I usually provide the PSDs because the client is paying for the site or the project as an investment as-is. But I do have it in my contract that if they change anything and then ask me to fix it, I charge at my normal hourly rate + 15%.
As someone else mentioned, it depends on your contract. (someone else said handing over copyright should also be a part of the process - and I don’t agree with that one. It’s not handed over unless you specifically put it in writing that you are handing it over, anyway - so it would have to be a clause in the contract.)
I provide a backup of the files needed for the site to run - so if something happens, they have a clean backup of the “pristene” version. As for source files - as in layered PSD files - I don’t provide that. But I have no problem providing “base” images for them to work from. For instance, if they have an image that’s exactly the same in all languages - save the language itself - then I’ll provide that backup “base” image. I also provide vector images of logos and such in case they need to use them for printing purposes. But the layered PSD files? No. Only because I’ve just never done it (and no one’s asked.) I suppose I could - because my contract would protect me if they decided to rip me off - but I’d much rather prevent a court case than hope I don’t have to have one.
Of course, my contract states that I retain copyright to anything I create. If the client wants to obtain the copyright, then that have to pay extra to me for having that luxury.
Someone else used the analogy of someone building a house and saying the 2x4’s were theirs. I use a similar analogy with a different meaning: I’m the architect. I draw up the schematics and create the blueprints (the design). I also happen to be the contractor that builds the house (the programming). As the architect, I retain the rights to my blueprints - they are mine. As the contractor, the work that was put into it is mine, which is why I get to say I built the house and advertise as such. The way I put things together is my method, I own it. As the homeowner, you get the end result of the contractor and the architect’s efforts. What’s put in the house is yours. If you knock out a wall, that’s fine too. But you cannot say you own the method in which I built the house, nor can you say you own the blueprints (i.e. you cannot prevent me from advertising my work, nor can you prevent me from reusing bits of code that on another person’s site - and you certainly can’t take the “blueprints” I’ve drawn up and use them elsewhere without my permission.)
That’s just my stance, and it’s worked well both for me and my clients. I’m pretty flexible in all of this, but as a general rule, I don’t do it. Not purposely, though - just no one’s ever asked. I think if they did, I might have to do some serious consideration on it first. Most likely I’d just pass files they can work with - but not the layered original PSD’s.
It’s ok for you to do that … but I really wouldn’t communicate it that way to my clients.
Is the time you spent on these changes more valuable then the time you spent on the original files? Are you working 15% harder on these changes then you did on the original files?
I would feel ripped off. Because it seems like a trick to get more money.
I think in the long run you’re better off with a happy client that can trust you & can be guaranteed that he gets everything like he wants it, whenever he wants it, then just that 15% you receive more for additional changes.
all IMO … I’ve got no proof for this, but it just seems so logical to me.
About the copyright thing. I know it’s OK to do. But that doesn’t mean it sounds logical for the client.
They paid for your time, You can copyright the original design but don’t be too strict with it.
To put it in an other context.
It’s the same with mp3’s. If you buy one you’d be unhappy if you could only use it on one device.
Most people find it obvious that, since they paid for it once, they can use it on any device they want.
I’m sure a lot of designers think the same way about mp3’s (as I just described here) but still copyright their work in a way that wouldn’t allow this.
Fre - I think you misread there…he said “if they change anything and then ask me to fix it.” meaning, if they mess it up and then want him to go back in and fix what they screwed up, he charges a 15% fee to repair the damage. This is pretty common - I personally don’t know any web designers who don’t do something like this. Working on the site is one thing - going back and fixing something that was messed with (that shouldn’t have been in the first place) is something else entirely. And yes, most likely you’d be putting in a lot more effort into the repair - because not only do you have to figure out what it is they were trying to do, but you also have to figure out how they messed it up - usually you can’t just revert back to the original without making it even more detrimental - so you not only have to fix it, but also retain whatever changes they were attempting to make. And you never do know exactly how badly they’ve screwed things up until you actually go and take a look.
As for your MP3/copyright thing - exactly what I mean. I license my work. I have it specified in my contract exactly what they can use the graphics and such for. I’m one of the more lenient designers you’ll meet, actually - at least out of the ones I know. however, I do take issue when I design something and place it in my portfolio - and it’s a terrific example of my work - and then the client goes in and starts putting in blinking neon text with spinny gifs all over the place. It makes me look bad, and it’s a violation of my copyright. Doing that is a detriment to my professionalism and my business. people see that and think I’m straight out of 1998, and I lose business.
This is why my contract is laid out the way it is. I have no problem with wanting to move things around, “knock down a wall” or whatever. But when you mess with the work I’ve put into it, and change it drastically, it no longer becomes my work, and I can no longer use it as an example of my services. if that’s the way it’s going to be, then I should be compensated.
I do not, however, use my copyright-keeping to enforce any psycho-weirdness and obsessive behavior about my stuff. i definitely take the time to explain it properly to clients this way as well. My ultimate goal is a good relationship with my clients. I’d love for them to trust me enough that - if they need a small change - they can count on me to do it for them (that’s what a maintenance contract is for). I’d also love to give them the flexibility with files that if they know they can make a change for themselves, then they have what they need to do so without “bugging” me. But unfortunately, that’s not always the case. Designers need to protect themselves, and a great contract will not only protect the designer, but it will also protect the client. If the client doesn’t see it that way, then it’s not one you want to be working with. You always want a client that works well with you - if you don’t, then you have bigger problems than just “who gets the source files?”
I understand your point, but again, is this time more valuable then the time you spent working on the original project.
The way you explain it now, seems that you’ll have to spent more time on it. Which puts you safe, because you charge per hour.
I wouldn’t be too happy if I had to fix the mess someone else made.
But If I hired someone & he’d charge me more for each hour, I would find that strange.
the copyright thing wasn’t directed to you 
But anyway, compare it with something else.
If you buy a car, you won’t be happy if the manufacturer said you couldn’t paint it in an ugly color (ugly for the designer, nice for you), or put a huge spoiler on it. The designer of that car would think you destroyed a perfect design, while you would find it obvious you could change whatever you want on the car you just bought.
It would indeed harm your reputation if your portfolio would link to a website where the client made the worst design mistakes on. But their are ways to overcome this. If you make a site & are willing to put it in your portfolio, provide standard a year full support for it (included in the price), this way you can control most of the changes in that period. If they’d change the site, link to a screenshot of the original design of the website.
I’m not saying that the way I think is the right way. I just want to provide some discussion material.
I’ve had this conversation many times with marketeers & business owners (friends, not clients), & it gets interesting when you start seeing things from their perspective.
90% of them finds it obvious that they own the website if they paid for it & could change the content of it if they want. (also banners, content images etc …).
etc etc …
There’s a huge gap how a designer thinks about his work, & how a client thinks about the website he just bought.
edit: sorry if I hijacked this thread with a slightly offtopic discussion.
Should I provide the psd for my clients?
I would immediately stop working with the designer who is trying to charge any extra amount for the PSD or any other source files related to the design work.
>>but again, is this time more valuable then the time you spent working on the original project.<<
Well, yes. Usually, when a client “messes something up” then it suddenly becomes an “emergency” to have it fixed. Most designers have a schedule of what they are doing. Just as with anything, you’ll have scheduled maintenance time, scheduled maintain the biz" time, scheduled communication times, etc. Many businesses out there charge additional fees for “emergency services” - it’s like overtime. Chewing the cabbage twice, plus cutting into a business owner’s family time is definitely worth the extra markup for the emergency.
>>the copyright thing wasn’t directed to you<<
oh, sorry
>>If you buy a car, you won’t be happy if the manufacturer said you couldn’t paint it in an ugly color (ugly for the designer, nice for you), or put a huge spoiler on it.<<
Color - no. that’s different. But a huge spoiler? LOL it’s my understanding (and this comes from a car dealership friend I have - so maybe I’m misunderstanding him) any major stuff you do to the car will void it’s warranty. I don’t know if a spoiler constitutes that or not. But painting the car (like painting the walls in your house) is one thing. Removing the logos on the car and saying you made it is another 
>>provide standard a year full support for it (included in the price)<<
Personally, I do this for free. I provide a standard 6 months of free site maintenance after a project is completed. if the client uses it, cool. if they don’t, they can choose to bypass the maintenance and be set free on their own, or they can choose a maintenance contract they can live with (I let them determine if they want to go month-to-month, quarter-to-quarter, etc.).
And I don’t think you’ve hijacked it - I think it’s perfectly relevant. In all honesty, if your contract is clear-cut, and you tell the client up front that you, as the designer, retain copyright of the source files, and the client has a license to use them (which mine does) then there should be no question on this. If the client didn’t read the contract, then unfortunately, it’s the client’s fault for not reading the contract and signing it anyway. It’s unfortunate.
To any people out there reading this thread that want to hire a web designer read the contract! The time to bring up these types of questions is BEFORE you sign. Anything can be negotiated before you sign. As the saying goes, “never assume anything, because it makes an “***” out of “u” and “me”!”
If this isn’t covered in the contract, you should bring it up. if you don’t, you should “assume” that all rights stay with the designer. Some designers (like those above) always assume they pass things on to the client. but some don’t. So if it’s not clear - ask (and hopefully before you sign). This is definitely what a contract is for - to protect both the client’s rights and the designer’s. Good contracts make good neighbors. (you know, just to continue the whole “adage” ball I’m rolling on right now LOL)
I didn’t really see the reason I always need PSD files is because of the image quality. You send me a jpg, or something compressed and I have to trim that image or something to make it fit to a UI then we are looking at pixalition without the original.
Maybe I just work with poor designers but I really find a time where a designer provides me with exactly what I need, thus the PSD is nice to have instead of waiting for a designers revision cycle in the middle of my development cycles.
Sometimes I despair of our industry. How can anybody possibly justify hanging on to the psd or source code files for a unique site that they have been paid to develop for a client? Are we saying it is acceptable to try and retain copyright for something we have been paid to specifically design?
So, because Michaelangelo was commissioned to paint the Sistene Chapel, he shouldn’t get credit for his work? After all, he was commissioned and paid to do it. It doesn’t matter that it was his design, his creation, and his expertise that turned the ceiling into a work of art, because someone asked him (and paid him) to do it?
It’s justified for the same reason. I may not be Michaelangelo, but I was hired because of my expertise, and because of my taste and flair that is uniquely my own. Do you think Michaelangelo would be happy if the Pope - no matter how wonderful he was at talking to God, he probably couldn’t paint a stick figure - decided to go up there and “fix” God’s likeness?
What do you think would happen if you passed along ALL source files to a client, and told them they had complete copyright to everything, and then turned around and put it up on Template Monster? How would you feel then? How would you feel if that self-same Template Monster template had some original scripting in there, and maybe some information on exactly how you’re so good at what you do, and now it’s up there for anyone to see for a few $$, thus undermining what makes you unique? How would you feel if you linked to the site as part of your portfolio, and the client turned around and sued you because it’s theirs, and you had no right to claim it anymore?
That is how it’s justified.
Like I said, some people have no problem with that. But personally, I’ve been burned plenty of times in my own life with my artwork to know when to protect myself. I’ve seen my own original artwork mounted on someone else’s wall, with someone else’s signature on it (having painted over my own - which is why I no longer sign my paintings in the bottom left hand corner).
I’m not saying to try and make it as difficult as possible for the client to get what they need, nor am I saying to try and “dig” more money out of the client’s pocket. I am saying make your contract sound. Find out what it is the client does need, and make allowances for that, and put it in the contract. You should protect yourself. You should also allow for the client as well - there’s no reason to gouge. But there’s also no reason for “full disclosure” either. There can be a happy medium, and there’s no reason to give away more than you need to.
Whenever I have a designer do work, I require psd or I won’t work with them. I can’t have the core of my business in someone else’s hands. If we needed to change something and they were nowhere to be found with the psd, or lost it, it could be very costly.
Gotta agree with dark, Once the client pays. Hand over the PSD.
Its not saying I’m washing my hands of this, it is saying Here you paid for this. Here you go.
Once someone pays for a web site design or a graphic. Its theirs, not yours. They have more right to that PSD than you do.
doodlebee, I have a simple question for you if you don’t mind:
Which file formats would you deliver if you were designing a logo for a website?
Thank you to the many designers who continue the old-school ad agency technique of charging their clients extra for original graphics. Makes it one step easier to win accounts from you when we say “most designers will charge you extra…but when you get a website through us, we want you to have full control over your website and one of the pieces to having control is having access to all originals.”
As far as I am concerned, if you are not giving your client the source files at the end you are not doing your job. If you have done an excellent job on the project and have established a good relationship, they will come back almost every time. Where I work, we provide the source for everything we do and they continue to come back for changes and future projects. If you are worried by providing them the source they can go elsewhere or do the edits themselves, you have not done a good enough job of establishing the relationship.
I learned the hard way when I was green & naive & didn’t know to ask for the PSDs. Do you know how many times work has had to be redone just b/c I only got the jpg.
I would NEVER work with a GWD who holds MY PSDs hostage & demands more money. I paid for them, they are mine.
In fact, anyone who would do such a thing shows me their true colours & I don’t do business with people like that.
If the GWD is good & we got along well, there would be no reason not to hire them again. I hope one day I do find people we can continue to work with long term.
Michelle
Many service industries exclude working documents from what they hand over to the client. The client gets the finished product and anything used to produce that finished product is a working document belonging to the creator. It is normal when someone else takes over the service role for them to be supplied with those working documents necessary for them to take over but not all of the supporting material created along the way.
It is just a matter of making sure it is all clear as to exactly what you are supplying the client as the end product of the job and specify that you retain the ownership of all the workings that you produce in creating that end product. Any exceptions need to be clearly listed so that they don’t ask for your notebook where you sketched out the different designs prior to selecting those worth developing into a graphic.
Holding on to the source files is and always has been a legitimate strategy if the client agreed to it in the first place. If not, then the client has every right to be angry, which is bad for business.
That said, I’d like to think that the graphic design (and photography, and web design) industry as a whole is moving away from the “hold the source files hostage so the client is forced to come back to us for further work” model of doing business.
The marketplace is big and varied enough now for firms that really provide flexible service, as opposed to tactics designed to lock you in, to have a competitive edge.
Another thing, it is all very well saying that you are in if for the long term, and hope to get more work later, but you may not be around when the client needs to update the site. They are buying from you a website, and all that comes with it. Besides, you have nothing to lose by sending the files, and everything to gain. Keep the client happy and they will recommend you. Annoy them, and you may lose out on not only their business, but business from their contacts.
After building my first site I was recommended for further work within a few days. Do a good professional job, provide everything a client needs / may need in the future, explain everything, and you may actually work better.