Dealing with client who wants the 3D file

[mauarduz]

Hi everyone, i don’t know how to deal with a client situation.

I was comissioned for 2 stills and the job was done and everyone happy.

Things were done through an architect intermediary.

The financer, real estate developer wants more views but rejected my new budget.

A day later the financer requests if i can “SHARE” the original 3d file, i built.

I want to respond diplomatically and not burn the bridge with the intermediary architect that brings me work constantly.

 

How should i word this answer?

Thanks.

 

...m

Edited February 5, 2019 by mauarduz
Miss spell

[Nicolai Bongard]

The price for your renderings are the way they are because the work you do is not only pressing a button to start a render, but all the modelling, lighting, and material creation and whatnot that goes into creating the images. The prices should reflect that, in that the "entrance fee" is higher, then following images should be cheaper provided that there are no redesigns/no major new work to be done. If they think your pricing is too high, obviously they are free to go to another 3d artist to create some images, but there is no reason you should support your competition by providing them with free work to start from.

If they want the 3d file, send them one without all your custom assets, render settings, cameras or lights -basically the model you received from the architect. Unless your contract states something different, they have paid for images and/or the use of those images, not the 3d model. To say that they do not want to pay you to do the work, and then ask you for free stuff is basically giving you the finger, so there is no reason you should try to please these people. You do not need them to be happy, because they are not someone you should continue working with. Find new clients that are willing to pay and move on.

[neil poppleton]

Simple sell them the 3d file. They paid for 2 stills, nothing else.

[mauarduz]

I built the 3d file

[TomD_Arch]

You absolutely should NOT just hand over the model for free. As an architect that does ArchViz I can tell you, without a doubt, your architect friend is no friend if he/she pressures you to give those files over without a fee. The architect would never just hand over .dwg or Revit files unless they were being compensated for it. And, even if there was no contract they have no right to expect those 3d files are part of the deliverables.

 

 

If I am a caterer and I cater your kids birthday party and you love the service and food, but then ask me to cater your older daughters wedding and when I give you a quote you say "That's to much, can you just give us the names of your staff and all your recipes, we're going to just do it ourselves", or worse take my staff and recipes and have your 'chef' friend do it for free. You see where I'm going with this?

 

 

Also, if you do it once what's to stop them from asking again? And again? And again?

Edited February 5, 2019 by thomas.denney@gmail.com

[Scott Schroeder]

To chime in with everyone else, they are looking to steal work from you. They reject your budget for additional views then ask for your 3d file? That seems a little suspicious.

 

If you say the extra work was $1,000 then sell your 3d file for $8,000+ as you need to insulate yourself from the loss of additional income.

 

If items like this are not in your contract and are not discussed in the first meeting with the client, please make those changes on all future jobs.

[Ernest Burden III]

If items like this are not in your contract and are not discussed in the first meeting with the client, please make those changes on all future jobs.

 

Well, yes, but if you are hired to do three pictures, that's it. You don't really need to say 'you do not get my model or my car, or to drink my milkshake'. You sold three pictures. Done. Anything else is a new negotiation.

 

The architect should understand your position that the model is a separate, additional billable item.

 

I have a few government clients who only pay hourly, so I have to bill 'time to build a model', then 'time to produce views and animations as needed'. When those clients ask for a model file, I cannot say no. They paid me separately to build it. But that's all upfront when I accept the work. And they pay well.

 

In a simple rendering agreement, only sell your model, not give it away. The client is happy to stab you in the back by hiring someone else to do more renderings.

[James Vella]

If you say the extra work was $1,000 then sell your 3d file for $8,000+ as you need to insulate yourself from the loss of additional income.

 

I agree with this, sell the model for a large price or a license to use it. This guy sells his cubes for $500 a piece, and you only get a 6 month license to use it

 

https://shop.rawandrendered.com/collections/licensing/products/sentient-block

[heni30]

It's interesting how everyone sees the client as this evil ogre almost without exception.

 

There are a couple of valid non-rendering reasons to request a model. They may want to use it to study design issues; or in my case I ask for it in case there are some last minute changes that cannot wait. And in the client's eyes he already paid for the building of the model which is part of the rendering process. Basically it's implying someone's a cheat before the fact.

 

So I think a modest fee for a stripped down version (NOT thousands of dollars for lost work) is fair. Model enhancements like shaders, lighting, etc I would consider proprietary techniques that would merit a high cost.

 

Also a rejection is not a steel door that slams shut. Maybe you could propose the rest of the renderings to be a looser, more cost effective style.

 

You might get future work from this client so you don't want to overtly imply that (s)he's a thief (even though they probably are).

[Scott Schroeder]

Well, yes, but if you are hired to do three pictures, that's it. You don't really need to say 'you do not get my model or my car, or to drink my milkshake'. You sold three pictures. Done. Anything else is a new negotiation.

 

The architect should understand your position that the model is a separate, additional billable item.

 

I have a few government clients who only pay hourly, so I have to bill 'time to build a model', then 'time to produce views and animations as needed'. When those clients ask for a model file, I cannot say no. They paid me separately to build it. But that's all upfront when I accept the work. And they pay well.

 

In a simple rendering agreement, only sell your model, not give it away. The client is happy to stab you in the back by hiring someone else to do more renderings.

 

To an extent, I guess anything is up for negotiation. Like the Million Dollar Man says, "Everyone has their price."

 

Though the one conversation that needs to happen is if you can or are willing to part with your assets in the scene. Legally, we can't share our 3d people and trees since that violates the EULA for those model collections where we purchased them. So we are up front about that with any associate architect we are sharing our max models with.

[Ernest Burden III]

...in the client's eyes he already paid for the building of the model which is part of the rendering process...

 

Artist Michael Paul Smith sells photos he makes from models he buys or builds. Here's one of his pictures:

 

Here's how makes his 'deliverable':

 

When you buy a picture from him, do you think you should be able to ask for his model?

 

How you make your deliverable is yours, the result, or just usage of the result, is your product. Your process is only reasonably owed to the client if you are working as my example, where you agree up front that you are billing for making the model. Otherwise, you only owe the part you agreed to work for.

 

In the original post, it is pretty clear that the client wants the model to give it to someone to undercut the renderer. I don't mean to make all clients bad guys, just when their expectations cross a line. And then its just a matter of educating them to what the deal actually covers.

 

EDIT: here's a gallery of his work, lots of fun

Edited February 6, 2019 by Ernest Burden

[M V]

This comes up some of the time. Typically with cheap clients but sometimes with uneducated ones. Architects typically give up their CAD files and share them across disciplines and think we should do the same. I usually educate the client that the model I used has assets that I have paid for as a studio and am not obligated to give those away. So I will need to strip the model of furniture and textures, HDRI lighting files and then because releasing the model file was not in the original agreement, you will sell it them for X. X should be more than the stills you offered to render because you have to assume that they will now be able to take that model and create a dozen views and multiple design renditions with it. It has tangible value, in the design sense.

[neilmcbean]

Typically the images are theirs, the process is yours. I wouldn't ever provide source files unless they were licensed as part of the project.

[Tom Bussey]

I don't work independently, but isn't this a good argument for a strong contract defining what exactly the client is paying for. If that's in place just refer them back to it and, if they want it, send a quote for supply of the model. If you really do want to send the model, remove all textures and collapse geometry, like someone else said, you don't have the right to resell these must of the time anyway, and if they're your assets, you really shouldn't.