supplying geometry to a client... he wants to know why it costs extra

[lukx]

Ok I assume we all agree that supplying geometry to a client is usually extra cost right?
I've done animation and set a price for it but the client didn't mention that he will want any geometry at the end.
No when all is done he said he want some geometry from the scenes. I said that it's extra cost and ... he wants me to explain why he have to pay extra and how I can explain the amount I want to charge him.
Did you ever got this kind of question? I guess he thinks that because it's all done it belongs to him or something and he doesn't have to pay anything for it. Any tips how I can politely explain it to the client?

Basically what I created was animation presenting simulation of packing things in warehouse on carts. And client want me to export things into FBX for creating some game like thing in Unity I guess.

[glorybound]

You have proprietary techniques. Some of my $1000 renderings have $5000 worth of assets.

[lukx]

Yeah Bobby but how to explain it to someone who thinks that if models are done it's still cost extra to supply them.

[Morbid Angel]

Should it not be clear that they are paying for the rendered images? By disclosing your proprietary assets / scenes you give them the intellectual property a know-how of content creation which is worth far more then the images they paid for.

For example, it takes you a few days to create a scene, render a nice image etc. But its because you have done your home work and an extensive RnD on how to do this before hand. It consumed a large amount of your time (something you didn't get paid for by anyone) You've spent that time learning, improving your skills etc so that you can get work in the future but completing the work faster more efficiently at a lower cost.

At any studio where I was involved in a production, there was always new content creation, that was never done before by anyone, or done by few and no one else knew how it was done exactly. So for every project there was easily 2-4 month of Rnd (basically how the hell are we going to do this) and a serious crew of very talented people sat there trying to come up with ways to make things. Then we hit production and were fast at content creation because we already knew how to do it etc etc.

You can tell your client the same. That without charging rnd time on content creation you can stay cost efficient and competitive. If you charge for that rnd time, not to mention assets as Bobby said, your cost would quadruple and that would put you out of business. Additionally, handing over IP content, such as your proprietary lighting setups, render setups, scenes etc will also put you at a competitive disadvantage.

Let's face it, nothing is stopping your client or anyone else from taking your scenes and giving them to some one else, to get a few new angles done at a fraction of the cost - the work that you might have been otherwise doing (lost).

If this is not clear in your contracts, then it should be for the future

[lukx]

Awsome, thank you Dmitry! We'll see what their response will be

[Raven]

Hey Luke

The best way I have found to explain it to a client is from a photography model angle.
You have commissioned a set of shots with a model, you own those shots and can use them as agreed to before hand, however you do not on the model, the camera or any of the wardrobe/props used in the shoot.

[Mokiki]

Pretty much what everyone else has said. We usually make it a point to highlight that at the end the client will have the rights to the rendered image not the data that was created for the image for exactly the reasons Dmitry described. (minus the months of RnD :P)

We also have a similar problem with photos too. For example if we're doing a photo shoot of a building or interior for the architect, we usually get contacted by other companies that were responsible for example the windows/door constructions etc. and they demand the photos that were done to be handed over for free because we already got paid for the work by the architects.

[lukx]

We also have a similar problem with photos too. For example if we're doing a photo shoot of a building or interior for the architect, we usually get contacted by other companies that were responsible for example the windows/door constructions etc. and they demand the photos that were done to be handed over for free because we already got paid for the work by the architects.

wow this is crazy!

[Morbid Angel]

Yeah same goes to things like, if you buy a cd or dvd does not mean you own the rights to that music or the movie.

[AlexP]

We stopped this by having a blanket policy of never giving out any models after a project, and make it clear at the start of every project.

[Syclone1]

We stopped this by having a blanket policy of never giving out any models after a project, and make it clear at the start of every project.

Ditto here: If you buy a painting you dont get the brushes and left over paint, and if you buy a photo you dont get the camera, lights, props... that were used

[Richard7666]

Basically it's an IP issue. The finished product was the animation. I imagine he made it clear at the start he wanted an ANIMATION, not a scene.

It's like if the product was a custom boat. The boat is the work delivered to the client, the CAD files used to design the boat however do not belong to the client. Same thing with animation and the scene files used to build it.

You have proprietary techniques. Some of my $1000 renderings have $5000 worth of assets.

Actually, most of those assets probably can't even be re-distrubuted! You'd have to strip them out.

[Morbid Angel]

Actually, most of those assets probably can't even be re-sold! You'd have to strip them out.

Its an interesting point. For that matter, I believe when you buy assets from places like turbosquid you cannot explicitly resell them, or give them away for that matter, as this would be in violation to the user agreement. This is why I always ask my clients to provide the assets to me as part of collaborative process. In that case, they are the "owners" of the assets and I just use them to create the images.

[Alan Iglesias]

Ok I assume we all agree that supplying geometry to a client is usually extra cost right?...

This is a good thread. My 0.02$ on the subject...

After going through this sort of thing very early in my career, every single job I ever did was/is preceded by a written proposal. Every proposal has a paragraph entitled DELIVERABLES. This paragraph describes exactly what will be delivered to the client at the end of the job and the responsible parties must agree to it before work begins.

There are zero assumptions by anyone, the documentation exists, and it pretty much guarantees that these sorts of problems will never happen.

-Alan