Is your 3D model your Intellectual property?

[bengoble]

Hello all!

 

This is my first post and it coincides with me doing my first paid arch vis job.

 

What I would like to know is whether visualisers consider their models to be their intellectual proprty. If so, when a client requests your model and the only agreement was for an image s what do you do? I believe I should charge them for my model. What is the best thing to do?

 

Now the background to this question is also important. I'm working for an ex colleague and there is nothing other than a verbal contact, so no terms have been stated as to the cost of them acquiring my model and I'm not sure they are aware it will cost them additional money.

 

I could refuse to give them a free 3D model for IP reasons, but this is likely to sour the relationship.

 

Or I could give them a detailed 3D model they haven't paid for and just make sure next time I clearly state a price for the model.

 

What advice can you all give me. It would be much appreciated

 

Regards

 

a business newbie

[neil poppleton]

Ben,

 

If your agreement is to supply images or animations for a fee then that's whats covered. How you produce these or with what software etc is not theirs.

 

I can remember just a couple of times the client has asked for the 3d model and this was an additional fee.

[Scott Schroeder]

No, it's not your IP unless you designed the structure. The IP for the 3d model lies within the architect who designed it and gave you the reference files, be it CAD, SketchUp, Revit, etc. Where the IP could come into play concerning your max file is if you created any custom textures or have textures in which you purchased and cannot give those files away due to the EULA. There is also IP in your render set up, materials, etc.

 

In most cases, if a model is requested, I'll deliver a stripped down model. One standard gray material for everything, render engine set back to scanline, and any and all modifiers collapsed.

 

But having just a verbal contract, they can pretty much do whatever they want and you won't have a leg to stand on until you get terms in writing.

[Alan Wilson]

Most of my clients have me make my own model from their drawings. It is their design but everything else belongs to the artist.

 

 

You own all copyrights unless you sign them away. I make sure they realize that I will use the image for my own self promotion as well.

 

 

Architects are only paying for the rights to use your image just as Autodesk only allows you to use their software.

 

 

Therefore they can not sell it either, unless you say they can. I do this a lot and ask them to mark it up to cover their costs.

 

 

It is also good to note what usage your allowing this image to be used for.

 

 

If they plan to make copies and sell them etc... you need to be given royalties.

 

 

Arch viz is still governed under the copyright laws.

[notamondayfan]

No, it's not your IP unless you designed the structure. The IP for the 3d model lies within the architect who designed it

 

I disagree here. That's like saying the IP of a drawing of a building belongs to the architect, not the artist. The IP here is the 3D construction of the building, and how it was created in a 3D package.

 

Don't sign away / give away your IP.

[Stephen Thomas]

No, it's not your IP unless you designed the structure. The IP for the 3d model lies within the architect who designed it and gave you the reference files, be it CAD, SketchUp, Revit, etc. Where the IP could come into play concerning your max file is if you created any custom textures or have textures in which you purchased and cannot give those files away due to the EULA. There is also IP in your render set up, materials, etc.

 

In most cases, if a model is requested, I'll deliver a stripped down model. One standard gray material for everything, render engine set back to scanline, and any and all modifiers collapsed.

 

But having just a verbal contract, they can pretty much do whatever they want and you won't have a leg to stand on until you get terms in writing.

 

Perhaps IP is the wrong term to be talking about in this case then. While I agree that the IP of the design lies with the architect and therefore you would be in the wrong should you try to sell the model on to a third party, I do not agree that the model itself is the property of the architect. There is nothing in the original agreement, written or spoken, to infer that any other digital assets other than images are to be provided. You shouldn't feel obliged to do this Ben, and if the client assumed otherwise then that is their issue and they should have been more specific.

 

If you are feeling generous and think it is worth relinquishing the model this time to maintain the relationship then so be it. But be clear that you are doing a favour that otherwise would be chargeable. Be aware though that there is also the possibility that they don't plan on using you in future and just want to send the model out to someone else!

 

Since it is an ex-colleague in your case I assume that he/she must be fairly aware what is standard practice. So either they are trying to use the connection to lean on you for a little extra freebie or perhaps they just didn't communicate clearly enough what was expected at the outset.

[RyderSK]

IP is just whole engrossing concept, so I wouldn't use that term much in spite of more concrete variations such as copyright.

 

I would wager to say the ownership of 3D model as a derivate of abstract (non-fully utilitarian) design is fully yours without question and only depending on bussiness relationship under which you completed the job (anything outside of direct employment). It's like creating a 3D model of branded car, not owning various IP rights to the car design doesn't preclude you for owning your 3D model version of it, although the former IP rights might limit your possibilities of use of this 3D model (for example unlimited commercial distribution).

 

tl;dr: You don't need any excuse to not forwarding your 3D model to client. Just keep it unless you're heavily compensated.

 

In case of utmost necessity, I did the same as Scott said, but going really far to make sure non of the material is usable at all, decimating every geo to low-poly, single grey mat to whole scene, no setup of whatsover.

[harryhirsch]

Agree with Scott and Juraj, the "Intellectual property" belongs to the Architect, it his his design and his vision, there are court decisions about this. ((The owner of copyright will generally be the person who created the copyright work.Therefore, an architect who creates owns the copyright of the work))

About the picture and the model, you have to give them the stuff you agreed on. In some countries a verbal agreement among people or a hand shake is equal to a contract. They want the model? Why not? Charge them unless u agreed before that it is included. I never heard that architects want the model to play Archy Viz, in some archi offices it is company policy to have the 3D model in the files to close that project stage. It is ur frist job right? give them a volume model for free or a better one for good money!

 

"I'm working for an ex colleague and there is nothing other than a verbal contact, so no terms have been stated as to the cost of them acquiring my model and I'm not sure they are aware it will cost them additional money"

Guess u know now that u have to make things clear in the beginning, what exactly do you have to deliver, in what time and what form.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

The company or artist commissioned to create the rendering retains the copyright to the rendering unless their was an agreement of transfer of copyright before the work was done, or the rendering was done as work for hire.

 

The above statement is the clear definition of copyright law, but as we know copyright law can be a sticky subject matter. Even though the artist owns the copyright of the rendering the use of the rendering by the artist may be restricted because the content in the rendering is copyrighted by the architect.

 

To state it another way... the architect is not the copyright owner of a commissioned rendering but does hold rights regarding the subject matter in the rendering. Those rights can effect how the image is used by the artist.

 

The process of creating the rendering is your intellectual property. Hold this process close to your chest because it is what identifies your work. If you share the model, do not share your process. If you share a PSD, do not share a fully layered PSD as that is part of your process.

 

The model however is usually a joint collaboration between the client, architects, designers, engineers, and renderer's and it should be assumed that everyone has some aspect to which they contributed in that creation process. A good working relationship often means you will share this item back and forth depending on what you are trying to accomplish but you are in no way obligated to share it unless it was stated before the project started.

 

As a community we need to be stronger at enforcing and stating our copyright on the renderings we create.

 

The act of someone commissioning you to do work for them does not give them right to freely publish your rendering. You do not want to prevent your work from being used by the architect because it is free marketing as long as you make sure that the architect/magazine/newspaper/blog is crediting you with the creation of that rendering and as the copyright holder your name should be credited every time that image is published.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Crazy Homeless Guy

[RyderSK]

architect/magazine/newspaper/blog is crediting you with the creation of that rendering and as the copyright holder your name should be credited every time that image is published.

 

I've never seen this happen even if it was DBOX and MIR (and many other high profile companies). Credit simply isn't enforced in archviz sucessfuly. Funny it gets replaced often with Silverstein properties's archive or BiG/Snohetta/Etc's imagery so it isn't often ignorance, it's intention (because I am talking about their very own Facebook page, for example BiG, not some third party magazine who simply took the images, but the client himself is ignoring credit) It's so miles different from photography, completely different mindset when it comes to visualization.

 

I pretty much agree with everything outside of the "You do not want to prevent your work from being used by the architect" which just confuses me.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

I pretty much agree with everything outside of the "You do not want to prevent your work from being used by the architect" which just confuses me.

 

 

I should have clarified that statement more or simply left it out altogether.

 

Copyright law gives you the ability to define when and how the renderings you create can be used even though they were commissioned works. I don't believe we want to be specific in terms of controlling how and when a work we create can be used, at the end of the day we simply want to retain copyright and be credited when the work is used. This way the architect or devloper distributes the work you create which will help you market yourself.

 

It is becoming more frequent to see proper credit given to renderings. The difficult thing about getting credit for images is that it usually falls on our shoulders to follow up with the publications and request that the image they used in their story be properly credited. Usually they will add the credit because they don't want to be in violation of copyright. Publications are used to crediting the copyright holders when images are used as their business model relies heavily on it. The architects and developers are the ones you have to keep an eye on, and they are the ones usually sending the images to the publications to be used in the articles.

 

As part of our standard contract we state that renderings and films must be properly credited. We have had good luck with including this as part of the contract but we do need to be prompt at reminding people to include it when using the works.

[John Dollus]

Actually, part of the mission for ASAI is an active pursuit of copyright protection for architectural artists and it's a big part of why I joined.

We have been very successful in these efforts and have joined up with several other niche illustration groups that share the same concern. Medical, transportation and industrial design industries all have the same problems. I have witnessed deliberate omission in publications where 2 different studios produced images for the same project but only one was credited. It goes back to enforcement and knowledge of the instruments of protection available to us as artists.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

Actually, part of the mission for ASAI is an active pursuit of copyright protection for architectural artists and it's a big part of why I joined.

We have been very successful in these efforts and have joined up with several other niche illustration groups that share the same concern. Medical, transportation and industrial design industries all have the same problems. I have witnessed deliberate omission in publications where 2 different studios produced images for the same project but only one was credited. It goes back to enforcement and knowledge of the instruments of protection available to us as artists.

 

We created a few images for the SFMOMA expansion here in San Francisco. They had my favorite statement to date about the distribution of photo and rendered media. The statement below is part of their press request page, the last sentence is my favorite.

 

"These images are provided exclusively to the press and may only be used for promotional purposes directly related to the corresponding SFMOMA exhibition, announcement, or event. The museum grants permission to use these images only to the extent of its ownership rights — the party reproducing these images must secure permission from the copyright holder(s). All reproductions must be accompanied by the proper credit line and copyright information (if any) provided below. Images must be reproduced as presented here and may not be distorted, mutilated, or cropped without permission."

[Michael J. Brown]

I disagree here. That's like saying the IP of a drawing of a building belongs to the architect, not the artist. The IP here is the 3D construction of the building, and how it was created in a 3D package....

 

I don't know about that, Dean. Think about it this way. You get engaged to your girlfriend and come up with this incredible wedding ring design never before seen. You give it to your jeweler to craft. According to your train of thought, it is no longer you who own the Intellectual Property to that ring, but instead the jeweler who turned your concept, dream and sketches into a physical object. Would you honestly be fine with that?

 

This is actually a fair analogy, as it would be equally as awkward for said jeweler to flatly refuse the customer possession of the mold without charging extra for it (knowing full well that the only two reasons a customer could have for requesting it are to take it to another jeweler for reproduction or to keep it from being replicated altogether). Either way, the mold (which we could equate to a stripped-down, collapsed 3D model devoid of texture and lighting) contains none of jeweler's signature trademarks or unique diamond cutting. It's just a bare bones representation of the customer's vision.

[notamondayfan]

I don't know about that, Dean. Think about it this way. You get engaged to your girlfriend and come up with this incredible wedding ring design never before seen. You give it to your jeweler to craft. According to your train of thought, it is no longer you who own the Intellectual Property to that ring, but instead the jeweler who turned your concept, dream and sketches into a physical object. Would you honestly be fine with that?

 

This is actually a fair analogy, as it would be equally as awkward for said jeweler to flatly refuse the customer possession of the mold without charging extra for it (knowing full well that the only two reasons a customer could have for requesting it are to take it to another jeweler for reproduction or to keep it from being replicated altogether). Either way, the mold (which we could equate to a stripped-down, collapsed 3D model devoid of texture and lighting) contains none of jeweler's signature trademarks or unique diamond cutting. It's just a bare bones representation of the customer's vision.

 

I think you're confusing IP with copyright. In your "ring" example, the copyright and design would be mine, but the jeweller would retain his IP as to how he created the ring.

To make your example applicable to this topic, I would have to ask the ring make to hand over any casts, and document how he made the ring, so I could then re-create a duplicate myself.

 

In our industry the copyright of the design of the building is the architects, and the 3D model IP belongs to the artist.

[Michael J. Brown]

Got it.

[Alan Wilson]

I agree with Travis. I have been an arch viz illustrator long before the advent of using computers.

 

 

Just because the architect handed you the drawings and you drew it out for them doesn't mean your copyrights are owned by them.

 

 

Just look at any classically painted picture by Vermeer , Van Gough, Rembrandt, by rights if they used any background's with architecture in their

 

 

paintings, this would mean the architect that designed the painted building would own they copyrights to their work.

 

 

If you use their info directly as per a Revit file then that file they sent is theirs, the one you made and created in your software is your file but

you can not release it (3D file) to any one else.

 

 

The final render is yours

[notamondayfan]

Just look at any classically painted picture by Vermeer , Van Gough, Rembrandt, by rights if they used any background's with architecture in their paintings, this would mean the architect that designed the painted building would own they copyrights to their work.

 

 

Just to really confuse the matter further, the Eiffel Tower copyrighted it's night time light show / design, so anyone taking and publishing photos of the Eiffel Tower at night need permission....

 

“Images of the tower have long been in the public domain; however, in 2003 SNTE (Société nouvelle d’exploitation de la tour Eiffel) installed a new lighting display on the tower. The effect was to put any night-time image of the tower and its lighting display under copyright. As a result, it was no longer legal to publish contemporary photographs of the tower at night without permission in some countries"

[M V]

I would do exactly what Velvet Elvis is saying. Strip the model down to its bare bones, collapse all modifiers, etc. 9 times out of 10, the client will have no idea what to do with your file, this is why they hired you in the first place.

[CliveG]

I'll not even try to address the complexity of copyright and IP law, contracts and terms implied etc. that has been very ably covered by by far better business brains than mine, but instead to try and make sense of this myself I pose a question:

 

If the client has not stipulated exactly HOW you produce an image how can he have ANY rights to your model?

 

In theory he doesn't know - nor should he care - if you've sat and whittled the bloody thing piece by piece out of balsa, painted it and taken a photograph of it or if you have modelled it in some long extinct software package that only exists on your old DOS machine and so is entirely useless to them, unless they have stipulated from the outset that you should provide a Max 2014 compatible blah blah blah, as far as I'm concerned they have no rights to your model.

[harryhirsch]

Who said that they have the rights to models?...they just want the model....Of course the designer/architects holds the IP! (not the copyright) of the picture since the designer put in the Intellectual work...there is craft and knowledge involved in 3D work but little Intellectual work. If you feel that you have to control the use of your image and u have copyrights then your contract should state this. ''Credit simply isn't enforced in archviz sucessfuly''...well, architects or developers buy the picture to use it, not to keep it hidden. Its not the job of the devloper to do marketing for me as an Archviz. If the client needs to give credit to the Archviz then the Archviz has to give credit to companies like Evermotion for the models or Arroway for the Textures...in the end it is about providing service. ''but you can not release it (3D file) to any one else.'' And why not? What would you loose when you give them a blanc 3D model? If they want it they are going to pay for it and you earn even more money! Provide good service, use contracts, make them happy and they come back and ask for more. It is not a staet secret, just a volume mesh with grey color.

[RyderSK]

Of course the designer/architects holds the IP! (not the copyright)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

 

Intellectual property (IP) rights are the legally recognized exclusive rights to creations of the mind.

......

Common types of intellectual property rights include patents, copyright, industrial design rights, trademarks, trade dress,etc..

 

The whole thread is very confusing now, and I find problem with the useof the term "Intellectual property" itself here, with quite few people citing it as a concrete status (even comparing it to "copyright" as it would be two distinctive type of laws) instead of what it is: encompassing name for concept, an abstraction only. Copyright, patents,etc... are actual laws.

 

Therefore the whole thing above with "IP vs Copyright" doesn't apply in my opinion. With artwork in any form produced by us, only actual law we come into contact with is "copyright" of the artwork product (and not portrayed) based on Country's law system.

And there is little discussion further in western world, the Copyright of work produced in sole business is always with creator himself. Who contributed how, what we think, what they think, it's all absolutely irrelevant. The law (in most EU countries) is quite clear in this regard I think. Unless the client negotiates with me in contract any limitation of use on my part, I have no obligation by law to him. It doesn't matter at all that I have visualized his building, that he gave me critique,etc.. nothing, unless we agreed on it in contract. But my copyright, doesn't need contract mention at all, it's given to me by default, and I can't loose it, and in European union, I can't even transfer it. It might be more hassle in US though.

Edited August 7, 2014 by RyderSK

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

If you feel that you have to control the use of your image and u have copyrights then your contract should state this. ''Credit simply isn't enforced in archviz sucessfuly''...well, architects or developers buy the picture to use it, not to keep it hidden. Its not the job of the devloper to do marketing for me as an Archviz. If the client needs to give credit to the Archviz then the Archviz has to give credit to companies like Evermotion for the models or Arroway for the Textures...

 

 

You are correct. Credit is usually not enforced successfully. This is because many are not making the effort to enforce it successfully. This starts by adding the line in your contract stating that you or your firm receives credit when the rendering is published. This finishes with you placing a call or email to the websites that are using your image without credit. Usually these sites are very accommodating and will add your name.

 

Why do they do this... because this is standard practice in journalism. How often do you see a photo on a blog or in a magazine that has small print that read "Photo by ...." The image credit should be no different when it comes to renderings. In fact if you don't include/ask for the request for credit then often the architecture firm distributing the image will be given credit for the work in the medium where it is published.

 

When that big project you are working on goes live to websites, blogs, magazines, newspapers, etc.. you will want your name associated with that work.

 

(Evermotion is a different beast. Evermotion is a royalty free content provider which is very different from a studio that specializes in commissioned work. The business model of Evermotion has more in common with Getty Images than with a DBox/Neoscape or even a smaller studio.)

[harryhirsch]

@Travis

'' In fact if you don't include/ask for the request for credit then often the architecture firm distributing the image will be given credit for the work in the medium where it is published.''...True, that is because the architecture firms and their clients think they can do with the picture what they want, ala ''We payed for it so we own it''. Guess one has to remind his client about rights and it has to be in the contract...

 

@Juraj

Yes, it does not matter what we think or feel and none of us is a lawyer...'' Copyright, patents,etc... are actual laws. '' yes and they are about Intellectual Property. Look at the music industry, every part of a melody is protected because the musician is the holder of that intellectual property. Same goes for an architectural drawing. Just because the designer has no patent for the drawing doesnt mean that everbody can use this drawing and build a second building like that. If found this here in the Internet:

''What is a Patent, a Trademark, and a Copyright? An Overview of Intellectual Property

Our legal system provides certain rights and protections for owners of property. The kind of property that results from the fruits of mental labor is called intellectual property. Rights and protections for owners of intellectual property are based on federal patent, trademark and copyright laws and state trade secret laws. In general, patents protect inventions of tangible things; copyrights protect various forms of written and artistic expression; and trademarks protect a name or symbol that identifies the source of goods or services.''

[RyderSK]

Yes but I only argued against the "IP vs Copyright" distinction fallacy in this thread, they're not comparable terms, with one being concrete law (Copyright) and other all-encompassing abstract concept. The architect does have 'Copyright' to his design, just like artist has 'Copyright' to his imagery and in 95perc. of cases those don't affect each other. That's the same kind of concrete 'IP' laws. Neither of us need to state this anywhere, this right is by default to artist's creation, unlike 'Patent' and 'Trademark', which need to be registered and can loose the status, can be sold or transferred. All are concrete laws. There is no other mythical "IP", as was hinted by you and many others above.

Maybe it's only play with words, but I've seen it quite few times here and I think it's confusing. Nothing else :- ) People read too much into the name of concept itself, namely the "Intellectual" and everyone simply invented their own meaning and understanding of it for the sake of it. It's very funky.