@box said:

As an update, there have been some issues with the 'client', pubic art is always problematic and keeping everyone happy is basically impossible.
However, two weeks after we reinstalled the second sculpture they have deigned to go and look at them. As a result of their 'viewing' I received an SMS telling me that they have been approved. I really wonder what these people think.

Sorry, no photos as such because they are still covered until they decide to unveil them, at a date to be decided.

To quote John Cleese:

'Yes, well of course that's just the sort of blinkered, philistine, pig-ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage. You sit there on your loathsome spotty behinds squeezing blackheads, not caring a tinker's cuss about the struggling artist! You excrement! '

It was probly just an OH&S sign off tho.

Heading Ballarat way in a couple of weeks, so tis hopefully unveiled, otherwise might have to do a bit of undercover viewing.

@jql said:

The fact is that with a 2D they can't do much. It's very useful for some stuff but... come on. It's flat!

With 3D they can:

• Output 2D;
• 3D Print;
• Render Stills and commercials;
• Render animations;
• Show to their clients;
• Insert on 3rd party models;
• And so on...

Interesting... I wonder whether there is any way to make my files 'flat' before passing them over. Plugin/Flatery perhaps?

Thanks for all your thoughtful replies.
I feel clear now that I own the SKPS.
I will attempt to negotiate a fee with the client.
Although how much is a puzzle. Some percentage of the original cost I suppose.

@Dave: I think you are outvoted here. The point being the 'Process' belongs to me/you. The client is paying for the output only. Of course if you were on salary, with all the benefits that go with that, different story,

I'm getting it.

It's about the 'Process'.

Never thought about it this way before.

@rich o brien said:

That would depend on the contract you have. If you have one?

No contract, just the usual "Need it yesterday"

@rich o brien said:

Since you used a process to abstract the 3D model I would be of the opinion that you need to be compensated if they require the CAD files.

Not sure what you mean by 'abstract' and 'process'

@rich o brien said:

It seems like you allowed them to use the 2D renderings but the 3D element/s is part of your process to generate the 2D renderings.

If I understand you, it is common practice to give clients either a PDF or hard copies. If I were producing original work for them, then intellectual property rights would be applicable.
But apart from my 'artistic' style, the works are derived from the clients information. And therefore not original.

@rich o brien said:

The have ample info in the 2D files to reproduce the 3D equivalent. If they want the 3D files then that is a whole new discussion.

I don't think they want 3D particularly, just the 2D parts of my SKPS to make alterations etc.

Over the last few years I have done many drawings for a manufacturer.
They have just taken on a Cad draftsman and have asked me for the SKPS so he can convert them to DWG.

I don't feel I have intellectual property rights like, say, an archictect. But do I have any?
Most of the jobs were either from the clients mud maps or measurements and photos I took of prototypes.(See samples). A lot of the work required that I understood the process the drawing was meant to explain.

The crucial question is if I have some rights I could make a case for some compensation.

(The jobs were always delivered as vector PDFs, so I suppose they could DXF them anyway).

Looks very good. Nice clean GUI. Thanks.

Had same issue. Did as Box suggested. All good.

@rich o brien said:

Bump topic...

Can we get 4 more votes?

Where are Cotty and Box?

2 years last Tuesday. 12mg nicotine. About 15mls per week.

I am used to the SU related banner ads, but recently I have been seeing strange ones that have nothing to do with SU or the forum.
Is it the board or me?

Voted yes but won't compete. But I love seeing SubD examples.

You might want to check out 2DBoolean by Joel G. Just the thing for this operation.

@box said:

Here you go Baz, best I could manage in the wind today.
It's still a construction zone as you can see.

That gave us a bit of a taste,ta.
Looks amazing and proves that its a FPS experience
BTW: Was the guys fly open?

I appreciate how hard it is to photograph, so a 'short' walk around with video might go some way to capturing the artworks

@box said:

These sculptures are basically impossible to photograph. I doubt I'll ever get anything showing both looking good. Their very nature makes them a dynamic installation.
The figures change constantly with the movement of the sun, one minute hidden in the depths of the pool then as the sun comes out from behind a cloud or around the edge of a building they jump out at you with bright sparkling edges.
But reflections and glare make static images difficult but I caught this angle this afternoon that gives you a bit of an idea of how they look.

How about a short video?

Good stuff in Wired Magazine...

Beautiful Renderings Resurrect Frank Lloyd Wright’s Demolished Buildings

(wired.us8.list-manage.com)

The lifting frame looks to be a work of art on its own, what could possibly go wrong.

Sorry for delay in replying. Thanks for the hints.
The Gilles 'follow me' method works the best for me. I havent tried your idea yet Pilou.
Thanks again.

@dave r said:

[attachment=0:2wmfo4zu]<!-- ia0 -->Jewelers bench.png<!-- ia0 -->[/attachment:2wmfo4zu]

Based on one dated to about 1900. I drew it for a tutorial on cutting the stopped chamfers.

In FWW?