10. How does Pixar define "Non-Commercial" use?
Simply, any usage of RenderMan that does not generate direct profits. Examples of non-commercial usage include evaluations, personal projects, learning, student and academic use, experimentation and research.
There is a narrow line between "personal project" and "commercial". What if you come up with something that has ads on YouTube, are you commercial now? What if you come up with something, and then subsequently make a kickstarter with the characters you created in the original "non-commercial" project?
edit: as people pointed out in the replies, there is an exception for video ads, which really just reinforces how complicated free-as-in-beer can get
13. Are there any profit earning exceptions to the "Non-Commercial" use rule?
Yes. Indirect revenue generating activities such as personal images or clips posted on YouTube or Vimeo that may result in advertising revenue are permitted. Please include a credit that your work was rendered with Pixar's RenderMan. If you are uncertain as to whether your requirement qualifies as non-commercial, please contact [email protected] for clarification.
> Indirect revenue generating activities such as personal images or clips posted on YouTube or Vimeo that may result in advertising revenue are permitted. Please include a credit that your work was rendered with Pixar's RenderMan. If you are uncertain as to whether your requirement qualifies as non-commercial, please contact [email protected] for clarification.
>What if you come up with something that has ads on YouTube, are you commercial now?
Don't put ads on it? It would be nice if it had a $100/year or so exclusion, I guess.
Edit: Apparently the FAQ says video hosing ads are okay. Don't push it too hard, perhaps?
>What if you come up with something, and then subsequently make a kickstarter with the characters you created in the original "non-commercial" project?
I was wondering the same thing, but I felt the key phrase was "direct profits" -- would your examples generate "indirect profits" and thereby be allowed ?
Cool. This was announced almost a year ago. Pixar seems to define non-commercial reasonably, although there may be some fuzzy areas, such as YouTube. Okay, so long as you're not posting to a channel for which you share in the ad revenue?
I was curious to see what a full license costs, and I was surprised to see that it's only $500 plus maintenance. Didn't this used to cost $10,000 or so?
> Indirect revenue generating activities such as personal images or clips posted on YouTube or Vimeo that may result in advertising revenue are permitted. Please include a credit that your work was rendered with Pixar's RenderMan. If you are uncertain as to whether your requirement qualifies as non-commercial, please contact [email protected] for clarification.
Yeah, the new price is really aggressive, and half the cost per node of VRay and Arnold (the two renderers that over the past three years have been eating into PRMan's VFX marketshare quite dramatically).
Free Maya? Last I heard it was $20/month for LT, and that's the no-raytracer version for making game assets.
Alternately, around $800 upfront for an already outdated copy of LT that's missing features like the Unreal Engine exporter. Because screw anybody who wants to buy software instead of renting it.
EDIT: Maya LT costs $30/month and the "buy an outdated version" option is being terminated after this year. $20/month is the rate if you pay for a 1-year subscription upfront. The version with rendering is $185/month.
Creators have had it good with computers for a long time! Anyone remember Blue Moon Rendering Tools? BMRT was, at some point, better than Renderman .. prompting Pixar's lawyer brigade to go nuts and try to destroy it at some point .. so its kind of fun to see Pixar go full circle and come around to the free-for-artists way of things.
3Delight is RenderMan compliant and has been free for non-commercial use since 2001.
The renderer is more or less on feature parity with Pixar's product.
It does some things better and others worse but if you needed a free RenderMan compliant offline renderer to do a non-commercial project, these differences would reasonably not be of any concern to you.
Solid Angle doesn't have an official individual student license option, but I have heard of Solid Angle coming up with case-by-case arrangements with students that contacted them directly.
[+] [-] krschultz|11 years ago|reply
There is a narrow line between "personal project" and "commercial". What if you come up with something that has ads on YouTube, are you commercial now? What if you come up with something, and then subsequently make a kickstarter with the characters you created in the original "non-commercial" project?
edit: as people pointed out in the replies, there is an exception for video ads, which really just reinforces how complicated free-as-in-beer can get
13. Are there any profit earning exceptions to the "Non-Commercial" use rule? Yes. Indirect revenue generating activities such as personal images or clips posted on YouTube or Vimeo that may result in advertising revenue are permitted. Please include a credit that your work was rendered with Pixar's RenderMan. If you are uncertain as to whether your requirement qualifies as non-commercial, please contact [email protected] for clarification.
[+] [-] jeffreyrogers|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dylan16807|11 years ago|reply
Don't put ads on it? It would be nice if it had a $100/year or so exclusion, I guess.
Edit: Apparently the FAQ says video hosing ads are okay. Don't push it too hard, perhaps?
>What if you come up with something, and then subsequently make a kickstarter with the characters you created in the original "non-commercial" project?
That seems obviously not direct.
[+] [-] halflings|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bch|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SloopJon|11 years ago|reply
I was curious to see what a full license costs, and I was surprised to see that it's only $500 plus maintenance. Didn't this used to cost $10,000 or so?
[+] [-] teraflop|11 years ago|reply
> Indirect revenue generating activities such as personal images or clips posted on YouTube or Vimeo that may result in advertising revenue are permitted. Please include a credit that your work was rendered with Pixar's RenderMan. If you are uncertain as to whether your requirement qualifies as non-commercial, please contact [email protected] for clarification.
http://renderman.pixar.com/view/DP25849
[+] [-] berkut|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] msie|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wlesieutre|11 years ago|reply
Alternately, around $800 upfront for an already outdated copy of LT that's missing features like the Unreal Engine exporter. Because screw anybody who wants to buy software instead of renting it.
EDIT: Maya LT costs $30/month and the "buy an outdated version" option is being terminated after this year. $20/month is the rate if you pay for a 1-year subscription upfront. The version with rendering is $185/month.
[+] [-] bhouston|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomjen3|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fit2rule|11 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Moon_Rendering_Tools
[+] [-] agumonkey|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ris|11 years ago|reply
All I hear is you listing a bunch of prisons.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] madez|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] virtualritz|11 years ago|reply
The renderer is more or less on feature parity with Pixar's product. It does some things better and others worse but if you needed a free RenderMan compliant offline renderer to do a non-commercial project, these differences would reasonably not be of any concern to you.
[+] [-] ams6110|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joeblau|11 years ago|reply
Edit: It's working a lot better now. I don't know much about 3D but this tool looks amazing!
[+] [-] yzh|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ykl|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CyberDildonics|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chx|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tudorw|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]