That's the starting point indeed: is it an Industry Standard ?
I think it is. Never heard otherwise.

Outsourcing:
My fears where the same, but I think the real threat is still some years away ...

Stories like: 'Finally after 1.5 years I get what I tell tell to make', are the things I've heard. And which company/ freelancer can afford that ?

And I've 'tried' it myself ......
But most of the time I do not get a detailed answer to a detailed question ...
And in this/ any business that's mandatory for efficient co-working, non ?
And keeping this low-hour-rate-promise in control, in case of all the corrections that have to be made, just because they say yes, but don't know the H#ll what you're talking about, is the real threat, in my opinion.
The client does not wait, deadlines hardly ever move, and surely not on your request ...

So I never got any further then that ?
There must be exceptions, though, I'm sure < haven't met them yet ....

So for now, I'll keep my business in my country, not cause I'm against it, but it just does not work (yet) ..... (for me)

@
In this specific case you could buy the cd for the client, not uncommon pratice, I think ?

I feel Martin V's comments arent consistent, or maybe i get it wrong.

On one hand u say:


(you are implying there is an industry standard)

But on the other hand u say:


So, can you please explain this?

Ok, but then this discussion is just a matter of opinion where u have certain expectations that dont seem to match most artist's expectations. If i were you i would take the inititative and talk with the artist in advance about this subject and i wouldnt expect to own the source files at default.

I dont know the law rules, but i think u dont own the source files unless noted in the contract.

You could also see it like this. When the artist only hands in the final product and not the source files, he's already working at a discount price. When u want the source files, you need the pay the full price .

I gues you could look at it like that 

Beleive me this is the first thing I put on the table when talking to a potential new vendor. (I won't fall for this secret trapdoor again)
The reason that I'm so involved is the endless amount of backtalk I always get from "you" guys.

@ Martin V: Ah OK, so we have to make a difference here in contract relationship. You are talking Contractor - Subcontractor contract. That is different from a Client - Contrator contract, in which the Client is a professional in different area then the Contractor. For instance: a real estate developer versus an architectural illustrator. In the Client - Contractor contract I would never give away source files. In the Contractor - Subcontractor, the delivery of the content can be mandatory.

The way I see it, clients pay for a product, be it stills, animations, models, gamelevels, or whatever.
He pays for the time it takes to create these products.

Sourcefiles are a tool for the artist, not part of the final product. So the client has no claim to these files.

Like Quizzy already showed us in this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2a8TRSgzZY&feature=fvst

In a restaurant, you pay for a meal, not the recipe!
Or do you disagree with this practice too?

Kind regards, Rik

why are you calling this an issue? This should not be an issue if you have the terms of delivery worked out correctly with your client? So what was agreed on that you would deliver to the client, is the main question here.
In your original quote did you mention your sales conditions or did the "big name" wanted the project to be done according to their purchasing conditions? Both conditions should mention something about source code, copyrights, intelectual property rights etc.

I had one of my clients change their purchasing conditions, because I could not do a project for them otherwise. They stated that every source code copyright could be transferable to them. And that after the project they would own all the copyrights. I said "Sure I can do that, but you dont have that amount of budget" (Making every single element myself like characters, mocaps, trees, textures, etc etc)

1. If a client commisions modelling work to me, they will pay for the models only, and will only get the models.
2. If a client wants models with textures, they will get both. If I need to use copyrighted textures I will not give them to the client but tell him where to get it.
3. If a client wants stills they will get images in JPG, TIF, TGA or other formats at any resolution they want.
4. If a client wants animations, they will get the animations in a few different formats.

points 3 and 4 are the most discussed here, and frankly MartinV you're completly missing any point if all the stuff you wrote above was also aimed at points 3 and 4 in this post.
All my clients want a fixed quote from me in advance.
I want complete freedom in any choice I make during the design/modelling phase when it comes to tools, software, textures, models, mocap data etc etc etc.. that I bought which are copyrighted and have non-tranferable copyrights on them (like the majority have)
In case of point 3 and 4, the client hires me for visuals not for education.

Ow and I already give away a lot of free stuff to the community.

And yes, if you look at the restaurant scene: My max scenes are the recipes, and my visuals are the food on the plate that the client asked for.

Its all a matter of being clear to the client what they are paying for and what they will recieve at the end of the project.

This point already came up earlier in the discussion.
You could repurchase them and than bill the client for that.

For the sake of argument lets assume for a minute that not all clients are completely incompetent fuckups.
I know it’s a bit far fetched but humor me will you. 

Not when you are hungry no, but if you want to eat the same dish with the same quality and design, but just a little more (or less) mayonaise...

Like Marc already stated, there is a big difference between sub contracters doing work for contractors as opposed to client-contractor.
I work mostly for clients, end users so to speak. I think Martin is hiring sub-contractors mostly to do modelling, texturing and lighting. Well if he is comissioning those free-lancers to do sub-contract work, ofcourse he is right, cause he is paying for those specific skills and end result.
But it all comes down to the the terms of delivery, its absolutely not an automatic thing, at least not with my projects, cause I mostly get hired to doe stills or animations.

True, but then the clients still has the choice to only go for the final jpg or ask if it is possible to just get the building.
(nice image by the way)

A bit of flexibility goes a long way.
I have also had a case the other day where the vendor was a bit sensitive about his “unique” lighting settings.
We settled on him sending me the model stripped from its materials and lights.
Not what I preferred but creating my own lights and materials was faster than continuing the discussion.
(I did get the feeling that they quickly scaled the whole scene to a random amount like 16.55446688994, just to make things difficult for me)

"I have also had a case the other day where the vendor was a bit sensitive about his “unique” lighting settings. We settled on him sending me the model stripped from its materials and lights.
Not what I preferred but creating my own lights and materials was faster than continuing the discussion."

Let me get this right. You paid for, let's say an image/animation made by your client. Then you ask for the model/scene. You then (try to) copy the light-settings and materials to make a small adjustments (assuming that's what your going to do with it) to the product (image, animation etc.) you originally ordered?!?

in my situation issue resolved
the client gets all source files and we go on with the next stage of the job .. let go and move on

but took us a while to get there

obviously a hot topic!

thanks for all the feedback