Jump to content
Product Design Forums

Treasurebox
Sign in to follow this  
Guest csven

Crowdfunding Design: Finding Money To Pay For Design Projects

Recommended Posts

Guest csven
Sven what happened? You were so eager for me to join your little conversation over on linked in and not you or the "thousand other designers you are batting with" have any kind of compelling answer to my last post?

Not a single professional said they supported you or your boss; just the opposite. So much for your initial assertions about your employer's approach being standard industry practice. Have to wonder if you're being taught stuff that was relevant in the 70's instead of being taught what's relevant today. Consequently, debating you - a wet-behind-the-ears noob designer pretending to have all the answers and posting worthless references - became boring. If you want a worthwhile discussion, then keep hammering away on LinkedIn. Maybe someone there will finally agree with you. This forum isn't the best place to resolve your concerns. Besides, I think you've already done enough damage to your employer's reputation talking with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ahh avoiding the tough questions all together, not surprising. Probably why you didn't respond over on linked in either

 

Question remains: If clients are entitled to native files in every case as you seem to suggest, where do we draw the line?

 

Should they be entitled to our native photoshop files used to create a rendering?

Should they be entitled to our digital sketchwork enabling them to make changes to the individual layers?

And when programs like Ilovesketch and other 3D sketching programs go mainstream should they be entitled to our native files allowing them to essentially modify a 3D sketch (or is is a 3D model now???)

 

Frankly I've grown tired of this as well especially because your argument has no legal substance or precedence and is based purely on opinion. At least I have a professional organizations contract to refer to which clearly outlines these issues.

 

If you truly understood the implications of what you are suggesting you would realize that your argument is pointless. If our clients were entitled to our native CAD files in every case it would set a precedence for many other forms of media as well basically abolishing any of our rights to our intellectual property.

 

oh and resulting to such childish insults simply because someone has less experience than you is always a nice touch, you do your peers proud!

 

anyways best of luck with the crowd-funding thing, its good to see some people have taken some interest in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest csven
ahh avoiding the tough questions all together, not surprising. Probably why you didn't respond over on linked in either

Not avoiding. Just don't see the point in expending more time discussing this with all of one person who believes their way (learned from all of 2 years of professional experience) is the way.

 

your argument has no legal substance or precedence and is based purely on opinion. At least I have a professional organizations contract to refer to which clearly outlines these issues.

A good example of why having an intelligent discussion with you is a no-starter: you make factual claims based on poor assumptions.

 

What you have is a one-size-fits-all contract which - based on your employer's comment - includes an extraordinarily rigid provision which must be met before claims of owning the intellectual property are valid. I wasn't the first to point this out on LinkedIn as it's a major detail; one to which you seem mostly oblivious.

 

Furthermore, honestly, has it not occurred to you that in my over 15 years in the business I've not examined contracts from some well-known design firms? Firms like Altitude (with whom I've worked directly and who sent their native files to us), Anderson Design (with whom I've worked directly and who sent their native files to us), Smart Design (with whom I've worked directly and had nothing to send), Ziba, Insight, aso; firms that hire their own legal counsel and develop a contract more in keeping with how design firms actually work.

 

When you work internally at highly regarded corporations, you sometimes get to see those contracts; either while working with consulting firms or after taking over the paperwork of previous designers who worked with them. If you're smart, you study these things. But you wouldn't know about such things, would you? And because you've only ever really worked for one small design firm this possibility never occurred to you, did it? Rhetorical questions. Obviously, based on your assertion, it didn't. You're apparently content to rely on the guidance provided from a single, limited employment experience and make broad claims from that alone. Not the best approach, imo.

 

anyways best of luck with the crowd-funding thing, its good to see some people have taken some interest in it.

Thanks. As expected, it won't be funded, but I've learned some things and that's worth quite a bit to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you truly understood the implications of what you are suggesting you would realize that your argument is pointless. If our clients were entitled to our native CAD files in every case it would set a precedence for many other forms of media as well basically abolishing any of our rights to our intellectual property.

 

This reminds me of a conversation with my 16 year old.....

 

I think you are missing the point. IP has nothing to do with the media it is provided in. IP relates to the intellectual value of the invention or the appearance of the physical end product. What you are confusing it with is copyright - which relates to the use of the results of the process of design - sketches, drawings, digital media. Copyright is a well established means of protection. It is owned by the author of the content and as such the author of the content choose who or what has access to it. It is NOTHING to do with the intellectual property.

 

What we are discussing (or were discussing) is why some seem to fear supplying customers with media that in other areas of design we have no issues with. Photography for example. I buy photography all the time. I "own" the content as that is the arrangement I have with the photographer. Graphic design is the same. I know many designers and agencies who issue native files for brochures - why is this any different?

 

I have a colleague with over 30 years advertising experience working for big multinationals and his company hands over native content. Why? Because they recognise that the value is not in the media but in the end product.

 

I can assure you that I could take any one of your product designs and take the end product to some locations in China and within a month would have a fully tooled duplicate - I don't need native CAD data for that. If you think differently well....take a trip to China and see.

 

What a lot of designers forget is that the process is but a means to an end. If more of us focussed on delivering a quality service and end result the industry as a whole would be more highly regarded. I would much rather deliver an appropriate, well designed working, profitable product to a customer than run rings around them trying to protect "my" design media.

 

If they want it, they can have it. If you choose not to give it to them that is your perogative but please do not make blanket statements that you somehow have an industry protection behind you. You don't. In my experience professional bodies are a waste of time. They do not afford you any protection, but merely serve to retain the status quo.

 

That is my opinion and I don't expect you to agree. Perhaps that is the subject of another topic? Are national professional bodies relevant in 2009?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the question was simply: is the client entitled to our native files? the answer is no

 

do some people provide them at their own discretion when it is mutually beneficial, yes.

 

As mentioned before though there are instances whereby it may not be in your best interest to provide clients with native files and you would be perfectly within your rights to withhold them.

 

If you were working on a design for royalties to which you are investing design time up front would you hand over your native files knowing their intention was to cut you out of revenue you should be entitled to and take it some where else?

 

Anyways in dealing with hundreds of vendors and manufacturers none of them have ever asked for native files so its really a non issue to me, everyone seems to be pretty happy with standard export formats.

 

After all as I mentioned we included a series of manufacturing revisions in our designs proposals, so in fact our clients are even happier because they don't have to pay the manufacturer to make changes, and the manufacturer is happier because he doesn't have to waist time having his design engineers call us every two minutes to find out why things were designed in a certain way and if they can make make changes to the design without compromising it in some way. If i have to spend the whole day on the phone it also takes away time I could be spending on design. It's actually more efficient for us to make the necessary changes ourselves because we can do it quicker than anyone else.

 

And Sven just to clarify you do not have to design a product in its entirety to allow you to be the author of a design and have the ability to assign the rights of that design to a client, all that is required is that you quote the entire design project, and even if they terminate the project at any point it does not affect your authorship rights, you are only exempt from this if you are getting paid by the hour or are on salary. So no need to get hung up on this as it is not a strict provision at all.

 

If you ever have a chance to read an IDSA or ACIDO contract please do, as I have have only been reiterating the points they outline specifically in these contracts. If you have an issue with the provisions they have outlined to protect the rights of industrial designers then I suggest you take your complaints right to them and tell them exactly what you think our rights should be.

 

ps. Kevin thank you for pointing out the IP issue, your right on that one, what I meant was that in stating the client should be entitled to our native files in every case would cause the process designers employ to no longer be proprietary to them (which it currently is according to ACIDO and IDSA)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.