Gta Iv Original Files
Bonny Battaglino
I, personally, charge any client requesting files. My contract states as much. If I own the files (which is most common) file delivery is a separate and often larger fee than the initial work. And all rights are transferred to the client upon full payment.
If such a request occurs years after the work has been completed, fees would also include an hourly rate for retrieval from backups and preparation for delivery. After all, I'm not running a backup service.
All this means, it is going to cost the client something. The only difference is how much. And, of course, all fees must be paid in full before any files are delivered.
As to the personal dislike of the client... well, be careful. You may dislike this client, however the client may be influential in their industry and at a minimum have the ear of others that may someday need your services. The more difficult the client perceives you to be, the less favorable they'll react should they ever hear your name. Keeping things as unemotional as possible and just dealing with the business aspects can often keep you from "slitting your own throat" as it were through bad word-of-mouth.
Imagine, you really hate working for "Bob" but every weekend "Bob" plays golf with a foursome of billionaires... and one day, one of them turns to "Bob" and asks... "hey you know any designers good at X?" You want "Bob" to, at a minimum, not dissuade anyone from using your services.
Back in the day when I was in plant print production, when a client asked for the flats (original stripped up film), we provided it even knowing that he might go to a competitor. Why? No reason to create acrimony - keep your credentials and reputation intact. By the way, he did have to send his own messenger to pick them up.
Update to today - as an account manager, I sometimes got into strained situations with a client. Sometimes I received a call from their agency asking for the digital files to the last project they need to edit. I knew I would never hear from them or the agency again. I did release the files and confirmed with the owner that it was OK to do so. Leaves a bitter taste but do it without argument, acrimony, or resistance.
If this person was so difficult before, there is probably zero chance of you getting any more payment for the handover of these files, and refusing to send the files, or requesting extra payment, could further escalate this.
If this was a low-value project, I would just let go and send over the files politely, which may be your cleanest way out. Do mention that you no longer wish to work with him again, but making a final gesture of good will, then move on to your other clients.
I had a client like this. Very impulsive, I like it, I don't like it, lets try something else, I won't pay for that part, kind of person. I was polite all the way during the job, but when he came back for more work, I quickly let him know I was no longer interested.
Or, try this: make a list of all the "goodwill" gestures you have donated to this customer. Next to each one write the fair price for the work. The total of these amounts is what he needs to pay you before you agree to any additional work. Of course it's not fair to apply fees ex post facto,which brings us to the next step.
Even if you are tempted to get a follow-up order or just want to do a favour to the customer (hah!), please check if you are rightfully possessing the data. Only if so, follow the good advice in the other replies.
However, unless the files have a large commercial resale value that you want to retain for yourself, or it's going to take you a lot of work to retrieve and deliver them, just offer to do it for whatever you think he'll pay and then buy yourself a nice coffee / meal out / holiday with the proceeds, and enjoy it all the more knowing who bought it for you :-).
But on the other side, there is a trend to take this to an extreme, where some companies do not want you to have a right to repair stuff you already bought, removing any warranty, or not selling you spare parts, making the purchase to a perpetual rent instead of a purchase.
You could have on the other hand a super polished workflow with new AI and some goblins that make your workflow and original files a breeze. You do that in order to save time, be more efficient, then being more productive.
If the client does not want to work with you, this could mean an additional income for work you already did. Win. And for your client, it means that he does not need to pay another person 100% cost of the project. Win.
But keep in mind some additional costs, like licenses of fonts. You can not resell stock images or footage. They need to purchase the license separately. So you should not include them.
In this structure, the HD/4K files are currently in the Timeline folder, and the 720p files are currently in the Alternate folder. The original and proxy files must share the same filename (they are associated by having the same name). If there are subfolders, then the names of subfolders must be identical in both folders too.
The Shotcut project would be built using media from the Timeline folder. When you want to switch between original and proxy, close Shotcut and swap the folders, then restart Shotcut and continue working as usual.
When Shotcut generates its own proxies, it uses a hash to associate the proxy file with the original file it came from. By using a hash, the original file can be moved to a different folder or even renamed, and Shotcut will still recognize that a proxy has already been created for it. A hash is a short-form way of identifying a file by its contents rather than by its filename, which allows the original file to be moved around without having to regenerate a proxy for the new location/filename.
Instead of having to rename every file individually, renaming the folder is a quick way of making it look like all files within it were swapped out for different files. This is useful when there are hundreds of media files, and renaming them individually would take forever.
I am a bit confused. I back up a project with Github.com. Because my files are too large to store them on Github.com, I am using git large file storage. Now I changed to a new computer, and performed a git clone on the repository stored remotly on Github.com. I also installed git lfs with brew and did a git lfs install in the just cloned repository. However, my large files are still "pointer files". When I run my project,it says, these files are missing.
.swX-files are left behind if a session with an unsaved file is killed/crashes/something else bad happens. They are also present during the time an unsaved buffer is open in a Vim session. vim -rreads these temporary files and recreates the content. After you've recovered it, just save it as usual, e.g. :w newfilename.
Edit:Note that the .swp file only contains the changes done to the file (see comment). This means that you will need to fetch a recent copy of the file from backup and then use vim to recover the latest changes. If you don't have a backup copy of the file you're really out of luck.
I opened a 975 lines file, edited it on line 949 (creating a .swp file) and killed the process, then deleted the original. $ vim Original_File asked if I wanted to recover from the .swp > yes; only the first 68 lines and the last 34 lines (starting 8 lines above my edit) were actually recovered.
It is not unusual for a designer and his or her client to get into a dispute over who owns and can use the source files generated during a project. By source files, I am talking about Photoshop files, Illustrator files and other intermediate items that may have been generated on the way to finished product. A client will often believe that since they paid for the work, they own the source files. A designer will generally believe that the source files are theirs. I have heard of clients demanding source files from designers and then designers feeling as if they had to give up because they were unsure of what exactly had to be delivered or what their legal rights are.
As the creator of the source files, you are the owner of those files. Aside from some exceptions, you are not required to part with them. You can keep them to yourself, or you can sell them at a price that you deem acceptable.
An innocent reason might be that they are worried about being able to make legitimate changes down the road and not being able to get the original designer or creator to do them. For instance, perhaps you have created a template for a monthly ad that they will want to change copy and imagery on every time they run. They may be willing and able to pay you to make those changes, but they might also be concerned about their ability to function should you become unavailable for some reason. Having the source files might be a way for them to feel secure that they can hire a different designer to make those modifications.
A nefarious reason might be that they want to take your design for the ad template apart and use the elements for their website or marketing brochures in an effort to avoid paying a designer to do those things. They paid the ad template price and are hoping to reuse the same elements in a misguided attempt to save money. And they are probably going to have their 16 year old nephew with a cracked version of Photoshop do the damage.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the choice belongs to the designer as to whether or not she will part with the valuable source files created during a project. Designers begin with a fairly strong legal position in a source file dispute, but this position would do well to be tempered with attention to your relationship with the client and with your overall approach to business. And lastly, your best friends in this issue are upfront, frank discussion with your client and a well-written contract.
About Jonathan Tobin
Jonathan Tobin is a California attorney and co-founder of Semi-Aware, which helps creative professionals use the law to do better work, make more money and keep clients happy. In his legal practice he works with creators and creative professionals and can be found at Counsel for Creators.