A few questions for you Architectural visualisers

[Notorious]

Hi all.

I've been visualising using Max for a number of years now. Mainly interiors and exhibition stuff.

I have the chance to quote on some architectural visuals and a few questions have come up. I would be interested to here any comments on them:

 

Copyright: I never give out my .Max files but would assume that the client owns the copyright on the final images. Is this so or do you charge extra for ownership??? Do you guys need a contract for this sort of thing?

 

Apart from the CAD drawings, what kind of info is needed, I would assume that it's quite a timely process to gather all reference material. Is this so?

 

Revisions: Obviously most jobs need amending do you charge different rates for ammendments or build them into the initial quote.

 

I always charge a day rate regardless of it being ammendments, photography, or rendering. Is this the norm????

 

 

Thanks in advance for any comments

[Jeff Mottle]

Copyright: I never give out my .Max files but would assume that the client owns the copyright on the final images. Is this so or do you charge extra for ownership??? Do you guys need a contract for this sort of thing?

 

Some people only licence the images to the client for a specfic purpose, but the majority allow the client full copyright for the images you create. If they want the MAX file they will definetly have to pay more for that as it means not only you losing all future business for changes, but also potentially the loss of your proprietary setups etc. Most people either charge so much that it's not worth it to the client, or simply don't do it at all.

Be sure in your contract to state that you retain the rights to use the images for your own promotional purposes, even though they own the actual image copyright.

 

Apart from the CAD drawings, what kind of info is needed, I would assume that it's quite a timely process to gather all reference material. Is this so?

 

Some possibilities: the view, the intent of the image, how it will be used, final deliverable (CD, printed image, digital copy) whether there will be an animation down the road, finishes and applicable material samples.

 

Revisions: Obviously most jobs need amending do you charge different rates for ammendments or build them into the initial quote.

 

I will always do really small changes for free (like change the color of a texture, shift a hue, move an object etc), unless there are a lot of small changes or the changes require more than an hour of my time total throught the project. Some people charge hourly for revision work, but client usually appreciate a quote to do the re-work and then a flat fee to do that work. This route leaves less room for argument in the end and gives them the chance to decide if the changes are really worth the money it will cost to do. Many times, they will opt not to make changes.

 

I always charge a day rate regardless of it being ammendments, photography, or rendering. Is this the norm????

 

I bill a flat fee based on an internal hourly rate to cover overhead and profit. So it my billout is $120/hr and I think it will take me 10 hours to do the work, then I will quote a flat fee of $1200. That hourly fee applies to everything, whether than be tapdancing on the boardroom table or making revisions. Actually that is not true, tap dancing would cost about 300/hr.

[Ernest Burden III]

Some people only licence the images to the client for a specfic purpose, but the majority allow the client full copyright for the images you create.

 

I don't think that is the norm in the United States.

 

I don't think I have ever sold a copyright, and if I did I was probably drunk when I agreed to it. In fact, under US law, you can only sell a copyright (meaning lose it as the creator) IN WRITING, or if the work is created as a normal part of regular employment.

 

Your country may vary.

[luckytohaveher]

I am not a lawyer so the following is just a guess, nothing more.

 

Typically, as an artist, you own the copyright to your work -- period. Unless specifically denoted in the contract this is normally the case. However, the client, since they are paying you, has the right to reasonable use. This usually mean copying a few times, using it in a advertisement, etc. Basically this includes any know use you had when performing the work.

 

I would never hand over anything to a client as far a source material goes. Unless, of course, you were paid extra or significant money to do so. In my experience client who look to own everything once you help them out are just looking to take you, so price your fees accordingly.

 

You do have the right to give away the ranch, but why would you?

 

My tap-dancing is much cheaper than my billing rate many due to my enjoyment of tap-dancing and on account of how bad my tap-dancing really is!!!

[Jeff Mottle]

In fact, under US law, you can only sell a copyright (meaning lose it as the creator) IN WRITING,

Your country may vary.

 

Well all of my contracts give the rights of the imagery to the client with the exception of us being able to use it for self promotion. If they pay for it, it's theirs as far as I'm concerned. It's not like I can sell that image to anyone else or repurpose it so why not? Just my opinion.

[Charles Gaushell]

Since I'm in a posting mood tonight I'll chime in.

 

At Paradigm Productions we maintain joint rights in the contract. Similar to Jeff - the client can use the images or animations as they please (as long as we are given credit when appropriate) and we can use them for promotional purposes.

 

Having said that, there are times that the client for various reasons has asked us to not use the images for promotions for some period of time - and since client relations are important, we work something out.

 

We have never given away CAD files for free. If the client has requested (only twice in 13 years) them then we put extreme requirements when we do so - like only the building and site models - no furniture, trees, scene files, bitmaps, etc. We are not about to give away things that we have either purchased or built over the years - which in many instances is actually illegal anyway since you only have usage rights when you bought them.

 

There is a thing called Work for Hire which ad agencies like - and that we've done on on a few projects - but we've always snuck in the same caveats - we can use for marketing (with their permission) and we don't give away proprietary models or things.

 

So be careful with Work for Hire because if you aren't careful, they will own everything used in conjunction with your final product.

[Ernest Burden III]

we maintain joint rights in the contract. Similar to Jeff - the client can use the images or animations as they please (as long as we are given credit when appropriate) and we can use them for promotional purposes.

 

I grant wide usage rights, like "design review, promotion and advertising". I am not trying to be a usage hawk, or trying to catch them in anything and jump out yelling "GOTCHA"! But I quetly maintain all of my copyrights.

 

A gray area--the owner hired you, paid you, but your day-to-day dealings were with the architect. You handed in the job for the owner to use. Now the architect, who is really not your client, uses the renderings for their own purposes. Is that OK? Generally, I let them. I have had an associate architect in some other state use a rendering to promote their own business amd that has annoyed me.

 

 

Oh, ad agencies. You gotta love 'em. Here is an email I had to send this morning:

 

I recieved the Purchase Order by fax. It has some fine print at the bottom. Nothing unusual there, most faxes from clients have a bit at the bottom about 'this is a confidential communication, meant for the addressee only,

etc.". Not yours. It's a really, really, tiny legal agreement. But with a big reach.

 

While my proposal did not cover all legal possibilities, it did, for example, outlay a scope of use of the work. Your agreement goes well beyond that. So I think it was important for someone from Posner to point out that you expected all rights forever. To say that the proposal is accepted but then to send me this is a little surprising.

 

The PO language says, in basic:

 

* You get all rights forever (copyright transfer without actually calling it that)

* If your client is slow in paying you, then you don't have to pay me and my only legal recourse is with your client, not you

* I have to release you and your client from any liability regarding just about anything you do

* The fine print become 'the' agreement and cancels any other negotiations without so much as a signature to confirm acceptance

 

 

I think I pretty much covered it. I have been an illustrator in the NY market for over 20 years and have never worked under terms like these and have no plans to start now. I told Frank XXXXXXX I would send you a contract,

but he said, 'well, we were already sending you a Purchase Order'. I usually get a retainer upon a signed agreement. But I figured I would just 'go with the flow' and wait to bill you on that. Until I read the fine print.

 

So I have enclosed my regular contract with a few bits added to make sure we all understand the language of your PO is NOT agreed to. Frankly, I do not expect XXXXXXX to sign it any more than I intend to work under your terms. But it is not unreasonable. I wish someone there had disclosed the terms you require right from the start, as they are by no means 'standard' in the

NY architectural rendering market. I would have told you immediately that I do not find them acceptable. You could have been looking for another illustrator.

[Tim Nelson]

Daaang! You get 'em Ernest!

 

I've yet to ever run into trouble with that either, although I'm sure there will come a time.

 

My clients are usually pretty easy to work with and there has never been a question of copywrite ownership. In fact they used one of my recent images in a magazine & actually gave me credit for the work in big letters! As far as I was concerned they didn't have to do that, but it was some nice to get some free advertising.

[Ernest Burden III]

My clients are usually pretty easy to work with and there has never been a question of copywrite ownership.

 

Same here. Some will use an image in more ways than they should, but I give 'em a lot of slack, especially if they are a loyal client. In other words, keeping my copyright doesn't mean I have to be a hardass, just that I own my own work, which they pay to use to make themselves more money.

 

they used one of my recent images in a magazine & actually gave me credit for the work in big letters! As far as I was concerned they didn't have to do that

 

Just put a line in your contact 'any reproduction must include a credit "artistX" and they then they will have to. I think its an important issue. I love to see my work in a magazine, but hate it when there's no credit. I'm not asking for more money, just a little respect, damn it.

[Ernest Burden III]

For anyone who read my post about the legal stuff added to the Purchase order:

 

After first saying they would strike the part about 'they own everything forever', I still figured the project was a lost cause because it left all the 'we are held harmless for any breach on our part'. Can you beat that--they can break an agreement and cannot be held to account! Anyway, I stuck to my position that they needed to sign my contract and send a retainer while they were at it.

 

So a few minutes later they faxed me the contract signed. Then called to say they were working on the check.

 

I'm rather surprised.

[Susan]

See now that's the kind of stuff that keeps me from sleeping at night. The gall of some people. I ran into too many of those.

 

Many a time I used a contract based on a template from the ASAI only to find Canadian architects and builders bristled over the contents. They found it "self-serving". I was told that I was in a service industry and I had to be prepared to provide service, no extra charges.

 

I never had a problem with any US accounts, just the Canadian ones. I got: "Maybe its because you're an MBA, Susan, but you're too caught up in the legal-ease. We do business on a handshake here, or a little paragraph summing up our discusions sent by e-mail". The other thing I noted is that the styles they like in Canada are far more prescribed and stiff. The Americans can easily go for things that are more "arty". I think maybe I'll move....Nah, maybe not.

[jackb602]

I grant wide usage rights, like "design review, promotion and advertising". I am not trying to be a usage hawk, or trying to catch them in anything and jump out yelling "GOTCHA"! But I quetly maintain all of my copyrights.

 

 

This is something I've never been clear on. I understand that copyright is actually a "bundle of rights" but I don't know what proper terms are to describe those rights. How did you come up with your terms, "design review, promotion and advertising"? Are those accepted terms, or did they just sound right?

 

Also, I liked the letter to your prospective clients! Luckily, I haven't had any copyright issues yet, but I haven't been around that long either.

 

Jack

[visions]

hi,

this is what we do in India

 

This is the standard writing on our Invoices.....

 

"Copyright of all artwork in the form of renderings or animations delivered in any format and the meshes created during this process is the property of VISIONS. We do not release meshes or model files.

Copyright ownership of the Designs provided rest with the Designer.

Clients are granted an unlimited use license of all delivered artwork conditioned on receipt of full payment of all Dues and subject to adequate credits"

 

we have had clients who have come back and asked for the actual max files...and only in one case we have given them.

 

not that any client ever gives us credit in the images used!

 

well

cheers

[Ernest Burden III]

How did you come up with your terms, "design review, promotion and advertising"? Are those accepted terms, or did they just sound right?

 

I just made it up. Like Vivek said about their contract, I'm not really trying to LIMIT the client's use of the work, so I use expansive language.

 

One reason I put in that wording--I want to make the point that the client is paying for use of the artwork image, and is NOT buying out everything. Its really just a concept, and doesn't affect much in practice, but I want to make clear what is being sold by me.

 

But there are times that i DO want to limit their use. An example would be when someone begs for a low fee, and says 'oh, its just for this one meeting that we need it'. So if they get the low fee they also get language that mentions the compromise they are agreeing to as I am making mine.

 

One of my clients is a big arch. in NY. They usually pay me themselves, but sometimes have their developer clients send me a check directly. So who owns usage rights? The developer. But every few years the architect puts together a 'monograph' of their work, and many projects still in progress are illustrated by my renderings and those of other renderers they use. So someone is buying copies of these books, and the architect didn't even pay for some of the work they are publishing. It annoys me, and I have pointed it out to them, along with the fact that as long as they keep hiring me I will be in a good mood.