Commissions vs. license sale

Guys- I would love to hear how different markets deal with these issues:

When my studio builds original props, we determine whether the item can be:
1) Rented further
2) Could be used many times by the original client
3) Would client like to buy the unlimited license to the item?
4) Could it be used as a component of another item, or parted?

We don't like to sell an item outright, only a limited license to the IMAGE(s) of the item. Photographers do the same thing. It keeps our props and sets from floating around and being used a dozen times while we are uncompensated.
I would love to see this thread explode into all facets of this problem, and related issues. It bears some resemblance to recasting issues, but that topic is already covered pretty well.

Your studio seems to deal mostly with media related pieces for advertising, etc (Im assuming). That is to say, you make things that only usually get seen in images or on public display. No one actually takes it home?

When I sell a replica piece to someone, I cant employ exactly the same series of criteria you do. The same as when I create a concept piece for a film production, thats a different set of criteria again. I think your basic structure and the points I use to determine price or the potential worth of a job do overlap in some ways though. Certain points will always be important for any piece in any style or market.

Im unsure exactly what youre after? You want to see how others deal with the probelm of '.....'? What exactly. Forgive me for missing the point, I havent had coffee yet.:wacko

This may get a bit off track, definitely something to read positive and negative discourse about.

I typed this whole thing out below, then took another look at the original post. If i hired you for a commission on an original prop, my design, it should be work for hire, i own it outright. That is if i went to you and had it in my contract to you. Also you agree with the contract for the gig. And of course you need some work to pay the bills. Otherwise move on to the next model maker.

Also, seeing that i went to you, any IP that I created and i showed you, should still be mine unless we specifically asked you to create new concepts for us, even then, there should be some clause in subcontract that lets us keep all the creations as long as we pay you for your services.

If your hired to make a replica prop, (someone elses IP) neither you nor the customer own any IP rights to the original prop. Maybe credit for building it and getting payed for it.

Just thoughts and opinions and rants below...

This has many issues, thus why model shops exist, not just prop houses, I can see renting a prop. Also if your a prop house has a model shop that has made unique creations ok, license it. But in most cases it is easier to have the item need either sourced and bought outright. Why would i go to a prop house and get a new creation it if was not part of the production design in the first place. There always some similar...

You can just have something sitting there as a stock rental item, but do you have separate area with unique creations, then tell the productions company "by the way that is my unique item" you must license it from me if you to use it in production", i'd move on to the next guy really quick.

In most cases a production places will have a model maker create it and if needed , make duplicates. They will have a designer create some art and have 3d made, all production work. That is why a companies will hire a "work for hire" photographer and then own the work outright.

I agree that model makers or prop makers and photographers need to make money, that is fine and all. But now a days with so much amateur instant photography/prop making going on, they are going the way of the record label. Same with props, you can find most anything online and own within days, you know ebay and such, there is no need to source particularly unique things so much anymore. 3D printing doesn't help any either.

i guess its really boiling down to who's holding on to being an artist and their creations, or who's just a regular Joe, that wants a artistic job and a regular paycheck doing production work.
Freelance or production?.

if that system works you great, keep at it, it hard to do.

Great thread!

DtailedREPLICAS said:

Your studio seems to deal mostly with media related pieces for advertising, etc (Im assuming). That is to say, you make things that only usually get seen in images or on public display. No one actually takes it home?

When I sell a replica piece to someone, I cant employ exactly the same series of criteria you do. The same as when I create a concept piece for a film production, thats a different set of criteria again. I think your basic structure and the points I use to determine price or the potential worth of a job do overlap in some ways though. Certain points will always be important for any piece in any style or market.

Im unsure exactly what youre after? You want to see how others deal with the probelm of '.....'? What exactly. Forgive me for missing the point, I havent had coffee yet.:wacko

Click to expand...

You are exactly correct. We generally make pieces for advertising: commercials, print etc. We have never produced a hero item for a feature film so our sphere of operation is a bit different. Our timelines and deadlines are generally jaw-dropping, so there's not much time for contractual language before we start working on something. Only about 50% of our clients even ask how much something is going to cost- we just hang up the bat-phone and start building!
You're right- I didn't ask a specific question; I think I'm more interested in a general discussion about different scenarios and challenges. Here's two scenarios to get your juices flowing:
1). We built a (fake) antique ribbon microphone with radio call letters I D O L for FOX for a commercial for American Idol. The turn around time on it was 24 hours! We actually shipped it in 30 hours. We asked $900 for the mike. I got a call from the producer two days later saying, "FOX really likes the mike! How much would it be for them to keep it?" That adds the price of its unlimited use and license, so the total jumped to $3100. They agreed- no problem. (We would have removed the call letters if it were to be a rental item)
2). We got a call from WWE to do an old-timey strongman style barbell. This call came from the set stylist, and I should have suspected something when she asked if we could make it "real" I informed her that the "real" ones were actually fake because it would weigh about 700 lbs if it were real! When we delivered it we asked when we could expect it back ($700) and she was suddenly shocked. I'll spare you the details but it went slightly downhill from there.
It's partially our fault for not discussing it in advance. This is seldom a problem with sets because we take our stock rental walls, apply paint, trim etc to them, then remove them afterwards to be cleaned, patched, and returned for further use. If you want to buy the walls outright, that's more, and it represents a loss in repeat business. We treat props the same way...or try to.
If the client designs it, it's theirs. If all the client has is a concept, it's ours, (generally).
I have graphic designer friends who deal with logo issues the same way. You aren't just paying for the time to create a logo, you are buying the unlimited use of your brand signature. It should be a bigger deal than the time it took to create the image.

Abelugo said:

This may get a bit off track, definitely something to read positive and negative discourse about.

I typed this whole thing out below, then took another look at the original post. If i hired you for a commission on an original prop, my design, it should be work for hire, i own it outright.

If your hired to make a replica prop, (someone elses IP) neither you nor the customer own any IP rights to the original prop. Maybe credit for building it and getting payed for it.
This has many issues, thus why model shops exist, not just prop houses, I can see renting a prop. Also if your a prop house has a model shop that has made unique creations ok, license it. But in most cases it is easier to have the item need either sourced and bought outright. Why would i go to a prop house and get a new creation it if was not part of the production design in the first place.

Great thread!

Click to expand...

Thanks for some well thought input . Yes our market model is a bit different, but most Dallas builders are using a similar model now (I steered them a bit)
Still Photographers who work in advertising and catalog generally sell a 1 year license to the use of the image. If the client wants to go beyond that, they purchase a new license or re-shoot the piece a different way (preferred for many reasons).
I just don't see why our contract be any less binding-
Thoughts?

here's that WWE barbell and American Idol mike

I see. They are definitely some interesting scenarios.

Firstly, im interested in how you calculate your premiums for the rights to an object. How, for example, did you arrive at $3100?

As you may have figured, its hard for me to give an informed opinion as my market works a little differently. In terms of replicas, I usually choose something to create, based on a popular idea, and then 'hope' that individuals like the representation and pay for it. Here I can't charge any sort of premium, and in fact try to charge less as I try to produce the item in a production sense, 5 - 10 at a time. Of course this in no way compares to the the production rate of others here, but i can only afford to outlay time and materials for lots of that size. So in this case I only charge enough to cover the time and cost of producing the singular item and include very little mark up for the original piece. But like Abelugo said, in a case like that the IP belongs to neither me nor the customer. So of course it'll be cheaper.

In terms of a custom piece for a film, like you say, it depends on who designed it. Of course its rare that a customer gives you a concept that can actually just be put together without any kind of modification, and often it makes sense to modify dimensions to suit your materials. In this case youve then put design work of your own into the piece and can expect to charge a little more in my opinion, but no where near the rate of a piece that youve fully designed yourself. That is to say, I charge more (if its feasible) for the work of designing the piece further on their base concept, on top of production costs. I think thats reasonable.

In terms of licencing, the pieces ive made i see as having been made 'for thecustomer'. It doesnt generally cross my mind to ever see the item again. But thats just a difference in the industries we're in I guess. I still retain the moulds and masters of the pieces however and these can be used to produce base structures from which other work can be finished. Like you mentioned.

As for 2). Well the issue there as you say is commmunication. It mightnt have been such an issue had wires not been crossed.

I guess I agree with the logo analogy. The customer is expected to pay more for something of greater value, ie, a lasting product they have full rights over.

I dont know if I could treat props the same way you try to. Im not sure it would work with my client base. But where a customer who needs a logo may never need to come back to get more work from you, a prop department that regularily makes productions will always potentially need more props. I guess I factor that benefit into a reduced price, despite the fact that what theyre getting is probably worth a lot more. I think I tend to price props differently to replicas though.

Of course you can look at it in terms of the industries. Your industry caters to those who are making money from the item you provide them. My industry, at least in terms of replicas, makes nothing but personal satisfaction from what I provide them. Of course films are designed to make money, however the films I generally cater to are more about producing something artistic and making a name for themselves to one day make decent money. Im happy to help these people because Im sick of the same 7 directors making all the movies. I try to do my bit:lol

As an example, here is the master of a custom commissioned helmet for a production that I developed with a client and then scratch built (ill probably be doing a write up in the near future)



I charged an initial rate to produce the master that was priced below the cost of a one-off, fully finished helmet and then charged a reduced rate for multiples as the client requires a dozen. (this way I retain the master and can easily provide a lower cost copy in the future, if the client requires it and charge a reduced rate because ive covered all my costs in the price of the initial master. Things are unpredictable in film and I feel doing things this way benefits the customer).

Had it been a singular custom piece, with no other copies, Id have charged an amount equal to the cost of the initial master, plus the cost of a finished copy and then a premium for a one off piece.

And further, if it wasnt for the film industry, but just a display piece, I would have charged that combined price plus a premium for a 'display quality finish' i guess youd call it.
Thats not to say I skimp on quality when making film props, but the level of finish required should always be less than a dedicated display piece (except for a piece involved in close-ups) as this keeps the cost down for the production team. I feel this way anyway.

The point Im making, is that I factor your 'licence' cost in my dealings based on the likelihood of further copies, not on how long the piece is used by the client, because for me, thats usually forever.

Hahaha I love it!
I guess, because of the weird industry segment we work in, a good analogy would be a "hot shot" crew. We are to guys who get called to solve a problem or fill a need immediately. (I'm not sure if you use the hot-shot term the same way in the Southern Hemisphere) Do me a little favor- take a look back two posts: I mentioned the way photographers sell their license- what are your impressions?

Drool.....

Pippspriller said:

Thanks for some well thought input . Yes our market model is a bit different, but most Dallas builders are using a similar model now (I steered them a bit)
Still Photographers who work in advertising and catalog generally sell a 1 year license to the use of the image. If the client wants to go beyond that, they purchase a new license or re-shoot the piece a different way (preferred for many reasons).
I just don't see why our contract be any less binding-
Thoughts?

Click to expand...

This bit here

I love those pieces by the way.

For photographers I think it falls into (at least) 3 catergories.

A) Photos that are specific to the client, that are unlikely to be used by anyone else

B) Photos requested be taken for the client but that can be used for others in the future

C) And photos that you already have in stock that you took for other clients and they will no longer use, or simpy photos you took on your own accord and offer to clients at a price.

Im sure there are others but thats what comes to mind.

A) Expensive. Premium Rate stuff. The equivalent of a full license for the client, as they will be the only ones that use them, they might as well keep them.

B) Expensive. But lack a premium as you may get further use. These can be 'rented' under contract like your pieces.

C) Low rate. You gain small income from a large number of clients. Unfortunately, these all end up on google:unsure


Thats how i see it anyway.

I totally agree with everything you said- gorgeous work, btw. Really nice composition of scale!
If you're keeping the master/molds and reserve the right to produce copies, then I think our ideologies are VERY close. We actually make an agreement in most cases to refrain from re-renting a piece for a period of 6months after the release of the commercial or print ad.

Thanks alot.

I agree, that we agree. haha. I think if the client wants control over the mold, ie, the ability to decide if copies are made, then they have 2 choices:

pay a premium for the right to decide on whether copies are produced, for themselves or by us for other interested parties. (An agreed royalty on copies falls in this catergory also) This would be a premium that would be applied to a limited agreed time frame

or

pay a bucket load for the mold itself. If they want full, permanent decision making ability, they can pay for the right. Afterall, theres a big leap between concept and a finished piece. All of that work falls on the builder.

But at the same time I agree with your policy on an agreement with the client to not use the piece in anyway, for an (6 months sounds good) agreed period. I think thats fair and polite business. We deserve to be paid for our work, but theres no need to be ruthless.

I'd love to see your work in person, but apparently there's an entire planet in the way :-/ Maybe if I move over a bit...no, that didn't work either.
Make sure I see your helmet thread, ok?

Haha.:lol

Well thanks very much. If the above pics of yours are anything to go by, I can say the same thing to you with certainty.

Hopefully if all goes well with this film for my client, you'll be able to see a dozen of them finished, with the armour and accessories Im designing for them as well as a ship miniature thats in development amd a few other pieces here and there.

Will do. I plan on doing the helmet thread, mainly because there arent many step by steps out their for others on how to scratch build something like this. Most of the *existing reference is pep based. There'll be lots of photos of every stage. Hopefully it'll help out someone along the line.

Pep based! You're a patient, insane bugger!
This is exactly the conversation I wanted to open up, and I welcome other views...so, if you're reading this, speak up:-D

A throwable manhole cover?

Ok, when do you need it?