Quite often the not so big clients have no clue what their NDAs state.
Some years back I was given one to sign when freelancing for a retouching company. The gig was to last a week or two, and the NDA had a clause saying I could not compete with them in any way for 2 years after the gig.
This would have prevented me from working at all.
Fortunately when I pointed this out they deleted that clause saying this was something their lawyer drew up and they did not realize what it meant.
For sure. I think editors sometimes have no idea what they are giving the photographer to sign. They have a blanket form for everything and everyone and just keep firing it out.
Thank you Dina, as always, for your transparency and standing up for photographers in the best way!
I'm still early, improving, and struggling to get gigs so I haven't been hit with an NDA yet. But in the larger issue of copyright, I've already experienced a couple of clients who violated the contract/use agreement I painstakingly went over with them before the shoot, which was very frustrating.
Also, my favorite, two online sports publications (that I know of) who stole my event photos from IG. One was even brazen enough to use my photo on their cover and several more inside! I sent each pub an invoice and a carefully worded cease and desist letter also educating them on the penalties for copyright infringement. In both cases, from two different parts of the world, I got a similar sob story of how they respect photographers but just couldn't afford to pay what I demanded, or even anything! In the first case, they offered to feature me in an upcoming issue (which hasn't happened) so I relented. In the second case, a publication that people in the sport actually follow, I demanded the photos be taken down and they were. In an ironic (or maybe not so) twist, shortly after that, the sports venue that had issued me the season long photography pass, decided to start banning my level of pass from the area where I had taken some of the photos--which they said was reserved for "select photographers."
Some of my friends told me I was wrong for having them remove my photos and should have just been grateful for the "exposure." I was like yeah, I don't think that's what Dina would do and it's not what I thought was right either. Not gonna lie though, I did second guess myself a couple times on that one because yeah, I do need the exposure. But I also thought, maybe I can make some small difference if I take this small stand. All that is to say, I appreciate all the mentoring and support you give for photographers saying no and pushing back!
That’s definitely a tough situation. I’m sorry you had to go through that, but it’s great that you stood your ground. Agreeing to those terms might feel like a short-term win, and I don’t blame anyone who does. It’s the industry that’s taking advantage. The bigger issue is the lack of transparency and the fear of losing work. But ultimately it’s a numbers game. The more people agree to these terms, the fewer options we’ll all have in the long run. I really think we all need to share these stories more. We just need a wide enough platform to do it.
Seems like it’s every damn time these days, especially with the big tech brands. My biggest lesson came around 2017. Was just reentering freelance after an in-house gig and begrudgingly took a work for hire because it had great locations,celebrity talent,and would be a great portfolio piece. It was being shot alongside, video and they told me the photos would just be used for supporting material by thumbnails and banners. A few weeks after the shoot, I was told that my shots were all over Santa Monica and when I asked the client for photos of all of the out of home ads, I was sent photos of billboards entire sides of buildings, subway stations, and in-store displays in all the major US markets. After my agents cut, I probably took home $9k before tax and it was a multi-day multi-city shoot! I did get a great portfolio out of it but have always felt embittered towards the deceptive assholes at…
Work for hire agreements are becoming common even in big editorial publications now. That's why I thought this post needs to be written and shared widely. Thank you for sharing your story.
A lot of thought on this but the short: It may need to become standard for photographers to require reviewing NDAs upfront. And yes, while AI facilitates these contracts at some cost to any creative or small business, it probably is important for people to submit those contracts to AI and ask for plain language review if they’re uncertain, despite reading it themselves. Photographers and business also might do well to bite back - decisions out of desperation are tough, and often unsatisfying to make, but asking yourself what you’re really agreeing to is critical. Thanks for writing about this.
This is interesting. Like you, I sometimes get these contracts and think my G_d, how is anyone working for this publication or company. I think most photographers must just sign without reading or understanding... or they aren't willing to put in the time to read pages of contract terms. But maybe this is a partial solution. I'd love to hear more about how you do this.
Wow. Just wow. I have a Skadden Arps written contract that shields me from all of this nonsense. But reading your description of how they pulled this on you AFTER you negotiated and signed is beyond the pale. Would be happy to do a photo contract "live" with you sometime on how we need to protect ourselves. I will only sign an NDA when I am being paid a boatload of compensation and when I'm shooting someone so public, that I know the leaking of any work I make for them could hurt their ability to lead a peaceful life.
You might require deposits noting that you are compelled to do so since it has recently been your experience that parties have begun to add unacceptable terms after job acceptance. In the event that this occurs, the deposit is forfeit.
I wonder if it would be simpler to add something into a contract stating that if the client cancels or tries to change the terms, they still owe you the fee or a percentage of it.
This has been happening in the world of science for many years. I run a biomedical research lab and do photography on the side (pbase.com/kzaret). I've seen many an NDA/CDA for consulting that claims that the company I would consult for gains access to or owns anything I talk about, including work from my own lab. I just red-line that stuff out. I've never seen them balk after doing that. It looks like they did bait and switch on you Dina, which is double bad.
This is also happening in the world of weddings. I double our rates if folks don't want us to share the images on our channels. And, I would likely triple the rates if they wanted full copyright.
I recall ASMP's Susan Carr suggesting 3x or 4x the rate being standard procedure for copyright sales. It's the number I've always used (to steer clients toward a more reasonable license) and seems about right to me.
This is such an important conversation—especially for those of us who’ve taken on editorial assignments where clients want to retain copyright. Back when I was starting out, I’d often agree to those terms, charging a usage fee so the client could hold on to the images. At the time, it felt fair.
But now, I look back and realise that some of my best images came from those shoots. And as I think about publishing a book, I can’t include those photos without getting permission from the clients. It’s frustrating, and it’s really made me reflect on the long-term implications of work-for-hire contracts.
I believe every photographer should be having this conversation and weighing their options. It’s important to understand what it actually means to sign away your copyright. In some cases, especially with organisations that work with vulnerable communities, they may prefer to retain all rights because of safeguarding concerns or their duty of care. In those cases, they might budget for usage fees, but still want full control of the images.
At the end of the day, photographers have to decide what matters to them. It’s about knowing the value of your work and not signing away important images without thinking through the long-term impact. That said, as you rightly pointed out, the industry is tough. If you turn down a contract, it could signal that you’re not interested, and someone else might quickly step in.
So it’s a balancing act—especially now when visual storytellers are struggling to earn a steady income. Assignments don’t always come often, so when they do, you don’t want to shoot yourself in the foot. But you also don’t want to lose control over your most meaningful work.
What's the point of doing an assignment for $500 if you don't own those photos. It's a dead end. If enough photographers say no to these contracts will eventually the publications will be forced to change their attitude.
I have never shot a work for hire for publications, I’d never do it. Its often Non profits that commission photographers to document their programmes especially when it involves vulnerable people. In such situations, I often charge an additional fee as usage fee ($1000), but not too much so that I don’t lose the gig! I agree more photogs should push back on these contracts.
Thank you SO MUCH for this post. I feel like I have come across some majorly restrictive NDAs over the years. Uber, Impossible Meats, and even an old school California agribusiness all put me through my paces. And each time, it felt like I was the first photographer they dealt with who pushed back.
Please everyone, read your contracts and NDAs closely.
This exact kind of situation just happened to me and it feels good to know I'm not alone, but also bad to know it's happening everywhere. As a newbie on the scene, I'm lucky I had the guts to push back, and a mentor to help me get through it. Thank you for using your platform to bring this to attention!
Thank you for having this conversation. It’s essential in our industry to have dialogue like this.
I started out in the editorial world, and the prevalence of NDAs and rights grabs was almost unheard of when I launched my career. For the past two decades, I've worked in the world of events and family photography for private clients, and with each year, I see more overstepping NDAs, and just saw the same laughable language you mentioned, citing that the photographer can't photograph or document the event!
The NDAs that I'm asked to sign often come from notable figures, but lately, they've begun to also come from families or couples who prefer total privacy. It’s very common now for clients to introduce restrictive terms that would have changed the rate had it been discussed upfront. Is it ignorance? Or they simply don't care because several behind you are willing to work for those terms? Probably the latter in most cases, but there are some clients who just don’t realize what they’ve asked for.
That being said, every time you educate a client and protect your ability to use your work in the future, you risk losing that job. So it’s a calculation. It’s one I often choose to engage in, but I know some don’t feel confident enough to do so. Until all photographers react this way, we’ll be losing ground and losing access to the images we’ve created, which is troubling. Standing up to these asks is not just important to protect your own archive, but also a collective effort.
It is definitely a collective effort. Until recently many brands or publications didn't even send a contract, so this is a tide turning and there is still a chance to push back.
I guess the takeaway is to ask up front for a copy of the contract or any other document they want you to sign before agreeing to anything. Such bullshit agreeing to terms and then throwing in something more 🙄
This transparency is SO incredibly valuable - thank you Dina. I've always known this sort of contract is de rigeur for the big tech companies but am amazed by how many small / young fashion brands have started taking on the same language: 'work for hire', 'full buyout' etc. I don't think most of them know what this even means, or what the industry standards are (/were) and when you try to gently educate, they often become defensive. It's a bit of a minefield, but as you say important to keep pushing back before this does become the industry standard.
Your transparency is really really valuable. Thanks a lot!
That's all we have at the moment in this industry. I have to be.
you don't have to be, you choose to be. big difference.
I concur. MUCH appreciated, Dina!
Quite often the not so big clients have no clue what their NDAs state.
Some years back I was given one to sign when freelancing for a retouching company. The gig was to last a week or two, and the NDA had a clause saying I could not compete with them in any way for 2 years after the gig.
This would have prevented me from working at all.
Fortunately when I pointed this out they deleted that clause saying this was something their lawyer drew up and they did not realize what it meant.
For sure. I think editors sometimes have no idea what they are giving the photographer to sign. They have a blanket form for everything and everyone and just keep firing it out.
Thank you Dina, as always, for your transparency and standing up for photographers in the best way!
I'm still early, improving, and struggling to get gigs so I haven't been hit with an NDA yet. But in the larger issue of copyright, I've already experienced a couple of clients who violated the contract/use agreement I painstakingly went over with them before the shoot, which was very frustrating.
Also, my favorite, two online sports publications (that I know of) who stole my event photos from IG. One was even brazen enough to use my photo on their cover and several more inside! I sent each pub an invoice and a carefully worded cease and desist letter also educating them on the penalties for copyright infringement. In both cases, from two different parts of the world, I got a similar sob story of how they respect photographers but just couldn't afford to pay what I demanded, or even anything! In the first case, they offered to feature me in an upcoming issue (which hasn't happened) so I relented. In the second case, a publication that people in the sport actually follow, I demanded the photos be taken down and they were. In an ironic (or maybe not so) twist, shortly after that, the sports venue that had issued me the season long photography pass, decided to start banning my level of pass from the area where I had taken some of the photos--which they said was reserved for "select photographers."
Some of my friends told me I was wrong for having them remove my photos and should have just been grateful for the "exposure." I was like yeah, I don't think that's what Dina would do and it's not what I thought was right either. Not gonna lie though, I did second guess myself a couple times on that one because yeah, I do need the exposure. But I also thought, maybe I can make some small difference if I take this small stand. All that is to say, I appreciate all the mentoring and support you give for photographers saying no and pushing back!
That’s definitely a tough situation. I’m sorry you had to go through that, but it’s great that you stood your ground. Agreeing to those terms might feel like a short-term win, and I don’t blame anyone who does. It’s the industry that’s taking advantage. The bigger issue is the lack of transparency and the fear of losing work. But ultimately it’s a numbers game. The more people agree to these terms, the fewer options we’ll all have in the long run. I really think we all need to share these stories more. We just need a wide enough platform to do it.
Seems like it’s every damn time these days, especially with the big tech brands. My biggest lesson came around 2017. Was just reentering freelance after an in-house gig and begrudgingly took a work for hire because it had great locations,celebrity talent,and would be a great portfolio piece. It was being shot alongside, video and they told me the photos would just be used for supporting material by thumbnails and banners. A few weeks after the shoot, I was told that my shots were all over Santa Monica and when I asked the client for photos of all of the out of home ads, I was sent photos of billboards entire sides of buildings, subway stations, and in-store displays in all the major US markets. After my agents cut, I probably took home $9k before tax and it was a multi-day multi-city shoot! I did get a great portfolio out of it but have always felt embittered towards the deceptive assholes at…
Work for hire agreements are becoming common even in big editorial publications now. That's why I thought this post needs to be written and shared widely. Thank you for sharing your story.
A lot of thought on this but the short: It may need to become standard for photographers to require reviewing NDAs upfront. And yes, while AI facilitates these contracts at some cost to any creative or small business, it probably is important for people to submit those contracts to AI and ask for plain language review if they’re uncertain, despite reading it themselves. Photographers and business also might do well to bite back - decisions out of desperation are tough, and often unsatisfying to make, but asking yourself what you’re really agreeing to is critical. Thanks for writing about this.
I use AI to decipher the contracts that before would have taken me hours to understand. So this way photographers can take some agency back.
Great tip!
This is interesting. Like you, I sometimes get these contracts and think my G_d, how is anyone working for this publication or company. I think most photographers must just sign without reading or understanding... or they aren't willing to put in the time to read pages of contract terms. But maybe this is a partial solution. I'd love to hear more about how you do this.
Wow. Just wow. I have a Skadden Arps written contract that shields me from all of this nonsense. But reading your description of how they pulled this on you AFTER you negotiated and signed is beyond the pale. Would be happy to do a photo contract "live" with you sometime on how we need to protect ourselves. I will only sign an NDA when I am being paid a boatload of compensation and when I'm shooting someone so public, that I know the leaking of any work I make for them could hurt their ability to lead a peaceful life.
You might require deposits noting that you are compelled to do so since it has recently been your experience that parties have begun to add unacceptable terms after job acceptance. In the event that this occurs, the deposit is forfeit.
I don't like deposits for other reasons but, yeh, that could def help.
I wonder if it would be simpler to add something into a contract stating that if the client cancels or tries to change the terms, they still owe you the fee or a percentage of it.
This is 100% the right solution for the bait-and-switch.
This has been happening in the world of science for many years. I run a biomedical research lab and do photography on the side (pbase.com/kzaret). I've seen many an NDA/CDA for consulting that claims that the company I would consult for gains access to or owns anything I talk about, including work from my own lab. I just red-line that stuff out. I've never seen them balk after doing that. It looks like they did bait and switch on you Dina, which is double bad.
This is also happening in the world of weddings. I double our rates if folks don't want us to share the images on our channels. And, I would likely triple the rates if they wanted full copyright.
Sounds fair to me.
I recall ASMP's Susan Carr suggesting 3x or 4x the rate being standard procedure for copyright sales. It's the number I've always used (to steer clients toward a more reasonable license) and seems about right to me.
This is such an important conversation—especially for those of us who’ve taken on editorial assignments where clients want to retain copyright. Back when I was starting out, I’d often agree to those terms, charging a usage fee so the client could hold on to the images. At the time, it felt fair.
But now, I look back and realise that some of my best images came from those shoots. And as I think about publishing a book, I can’t include those photos without getting permission from the clients. It’s frustrating, and it’s really made me reflect on the long-term implications of work-for-hire contracts.
I believe every photographer should be having this conversation and weighing their options. It’s important to understand what it actually means to sign away your copyright. In some cases, especially with organisations that work with vulnerable communities, they may prefer to retain all rights because of safeguarding concerns or their duty of care. In those cases, they might budget for usage fees, but still want full control of the images.
At the end of the day, photographers have to decide what matters to them. It’s about knowing the value of your work and not signing away important images without thinking through the long-term impact. That said, as you rightly pointed out, the industry is tough. If you turn down a contract, it could signal that you’re not interested, and someone else might quickly step in.
So it’s a balancing act—especially now when visual storytellers are struggling to earn a steady income. Assignments don’t always come often, so when they do, you don’t want to shoot yourself in the foot. But you also don’t want to lose control over your most meaningful work.
What's the point of doing an assignment for $500 if you don't own those photos. It's a dead end. If enough photographers say no to these contracts will eventually the publications will be forced to change their attitude.
I have never shot a work for hire for publications, I’d never do it. Its often Non profits that commission photographers to document their programmes especially when it involves vulnerable people. In such situations, I often charge an additional fee as usage fee ($1000), but not too much so that I don’t lose the gig! I agree more photogs should push back on these contracts.
Thank you SO MUCH for this post. I feel like I have come across some majorly restrictive NDAs over the years. Uber, Impossible Meats, and even an old school California agribusiness all put me through my paces. And each time, it felt like I was the first photographer they dealt with who pushed back.
Please everyone, read your contracts and NDAs closely.
This exact kind of situation just happened to me and it feels good to know I'm not alone, but also bad to know it's happening everywhere. As a newbie on the scene, I'm lucky I had the guts to push back, and a mentor to help me get through it. Thank you for using your platform to bring this to attention!
Thank you for having this conversation. It’s essential in our industry to have dialogue like this.
I started out in the editorial world, and the prevalence of NDAs and rights grabs was almost unheard of when I launched my career. For the past two decades, I've worked in the world of events and family photography for private clients, and with each year, I see more overstepping NDAs, and just saw the same laughable language you mentioned, citing that the photographer can't photograph or document the event!
The NDAs that I'm asked to sign often come from notable figures, but lately, they've begun to also come from families or couples who prefer total privacy. It’s very common now for clients to introduce restrictive terms that would have changed the rate had it been discussed upfront. Is it ignorance? Or they simply don't care because several behind you are willing to work for those terms? Probably the latter in most cases, but there are some clients who just don’t realize what they’ve asked for.
That being said, every time you educate a client and protect your ability to use your work in the future, you risk losing that job. So it’s a calculation. It’s one I often choose to engage in, but I know some don’t feel confident enough to do so. Until all photographers react this way, we’ll be losing ground and losing access to the images we’ve created, which is troubling. Standing up to these asks is not just important to protect your own archive, but also a collective effort.
It is definitely a collective effort. Until recently many brands or publications didn't even send a contract, so this is a tide turning and there is still a chance to push back.
I guess the takeaway is to ask up front for a copy of the contract or any other document they want you to sign before agreeing to anything. Such bullshit agreeing to terms and then throwing in something more 🙄
This is incredibly helpful - thank you for bringing this to light.
This transparency is SO incredibly valuable - thank you Dina. I've always known this sort of contract is de rigeur for the big tech companies but am amazed by how many small / young fashion brands have started taking on the same language: 'work for hire', 'full buyout' etc. I don't think most of them know what this even means, or what the industry standards are (/were) and when you try to gently educate, they often become defensive. It's a bit of a minefield, but as you say important to keep pushing back before this does become the industry standard.
That's what worries me more, that it's smaller pubs and private clients adopting the language and playing it off like it's standard.