Nice little article. The lesson to take away from it is to be sure to be explicit in your contracts.

This is a good topic. I've never ran into the clause: The designer can display this work... only with the express written approval of the Corporation. I would assume this isn't common, no? Hey, as long as you get paid, right? ;)

I run into "work for whores" (as i call them) contracts more and more every day.

the only one i've signed in the last 3 years was

for Target - and I researched them (through the AIGA and their other vendors) extensivley. Happily, that situation has blossomed into to more work and good times.

Ask yourself "are they worth it"? then "will they fuck me"? and then proceed with caution. If youre an illustrator/ photographer youre used to "suprise whores" in the ninth hour (never good, try to keep your cool).

Often its not a client's mandate, but an order from the suits upstairs in legal. Hey, Its the nineties, my friend- get used to it.

Caveat: I am not a working designer, but an aspring designer.

But I've seen the horrors that "work for hire" has inflicted on the creators in the comic book industry, and I don't want to see anyone go through that. When Stan Lee and Steve Ditko don't get any royalties for Spider-Man, that's madness.

First time on the site tonight ? nicely done.

Our work is split about 50/50 between work-for-hire situations and not; however, we're usually lucky enough to work with the same people season after season, so client and designer get to know what to expect from one another.

I'm slightly ashamed to say that with new clients, it's often a seat-of-the-pants feeling after the first meeting.

I find a lot of my energies are devoted to educating clients who just just assume a WFH situation because they don't know any better. Others of them are "moving up" to more professional grade work after having worked with a newbie who had given away the store just to get the business and when I tell them my terms, the client is like, "whaddaya mean: usage fee?!"

I'm curious about something here, and this goes back to our art vs design discussion. As graphic designers should we be concerned with turning over the files? Aren't we as many have said a "service" industry? I can understand how this would affect photographers and illustrators, but designers? Is our work subject to usage fees? I don't have as many answers as I have questions, so bear with me. I understand we are the owners, by law, of the work we produce, but what exactly is our work? could we charge usage fees for a logo we design? or a brochure? What happens when a client "fires" us and they go to another design firm but want to continue using the design we did?

I think those are all the questions I have. For now.

it all really comes down to what they (clients) are willing to pay.

it all really comes down to what they (clients) are willing to pay.

This just doesn't answer anything. If a client is unwilling to pay— and for what, I'm not sure — do you simply hand over the files anyway or do you say "sorry" and walk away?

I can understand how this would affect photographers and illustrators, but designers?

I'm as confused here as Armin, so here's my unload of questions. If I create an identity system, how can I possibly ask for a buyout on the rights? Isn't the act of hiring me for that job specifying that they'll want to own the work in perpetuity? What about a brochure? I'm really going to tell them they have to pay me extra to print it again in 6 months?

The role of copyright, to me, is to ensure that an artist (don't even go there...) gets properly credited and compensated for his creation and its subsequent uses. As a graphic designer, am I going to create something that would be used by different clients?

What if I take some photos or draw an illustration that I use in my design? Do those get separated from the price of the design into separate fees for illustration and photography? How does one prepare a client for this? Nobody would react well to getting a proposal with design fees, then getting hit up with illustration and photo buyouts post-project.

I would think, as a mature profession, we'd have these types of answers at the ready. Maybe we do and I haven't looked in the right places. Maybe we're not mature? ;-)

Nobody would react well to getting a proposal with design fees, then getting hit up with illustration and photo buyouts post-project.

Right. Like I said, you need to be explicit in your contract up front.

There's no right or wrong answers here. You just need to decide how you want ago about charging for these services and rights and then making sure the client fully understands them up front.

I would think, as a mature profession, we'd have these types of answers at the ready.

The GAG Pricing and Ethics Handbook is perhaps the main resource for deciding how you want to set up your own system.

it all really comes down to what they (clients) are willing to pay. -me

This just doesn't answer anything. -jonsel

why not? supply and demand: if they want it they'll pay for it. you have to be business savvy or intuitive enough to know when, where and on whom to impose a higher fee. graphic design business models fly straight out the door when times get tough. waving the maturity flag is almost as bad as the computer stole my profession theory.

lets all sit down for some pie. Mmmm. Pie. -me

You just need to decide how you want ago about charging for these services and rights and then making sure the client fully understands them up front.

Sounds easy enough. But where does this get us? Client perceptions regarding general graphic design increasingly assume not only implied license, but full ownership of files, and many designers routinely, albeit reluctantly, hand over these files when asked. If you plan to play hard ball with ownership, then yeah — I guess presenting it formally beforehand is better than springing it after the fact. But no matter how finely-worded your contract, copyright law — as it applies to a package or brochure design (for example) — just doesn't make sense to the average person, and it seems to make even less sense to organizations.

That said, what does it mean to, "choose your battles wisely?" Is it ethical to stick up for one's rights only in select situations — say, when protecting a particularly lucrative revenue stream — but then just blow it off the rest of the time?