expect I am quite a few years older than you are. I have countless years of intensive art training as well as 2 degrees in Business Administration (BBA & MBA) with a major in Marketing and a Minor in Arts administraion. I don't take kindly to people who do not know anything about me or my level of knowledge telling me " Sorry but you need to refresh your knowledge about contemporary art. ".

[Fran]

Hi Mark,

 

The issue here isn't about cg art being art (art is art), it's about architectural visualization and what is considered proper credit. A visualizer needs to make contractural arrangements with his/her client if inclusion of a logo or visible watermark is to be a term or condition.

 

Artistic expression is just that, no matter what the medium. If the artist signs his/her work, the signature should be respected. If someone wants to consider something I do a work of art, then I don't care. My personal attempts at artistic expression are not a product - my viz work is. Art comes from ideas which originate with the artist, no matter the inspiration. Scenes I do for my own enrichment could be considered art because I come up with the concept and decorate the scene however I please. Of course that doesn't make it necessarily good art.