Rendering for profit

Message boards : General talk : Rendering for profit
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

AuthorMessage
Philip

Send message
Joined: 8 Oct 07
Posts: 6
Credit: 929
RAC: 0
Message 6911 - Posted: 20 Oct 2007, 13:23:30 UTC - in response to Message 6460.  

I have two hypothetical questions about the renders being used for profit. Say I render something and want to license it under a creative commons license. Will I not be able to use just the attribution license since someone could take that work and make a derivative and sell it. Or if I make something like elephants dream. Would I be able to ship it on a dvd now or sometime in the future if I also provided all the files for download under a creative commons license?

About the main question. I agree that people should be able to make profit off the renders. But only if they pay more cobblestones, which they\'ve either earned or bought off other users. It would also be nice, though not essential if they mentioned burp and provided the files under some open license like creative commons. Big companies and advertising studio\'s wouldn\'t use this service as they would have contracts to keep everything secret. We would probably only get some small independent companies/people and I believe helping them would be mutually beneficial for all.

Philip
ID: 6911 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Janus
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 04
Posts: 4572
Credit: 2,100,463
RAC: 8
Message 6914 - Posted: 20 Oct 2007, 20:43:37 UTC - in response to Message 6911.  
Last modified: 20 Oct 2007, 21:16:46 UTC

I have two hypothetical questions about the renders being used for profit. Say I render something and want to license it under a creative commons license. Will I not be able to use just the attribution license since someone could take that work and make a derivative and sell it.

Creative commons is a very nice initiative to provide a playing field inbetween fully copyrighted and public domain licensing. The attribution license you mention gives people the right to adapt the work, copy it etc. - but also the right to sell it (which is against the current BURP agreements).
The CC attribution noncommercial is more along the lines of what is expected at the moment.

\"At the moment.\"

Or if I make something like elephants dream. Would I be able to ship it on a dvd now or sometime in the future if I also provided all the files for download under a creative commons license?

No. Not with the current license. This is actually something that I\'m particularly sad about and it shows that the original license may be slightly too narrow-minded.

Maybe we do not really want to restrict sessions to be non-commercial, but rather that whatever the output is used for should be freely available? [fuel for the discussion here].
Notice the difference:
A fully non-commercial license means that you cannot (nor can anyone) earn money on the output regardless of what you do (current license is like this).
A share-alike license would mean that you are free to make money of it if you also provide whatever you make money of for free.
ID: 6914 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
AC
Project donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Sep 07
Posts: 121
Credit: 143,874
RAC: 0
Message 6915 - Posted: 20 Oct 2007, 23:15:28 UTC - in response to Message 6914.  

This is actually something that I\'m particularly sad about and it shows that the original license may be slightly too narrow-minded. [...]


I had actually written an entirely-too-long comment on that topic earlier, but decided at the last minute to spare the community from my long, opinionated, unsolicited rant. The applicable part, though, was that I\'d love to be able to put something I rendered here on an \"eye candy\" type of DVD, should the opportunity arise. I don\'t know if they\'re still making them, but the \"Mind\'s Eye\" videos from a decade ago are a good example of that type of application, and sessions like 373 would fit right in with their type of material. If that session\'s author wanted to include the render on a commercially available CGI anthology DVD, I certainly wouldn\'t resent it.

Also, as someone who sells digital art prints through services like Zazzle (members get a free storefront to show off their wares, and then get a SMALL percentage of each sale as royalties) I\'m saddened by the fact that the current license would prohibit me from adding any of my Burp renders to my gallery.
ID: 6915 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Keck_Komputers
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Mar 05
Posts: 94
Credit: 1,384,324
RAC: 7
Message 6916 - Posted: 21 Oct 2007, 7:06:02 UTC

I do not mind rendering for profit. However out of respect for the participants that do I think there should be an opt-in preference. By default it should probably be non-profit only.
BOINC WIKI

BOINCing since 2002/12/8
ID: 6916 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
alantiagofelipe

Send message
Joined: 6 Nov 07
Posts: 1
Credit: 9,181
RAC: 0
Message 6989 - Posted: 8 Nov 2007, 6:56:05 UTC

I think that we need at least 50% of resources available for non profit...
If we don\'t have \"non profit work units\", then we can the options to accept the profit WU

I\'m agree with the restriction of show output raw files.

I\'m a student of computer science... (beginning) and I know little about blender (3d softwares...) and about voluntary grid computing (boinc)

But, someday I can learn it ... and make a animation for a website of a small business for free... (my uncle have a business)

I don\'t want money, but my uncle will want for the business : o )


Sorry, but I\'m from Brazil, and I stopped english classes :P
ID: 6989 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
JasonGoatcher

Send message
Joined: 27 Mar 05
Posts: 6
Credit: 1,890
RAC: 0
Message 7011 - Posted: 18 Nov 2007, 23:58:25 UTC

I agree that there should be a choice of whether or not to crunch commercial projects, and definitely agree that the default setting should be \"No commercial projects.\" Also, since it\'s so important to some people that they never crunch commercial projects, there should be a description of the exact definition of Yes and No choices on the page, so people don\'t get confused and pick the wrong choice.

That being said, there are many ways to handle profit-seeking projects. One possibility I\'ve thought of would be for a company to buy cobblestones at a certain amount per cobblestone. If the cobblestones are used up, then they would have the option of buying more. There could be a requirement that they have to buy them in certain size chunks. When people crunch the commercial projects, they could choose to donate part of that money to a charity, or when their chunk goes beyond a certain amount, it could go to a Paypal account they have set up.

And none of this commercial crunching would happen without the cruncher specifically allowing it.
ID: 7011 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
noderaser
Project donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 06
Posts: 516
Credit: 1,567,702
RAC: 0
Message 7012 - Posted: 19 Nov 2007, 0:06:34 UTC

Such a system would remove the need for volunteer donations...
Click here to see My Detailed BOINC Stats
ID: 7012 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Daniel

Send message
Joined: 9 Dec 07
Posts: 3
Credit: 119
RAC: 0
Message 7127 - Posted: 9 Dec 2007, 23:04:50 UTC

Hmm.. The problem with the license as it is that is we wantet or if Blender.org wanted we couldent be a renderfarm for the Peach project?

I think it is kinda sad, since the goal with the project is something i think most people in here would agree with..

Yes i know people have the option to donate/buy the finished product, but that is only as a supportfunction?

Why whouldent this renderfarm be available for a project like that ?

ID: 7127 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
00quick00

Send message
Joined: 9 Dec 07
Posts: 21
Credit: 3,169
RAC: 0
Message 7129 - Posted: 10 Dec 2007, 10:11:40 UTC
Last modified: 10 Dec 2007, 10:17:24 UTC

Crunching for profit doesn\'t sound good at all, many people would quit. I\'m sure many companies would sponsor BURP to receive nothing in return.

You\'re already accepting mirror servers from the public, in my opinion that along with donations is enough to keep BURP online.

If BURP ever goes commercial then commercial crunching should only be enabled if BURP truly needs a server upgrade.
ID: 7129 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
jedi
Project donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Jun 07
Posts: 27
Credit: 597,731
RAC: 0
Message 7134 - Posted: 10 Dec 2007, 19:41:42 UTC - in response to Message 7129.  

I don\'t think many commercial companies would use BURP as it is today.

The simple reason is that commercial companies (or even projects like Peach) don\'t want people to see anything of the project before it\'s done.

For this to work BURP would have to distribute work in a way that the crunchers couldn\'t see any of the raw material or result by opening the files that are downloaded to the computer.

Today the whole blender-file is distributed to each computer and this give every cruncher access to the whole project.
ID: 7134 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Janus
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 04
Posts: 4572
Credit: 2,100,463
RAC: 8
Message 7136 - Posted: 10 Dec 2007, 20:45:10 UTC
Last modified: 10 Dec 2007, 20:58:51 UTC

I\'ll just remind everyone that what we are discussing here is whether to allow rendering of sessions where the output may be used commercially.
We are not discussing whether BURP should be commercial itself (clearly there\'s nothing to discuss about that: BURP will remain a free service. Always. Period.)

Some of the problems we face with the current license on the output are these:
1) It is very restrictive in terms of use of the output - meaning that we are mostly limited to rendering tests of features in Blender
2) It is non-standard, meaning that we will have a hard time enforcing it and describing what it means - both to artists but also to project participants.
3) It limits the usefulness and flexibility of BURP as a tool. BURP could relatively easily provide the means of fragmenting its participant base into those that are for and against commercial use of the rendered output - and similarly for other aspects of redistribution and \"freedom of use\".

I have recently been thinking about Creative Commons as a potential suite of destination licenses. Creative Commons was also used to distribute interesting \"opensourced\" movies in the past - like Elephants Dream.
One thing that is important to notice is that the CC scheme, like the existing one, covers only the output. The licensing for the input file(s) will remain the same (allow BURP to redistribute for rendering purpose, no further redistribution or derivative works allowed unless explicitly stated).

In the terms of CC any output of a session from BURP can be considered a \"work\" with BURP (ie. the community) being the rights owner (since we created it by rendering it from a specification file - or set of files - with explicit permission from the author).
An artist can then choose what CC license he would like the rendered output to be released under. Whatever license he chooses will affect both himself and the remaining population of the world.
- If he wishes to be able to sell the output then everyone else will be able to sell the output as long as they write where they got it from (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike). It can naturally still be downloaded for free from BURP.
- If he wishes that noone should be able to sell the output, then he will not be able to use it commercially himself either (Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike).
- An artist can also choose to allow derivative works based on the output - something which is currently unclear how to do in the license we have now, but very clear when using CC.
- Another point is that the \"attribution\" series of licenses say that anyone who use the output should mention that they got it from BURP. This is something that a lot of people have mentioned as an important thing in this thread.

When joining the project (or volunteering to set up a mirror) you select which CC licenses you would like to support (non-commercial ones are selected by default). Only sessions with compatible license are ever rendered on your machine - likewise only session files from compatible sessions are ever transfered through your mirror.
For fun you can take a little time now to read about the creative common licenses and think about which ones you would use on your machines/mirrors if you had the choice.

Again it is important to note that BURP itself remains 100% free and non-commercial.

The discussion so far has been very fruitful and interesting to follow. Please continue posting - but remember to put reasoning behind your words, posts like \"I think it is a bad idea\" or \"Yes! This is the best!\" do not work, explain why you write what you write and why you think what you think. This way we can make it easier to make the decision when it needs to be made.
ID: 7136 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
noderaser
Project donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 06
Posts: 516
Credit: 1,567,702
RAC: 0
Message 7141 - Posted: 11 Dec 2007, 22:10:48 UTC

Using the Creative Commons set of licenses sounds like a good idea, as they\'re widely understood/available. I do agree that BURP should remain free, but am unclear how a perspective commerical/non-commercial user would get their sessions rendered once the credit payment system is in place. Would there be an alternative to this, such as getting spendable credit for monetary donations, or allowing users with spendable credit to donate it to another user?

While I don\'t think an all-out pay-to-render system would be beneficial for the community or perspective users of the rendering service, it would be nice to see some cost offset for the central server hardware/utilities, especially from users who would use BURP\'s output to make money themselves.

Regardless of the decisions for licensing and commerical rendering, I think that giving BURP credit for the work it\'s done in any post-production or distribution should be mandatory. Publicity is good, especially in a volunteer-based project.
Click here to see My Detailed BOINC Stats
ID: 7141 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile seyacat

Send message
Joined: 13 Apr 05
Posts: 2
Credit: 8,645
RAC: 0
Message 7171 - Posted: 21 Dec 2007, 17:06:13 UTC - in response to Message 7141.  

I dont see what is the problem to render comercial videos, and that is why the credit system exists.

I think you cant render more than you gain in render credits multiplied by constant or warever, and that is all, BURP cant be a sensor of video renderer, its too much attribution.
ID: 7171 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
00quick00

Send message
Joined: 9 Dec 07
Posts: 21
Credit: 3,169
RAC: 0
Message 7497 - Posted: 17 Jan 2008, 3:56:08 UTC
Last modified: 17 Jan 2008, 4:02:03 UTC

The problem many large companies have is that they have a lot of computers but they sit around doing nothing all day.

In my opinion submitting a non-commercial session should cost 0 spendable credit. Submitting a commerical session should cost as much credit that will be used.

Eg, if someone completes a commercial WU. 3 people who completed that WU will get 1 credit each (Example) so 3 credits should be taken off from the commercial session submitter.

Janus has a great idea here: http://burp.boinc.dk/forum_thread.php?id=1049

Except when the company has nothing to render, the computers do nothing. In my opinion if the company contributes to BURP then BURP will equally render their projects, also most companies aren\'t willing to setup a complicated network just to do rendering. The current system is fine.

This will encourage more users to contribute while keeping the project alive so flocks of companies don\'t rely on BURP. Of course the submitter can also work on their own project/WU. When the submitter has less than a certain amount of credit then the session will go into sleeping mode until the submitter has enough credit to distribute upon finished WUs.
ID: 7497 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Janus
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 04
Posts: 4572
Credit: 2,100,463
RAC: 8
Message 7581 - Posted: 25 Jan 2008, 15:13:17 UTC

Anyone got any further comments on the use of Creative Commons? - it would especially be of value if someone has any reasons against using it as base for the rendered output.
ID: 7581 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Michael

Send message
Joined: 7 Jan 08
Posts: 8
Credit: 45,171
RAC: 0
Message 7583 - Posted: 25 Jan 2008, 19:04:04 UTC

I have thought it over, and having a 2 tiered system, so that with commercial work it must be paid with by an equal or greater amount of work on other projects but where 1 to 1 or greater ratio is not required for personal/not for profit renders is what I think would be fair. I am just starting to learn to use blender and review creative commons, and I will post additional thoughts on the second of those issues here if I have any.
ID: 7583 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
neumayr

Send message
Joined: 26 Jan 08
Posts: 11
Credit: 31,789
RAC: 0
Message 7614 - Posted: 28 Jan 2008, 14:50:26 UTC

Okay, I\'m pretty new to this game, so maybe I missed something.
Anyways, here are my thoughts.

The current license is very restrictive, it\'s not possible for the rendered output to use most CC (except for noncommercial) and public domain licenses.

A opt-in for commercial rendering would only be fair if only those that opt-in get the chance to render their work on commercial hardware. That\'s extremely complicated and if the system isn\'t already designed for something like that not worth the trouble.

Concerning allowing commercial renderings as such, it\'s been said before - movie studios usually are very secretive. They won\'t allow outsiders to render their movies. As such, it\'s pretty much a nonissue.
Except that the current license, trying to prevent what wouldn\'t happen anyways, makes the whole thing useless for Elephants Dream type of projects.

What\'s with personal demo reels btw? They\'re could be seen as commercial use as well if used for a job application.

So, that\'s why my personal opinion on the matter is to put everything under a CC Attribution license, that way the original creator of the still/animation can continue working on the renders without worrying about being constrained to a specific license. All he has to do is to give credit to BURP, which probably everyone would accept.

As in the end, it\'s the original artist\'s work, not the work of those donating cycles we are discussing here. Doesn\'t seem right to dictate how and for what that work is used.
ID: 7614 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
AC
Project donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Sep 07
Posts: 121
Credit: 143,874
RAC: 0
Message 7616 - Posted: 28 Jan 2008, 18:58:41 UTC
Last modified: 28 Jan 2008, 19:25:01 UTC

A opt-in for commercial rendering would only be fair if only those that opt-in get the chance to render their work on commercial hardware. That\'s extremely complicated and if the system isn\'t already designed for something like that not worth the trouble.

It\'s been said before but just a general reminder -- \"commercial rendering\" doesn\'t mean Pixar*... it means any commercial application for any user. If I decide I want to use BURP to render some title graphics for my kids\' school play** and they\'re selling copies, then I\'m a commercial user and the only \"commercial hardware\" I could contribute is my laptop.

Hmm... maybe some kind of distinction should be made between small individual commercial uses, and large commercial projects. I don\'t know how that would work though, or how it could be enforced...

And if BURP does allow commercial work, would there be anything stopping me from advertising renderfarm-for-hire services, having BURP render everything, then \"selling\" the output back to the client? Somehow that idea doesn\'t sit well at all.

As in the end, it\'s the original artist\'s work, not the work of those donating cycles we are discussing here. Doesn\'t seem right to dictate how and for what that work is used.
Well, technically it\'s the product (service?) that BURP provides that is being controlled. The artists still retain the rights to their work -- they can spend a year rendering it themselves, get a bitwise identical product, and do whatever they like with it. In a sense, what BURP is controlling really is the work of those who donated cycles.

Regardless of how it may sound from this post, I think I really am in favor of commercial rendering, at least for the little guy. I just tend to play devil\'s advocate and point out pros and cons.

* Well, it could mean Pixar, but as neumayr and many others have said, those types of commercial entities are very unlikely to use BURP.
** My alleged children are purely hypothetical. Yes, ladies -- I\'m single. ;-)
ID: 7616 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
neumayr

Send message
Joined: 26 Jan 08
Posts: 11
Credit: 31,789
RAC: 0
Message 7618 - Posted: 28 Jan 2008, 19:46:31 UTC - in response to Message 7616.  
Last modified: 28 Jan 2008, 19:50:04 UTC

And if BURP does allow commercial work, would there be anything stopping me from advertising renderfarm-for-hire services, having BURP render everything, then \"selling\" the output back to the client? Somehow that idea doesn\'t sit well at all.


As a commercial renderfarm you\'d have to provide things BURP couldn\'t ever supply, like a guaranteed amount of cpu time that will be spent on your task.

Well, technically it\'s the product (service?) that BURP provides that is being controlled. The artists still retain the rights to their work -- they can spend a year rendering it themselves, get a bitwise identical product, and do whatever they like with it. In a sense, what BURP is controlling really is the work of those who donated cycles.


Yes, BURP is just controlling the output of the renderer. But that output still is far from a finished product, there\'s a still a lot of postprocessing to be done. And that\'s a lot of work BURP is dictating a very limited license for.
ID: 7618 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Janus
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 04
Posts: 4572
Credit: 2,100,463
RAC: 8
Message 7619 - Posted: 28 Jan 2008, 19:49:18 UTC - in response to Message 7616.  
Last modified: 28 Jan 2008, 19:58:09 UTC

And if BURP does allow commercial work, would there be anything stopping me from advertising renderfarm-for-hire services, having BURP render everything, then \"selling\" the output back to the client? Somehow that idea doesn\'t sit well at all.

That\'s a nice scenario - one worth thinking about. Fortunately I think any CC license would be beneficial in this case. Assuming a CC license then not only you but anyone here would be able to sell it back to your client; or the client could just legally download it themselves directly from the site. Such a situation would discourage misuse in the way that was described.

Well, technically it\'s the product (service?) that BURP provides that is being controlled. The artists still retain the rights to their work -- they can spend a year rendering it themselves, get a bitwise identical product, and do whatever they like with it. In a sense, what BURP is controlling really is the work of those who donated cycles.

Yes. Going into details here:
1) The author is assumed to have copyright on his work.
2) He grants BURP the explicit rights to produce a new \"work\" based on his work (and a few technicalities regarding distribution of the original work to the participants). BURP is the copyright owner of this new work - the rendered output.
3) BURP chooses to release the work under a license selected by the author - which could be one of the CC licenses (this is what we are discussing).
ID: 7619 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

Message boards : General talk : Rendering for profit