When a graphic designer creates work for a client, in many jurisdictions, the designer keeps some rights to the work by default. This means that when e.g. designing a logo, the designer can sometimes claim license and usage fees – often more if the work is used in large circulations – long after the project has ended.
This default case can often be overridden by written agreements.
What are some real-world practices to deal with this? I realize this will differ strongly between countries, but I would like to know nevertheless how this is dealt with, and learning how it’s done elsewhere doesn’t hurt. I myself am in the “give up everything” camp: When a project is finished, if asked, I will sign a document waiving all usage rights without any further payment. Out of the belief that further claims aren’t legitimate if you’ve been paid well for your work, just as a carpenter can’t make claims to something they’ve built for a client.
But there are other practices, and scenarios in which keeping usage rights, and long-term licensing agreements may be perfectly justified. What are some general ways this is dealt with?
(Again, a disclaimer: I am asking out of curiosity; and because I think this is in some way relevant to many graphic designers. Whether this is in the site’s scope or not, the community will have to decide!)
Are you concerned about who owns the rights or rather are you concerned about getting proper credit for your work?
I would think that unless it has been stated otherwise you as a designer are doing work for a client who can then turn around and do with it as they please, free of any input from you as the designer. I can’t imagine any client agreeing to have work done only to have to go to the designer for approval at a later date. At my company, when a job is done, they hand over everything, layout files, source art files, the works, and the relationship pretty much ends unless we decide to pick it up again.