That 'one extra signature' cost me $800 in Dayton

I was reading a client's contract last Tuesday and saw a line about 'access to source files upon final payment.' Thought it was standard. Signed it, finished the project, got paid, and then they asked for the raw files for their internal team to modify. My original quote was for finished work only, not handing over the editable stuff. I had to pay a lawyer $800 to sort out that I didn't have to give them the source. Has anyone else gotten burned by vague 'access' language that wasn't spelled out in the scope?

2 comments

2 Comments

jennybailey4d agoMost Upvoted

...and that's exactly why I read every single line now, even the tiny print at the bottom. I had a similar thing happen with a logo design gig, the contract said "final files" and I thought that meant the finished PNGs and JPGs, but the client came back wanting the layered Photoshop file so their cousin could "tweak the colors." I ended up giving it to them just to avoid the headache, but then they started asking for changes on a design I'd already finished, and it turned into this whole mess where I basically worked for free for two extra weeks. The worst part is, my own contract was copied from a template I found online, so it had all these vague words like "deliverables" and "assets" that could mean anything. Now I list out every single thing I'm handing over, and I add a line that says source files are never included unless they pay extra... it's saved me so much stress since then.

dakota_miller933d ago

Kinda feels like you're overthinking it though. Most clients just want the thing done, and the ones trying to pull that source file trick are rare. A one liner about extra fees does the job without turning every gig into a legal document.