Four Legitimate Reasons Why Your Designer May Not Want to Release a Layered Photoshop or Illustrator File…Plus One Illegitimate One.
I hear this a lot. Designers don’t want to give the layered masters to their clients. Clients rightfully feel a little miffed about not getting something that they assumed they had paid for.
There are many legitimate reasons why a friendly, helpful and knowledgable designer may suddenly get a little anxious when a client asks for the layered Photoshop or non-outlined layered Illustrator masters, but only one illegitimate one. Let’s review the legitimate reasons first and then wrap up with the illegitimate one.
1. It’s a Legitimate Business Decision Based Upon Agreed Upon Deliverables
For some this is a legitimate business decision. A client is paying for a finished print ready or web ready file. They are not paying for all of the active layers and the full history of the project. This is why a designer provides you with one finished design and not masters to every comp they created. You are only paying for one design. With access to the layered file a client could hire someone else to churn our endless variations from the raw data and the original designer, who put in all the work, will never see another penny. If a designer is using this formula then they will probably offer you the master for an additional buyout fee.
You can think of it this way. If you hired a songwriter to create a jingle or a writer to create a killer tag line, you are entitled to one finished mix of the song or one finalized tagline. You don’t get all the rough tracks and out-takes and you don’t get to have all the other taglines you passed on.
A master layered Photoshop or Illustrator file is similar as they often contain a history of all the available options.
For me personally, I tend to reserve the layered Photoshop file until there is a specific reason. They contain the entire history of the project and I don’t want some hack breaking it apart and creating junk, nor do I want my client to accidentally send the wrong file to the printers. When I’m collaborating with other designers who need the layered files to reformat for use in other mediums, I always provide a cleaned up version of the layered master. I also expect them to do the same for me.
However, if my client simply wants a layered Photoshop file out of curiosity I will generally discourage it. I will always provide a cleaned up version of the layered master free of charge if they truly want it – that’s just the way I conduct my business – but I also establish some rules when I do. This is based on experience as a layered master floating around can cause problems for both myself and the client. So if I’m hesitant about releasing the layered file it’s really an attempt to protect my client from misusing or accidentally distributing a very valuable business asset.
However, Illustrator files are a bit different. I tend to work in the Illustrator editable PDF format so all of my proofs are essentially “masters” anyway. So I will generally provide a layered master Illustrator editable PDF file and all the fonts after I cleaned them up. Since they are the PDF format, and vector files are quite small, my clients will have no problem opening them with just Acrobat Reader. However they will need Illustrator or Acrobat Pro to edit them.
2. Your Don’t Have The Proper Software to Open the File
This is a common problem. A client will ask the designer for the master Photoshop (PSD) or Illustrator (AI) file yet they do not have the software to open it nor the experience to do anything with it even if they had the program. Several says later the client calls.
“Something’s wrong with the file you sent me!”
“What do you mean?”
“Every time I try to open it nothing happens”
“Ok. I want you to open Photoshop first…”
“Wait, what’s Photoshop?”
“It’s a professional industry standard image editing program.”
“I don’t have that. I have Microsoft Paint though.”
“That won’t work. You need Photoshop.”
“Then why did you send me this file if I can’t use it?”
“Because you insisted on having it.”
“Then send me something I can use.”
“I did, it’s the TIF file I gave you originally. I also gave you a JPG version.”
“Oh, OK, Thanks!”
3. Your Don’t Have a Powerful Enough Computer to Open the File
A layered Photoshop file for a complex poster could be 500mb or more is size. If you have an older laptop with only 2gb ram, your computer will slow to a scrawl while it tries to open a file that big file. It may not be able to open it at all. Design professionals have beefy workstations and files we open easily may be difficult for our clients. So a designer may not want to give you such a large file knowing full well it will just make you frustrated.
4. Your Designer is Worried That You’ll Use the Wrong File
Clients need a variety of file types. For an example, a client will need an outlined vector PDF of their logo, a print quality transparent TIF, and a variety of JPG, PNG or GIF files for email stationary, web use, Word documents, and PowerPoint presentations.
Most designers will clearly create file names such as Logo_Word_Document.JPG, Logo_Web.JPG, and Logo_Master_Outlined_Printer.PDF.
To the designer this seems infinitely wise and helpful. However the client most likely just sees a bunch of logo files and will grab the most convenient one and use it.
“I’ve been trying to email our logo to a website who’s going to write about our company but it just keeps sitting in my outbox and never sends”
“What file are you trying to send?”
“Our logo.”
“I mean what is the file name.?
“Uh, let’s see..it says logo master for printers dot t-i-f..”
“Ok, that’s a print quality file that is only supposed to be used in special circumstances when someone can’t handle the PDF version. It’s 35 megabites in size. At best an email client can handle 12 megabites.Why didn’t you send the file named web?”
“What do you mean?”
“Go back to the files I gave you. Do you see one labeled web?”
“Yes”
“You use that one for the web.”
“Oh , Ok thanks!”
Sometimes it’s the reverse.
“I sent the printer our logo and they said the resolution’s too low!”
“What? That’s impossible. It’s a vector file. It’s completely resolution independent.”
“Well that’s what they are telling me.”
“Uh, hold on, forward me the file you sent them.”
“Here you go, sent.”
“Ahhh, I see now. You sent them the web resolution JPG and not the PDF file.”
“Which ones should I send them then?
“The one called Logo_Master_Outlined_Printer.PDF”
“Oh, Ok. Thanks!”
Now these are not uneducated clients. They are often experts in their field, quick learners and sharp as a tack. However, things that are second nature to a designer are archaic to them. They simply don’t think about file extensions, file names and file size.
Because of this, a designer may be cautious about sending over a huge layered file that is completely impractical for their clients needs.
5.Your Designer is Really Just a Petty and Controlling Asshole
Some designers are just paranoid pains in the ass. They don’t see you as a collaborator and confidant and instead view you as an adversary. These designers feel that they cannot maintain their client list by providing superior service and instead hold various elements hostage to prevent their clients from leaving them.
Stay away from these designers. They are poison and will not hesitate to jeopardize your success to protect their egos. They also make my job exceedingly difficult when they refuse to release files I need to do your job.
If you suspect this is the type of designer you are dealing with, you are probably right. If in doubt, ask them why they won’t give you the layered master Photoshop files or the non-outlined editable Illustrator vector files. If they don’t have a good reason that is in line with one of the first four legitimate reasons then you need to switch designers. Good designers like to empower their clients and will do their best to get you what you truly need to make your business a success.
File Under: Understanding Layered Photoshop Files – What is a Layered Photoshop File – Giving Master Files to Clients
Lene
1 year ago
Love number 5!
Leopold Stotch
1 year ago
6. Your client will fuck with your beautiful art/font choice and THEN go to print with it.
7. Your client will take isolated elements of your design and use them in other projects.
8. Your client will find the hidden layer where you used an image you found on FFFFound that you used as a template
Clay (The BDD Dude)
1 year ago
Hah! Good one. Especially number 8.
2-1
1 year ago
the moment u gave the original file to your client , he will not need you anymore! which happens… and he will mess with the design, thn ruin the designer’s name. and thn will complain ” Oh!, ur design isn’t working, why?!”
Clay (The BDD Dude)
1 year ago
If your client doesn’t need you anymore because they have the original file, then you aren’t providing much value. My clients would never leave me no matter what files I gave them because they are getting so much more than a print ready file when I take on their project. Even when I tell them exactly how to do something themselves, they still pay me to do it for them. They don’t want to be bothered with execution, they want to delegate that to a professional who will just get it done. So, if you need to hold the files hostage as leverage to keep clients from leaving then you are really operating more as a paid hack. In other words you’ve positioned yourself as a commodity and not a value added service.
Caleb
1 week ago
Exactly! Kudos to you. By the way Is it right for a client to ask one designer for a logo then ask for master file. so the client can pass on the logo to another practitioner (webdesigner) for designing a website? This is the problem I’m having with my client at the moment she has only the PNG file and we need the psd so I can rescale without Pixel issues. However the original designer for the logo seems to be avoiding giving out the original file.
Jason N
1 year ago
Buyer Perspective — Enjoyed the article.
All my contracts with artists say “Original vector (when available) high resolution formats, in Photoshop or Illustrator native versions, will be delivered to [company] upon completion.
To make them feel a bit better about it (when it’s new artists), I put money in escrow or use a middle man finance company. Or, if I feel good about them, I just pay them. I’ve also paid for lots of art where I’ve told the artist to keep the originals, deleted my files and paid them for work I never used.
When I buy commercial work, I pay for the work and make masters part of the agreement every single time. I don’t want to debate changing a color or slicing it up for print, web or video application. My method of resolving any potential client is the agreement: work for hire. I realize a “real artist” doing “real art” would never give up their license on the process, the history, etc. It’s theirs. Similarly, if a software developer does work for us, I don’t expect them to give up the right to reuse their math, even certain classes. But, we do reserve the right to make money on those things we’ve bought, and sometimes we do that in a way that doesn’t require or justify the original artist. I also don’t want to have to educate the artist on the processes for pushing the work to different media. So, I just pay them.
Clay (The BDD Dude)
1 year ago
That’s smart to spell it out. I always give cleaned up masters if they want them, I just want them to understand what they are getting and not get confused when it doesn’t email, they can’t open it, the printer complains they sent the wrong file, or the web page now takes 45 seconds to load because they inserted a 6mg JPG and then just click/shifted and dragged the edges to make it “small”.
cathy
12 months ago
I like the points you made here. I totally agree… you will not lose a client once you hand over master files, if you provide good smart valuable services. I would however be very very very very cautious about giving your clients the fonts. You do realize that is in violation of pretty much every font license out there. True too about royalty free art. You can’t just legally pass it on, that is my only reservation regarding passing on native files.
james
11 months ago
I see it the same way as Clay, if they eventually need the working file, it’s good practice to send it over.
Watch out though, it may be the way they are phasing you out for cheap labor once the original templates are created. damn it
just talk about it before and make it happen.
-ji
Faith
6 months ago
Some clients will take the layered file that you provide and go to a print shop or advertise for a college student or a graphic design intern on craigslist and pay them a lot less to manipulate the design and use the elements on another project. So all the time it took me to color correct images and isolate them from the background will go to help someone else and they will benefit from all of my hard work and get my business. I’m going through this right now. They lied and said the printer needed the original psd or ai file. So I cleaned it up and flattened most of the layers and emailed it. Now they are acting like they never got it and have some guy calling me and asking for specific elements for a mailing that they are doing. I sent him the original stock images I used. I love design, but I hate business.
Clay (The BDD Dude)
6 months ago
I’d say good riddance. Setting aside any debate about releasing masters, to go behind your back like that is just not acceptable. I would also say that this new company didn’t really get your business, what they got was a hack job with a former client that will not deal openly and honestly with their designer. Hardly a victory.
Cathy
6 months ago
Charge the client for the time it took you to prepare the files to hand over. Do it now. But in most cases Faith, legally you can’t give them the original stock images. Most stock licensing agreements state this.
Clay (The BDD Dude)
6 months ago
I don’t see a problem with the stock images if they were purchased for the project. It would be different if you had your own stash that you purchased and then resold them multiple times. However, if the client purchased the file, it belongs to them, not the designer. Also depends on the license. Some are very opened ended and you can use them as many times as you want in any commercial situation (a product package, and ad, a t-shirt, etc) as long as you don’t resell the image itself
Cathy
6 months ago
yea. ditto what clay said too!
Sheana
6 months ago
I’m glad someone mentioned fonts and stock images. I’m asked all the time to release master files which I am happy to do for a small fee (i.e. the time it takes to gather and cleanup everything and get it on a disk for them)or if was previously agreed upon during negotiations. However I make sure to outline all fonts (this also maintains the integrity of the design if the computer on the receiving end does not have that particular font loaded) and clean up the file as mentioned so there are no hidden yet unused layers. If the design contains purchased fonts or stock elements/images, I am sure to require the client to purchase those for themselves. The Licensing on many fonts and stock images is pretty clear, you cannot redistribute (amongst other things) the file. Each user of the image/font must have their own license so releasing the fonts and images to someone without the proper license, opens both you and the client up to all sorts of legal repercussions. How can you know, for example, that the client won’t take that font or image and use it elsewhere? Of course, the exception, for me, is sharing with fellow designers or publications who have valid reasons for needing those master files and are aware of copyright laws etc….i.e. as in a packaged INDD file with fonts and images. I trust that they wont redistribute or use the files for anything but the project at hand.
Clay (The BDD Dude)
2 weeks ago
Most stock photo houses allow the file to travel. If I buy a file I charge it to the client and therefor it goes with the project. When the project’s done, the file goes to them. The photos I buy also allow me to use it as often as I want and for any commercial purpose (except for reselling the image itself). But i don’t because i don’t want two clients to have the same images. It’s kind of tacky and lazy.
I don’t buy from restrictive stock agencies. When I buy a stock image, I want it forever and to be able to use it for any project.
That reduces the total number of images available but not by much. Rarely is there a photo so amazing and unique that you can’t find an equivalent with less publishing restrictions.
Christina Wilkinson
2 weeks ago
U.S. Law states that a graphic designer who is a contractor owns their original artwork/design unless a contract for the client to pay for designs outright is signed which gives a client the rights to own those native files.
Otherwise a client pays a designer to design and obtain a copy of the final file for print purposes or web purposes.
It’s the same with an artist who does a painting. Just because you own an original painting, you as the owner do not have the rights to sell copies of it and use it for your personal gain.
Most designers do not understand their rights and unfortunately continue to release files to clients. When they do that, it only hurts them in the long run.
As for not releasing files and it creating a problem with your client; do you really think they’re going to keep using you after you release those native files?
Clay (The BDD Dude)
2 weeks ago
There’s two issues here. One is a strict reading of copyright law, and another is how things work in the real world. I won’t work with anyone that won’t release their masters to me because I need them to do my job. I likewise would expect a client to not work with me if I did the same thing.
Things move very fast. I’m changing files constantly and often hours before a print deadline. I’m assembling trade show booths and sell sheets a week before the event. I’m working with marketing people, print houses, co-packers, shrink sleevers, label printers, box manufacturers, prototypers, coders, CAD artists, and video production houses.
I’m working with people in China, the Philippines, Russia, Australia and all over the US. We’re putting these projects together 24/7 as we all have deadlines and we’re often anywhere from three to fifteen hours time difference. So if you think you can sit on master files and hold all these people hostage you’re making a big mistake as it would serious slow things down as you would create a bottleneck in the production process.
And if someone loses clients after giving them the masters files then they are probably a shitty designer and pain in the ass to work with. Not only have I never lost a client after giving them the master files, I actually get clients because they decided to leave their current designer because he/she is uncooperative and distrusting of their intentions and holding their files hostage.
The master files should not be your value. A master file is just a thing. Your value should be your expertise, your insight and wisdom, your customer service, and your ability to be the calm in the center of a storm. That’s what keeps your clients coming back. Not a layered file.
Christina Wilkinson
2 weeks ago
“And if someone loses clients after giving them the masters files then they are probably a shitty designer and pain in the ass to work with.”
Really? How long have you been a designer? Next time I go and get my car engine worked on, I’m going to demand they show me how they fixed it; afterall, I paid them to do it so I should see how they did it. Same with a home; I can’t own the rights to the blueprints on a house just because I own the house.
I’ve never had to hold my clients hostage because they sign a contract and they understand their rights to my design files.
In my opinion, its all about educating clients so that I’m never put in an uncomfortable situation to look like a bad designer. In the 25+ years I’ve been designing, only one client had to be shown his contract and it clearly stated “buy-out” costs for his files. He wasn’t upset at all. He sold his business and wanted the new owners to have the files to give to an ad agency. He purchased them and I lost a client.
Buy-out clauses in contracts are for protection of my illustrations as well. I design lots of custom art for t-shirts. If anyone thinks I’m handing over custom art because a client wanted it on 200 shirts for a one-time event, that’s just crazy.
Designers need to stop just giving away their work because a client scares them. A designer will always own the native files.
Clay (The BDD Dude)
2 weeks ago
I’ve been working professionally since 1984.I’ve worked with major companies like Google, Intel, Playboy and Discovery Channel as well as tons of mom and pop and start-ups. I don’t have a buy-out clause because it’s not a big deal to me. As I said in the original article, if you have a buy-out clause for the masters and that’s agreed upon that’s fine. I just don’t care.
I’ve illustrating professionally just as long. I generally work on a simple work for hire unless someone’s buying reprint rights to a piece I already created (like my comic strip).
Just because you give someone the masters doesn’t mean you can’t also own them. They are just digital files so there really isn’t a master in the traditional sense like a painting. So it’s really no problem for each the client and the designer to have a set – they’re identical copies and making multiples copies does not harm the original.
So I always keep my original drawings that were created on paper as that is a unique and irreplaceable item that also has its own value. A digital file though doesn’t have the same unique value though because the value is not in the layers but in the creation itself. I don’t think anyone’s going to be collecting layered PSDs from artists anytime soon.
But back to the analogy, yes I expect my mechanic to explain how they fixed my car, just as I watch my plumber fix my water heater. Understanding how they did it does not lesson their value to me, nor does it hurt them.
And if I paid an architect to design a house for me, you bet they are going to give me (sell me) a set of all the blueprints. It’s my house. That doesn’t give me the right to then start building additional homes using the same blueprint, but there’s no reason I shouldn’t be able to own a full set of those blue prints. I also need the blue prints so I can safely make additions to the house and apply for any additional remodeling permits.
In my opinion, a lot of the old rules involving “masters” is outdated. Masters really used to be “masters”. There was only one, so the artist generally kept it and sold the rights to the image. If the artist became popular, then the original art became very valuable.
But what about an image that was created or completed digitally. What exactly is the master anymore?
And as far as reproduction rights go, I know the Artist Guild Handbook has a lot of wishful thinking about how that’s supposed to work but it’s based on a very old concept where illustrators were commissioned by large publications to create an Illustration for them for one time use and the artist could then resell that to someone else. It worked because the field was very small, the competition low and the payment high. Also, because each person’s experience was very limited, the same piece of artwork could be resold over and over and it wouldn’t hurt the the brand value.
But now our worlds are very large and we consume an enormous amount of media in all forms. Time magazine can’t purchase reprint rights for a cover and then have that same artists sell it to another magazine. Everyone would look stupid.
When I worked for Playboy, they purchased all rights. That’s how it is when you worked for Playboy. In exchange for giving up your rights you get exposure in what was at the time, one of the biggest and prestigious magazines in the world.
My originals were always returned to me of course, but they purchased global reprint rights forever.
So Norman Rockwell would have zero chance to recreate his business model today. The big publishing houses are collapsing, budgets are tighter, content is more disposable than ever and the competition is global.
So now anyone can publish easily and cheaply. You can commission fantastic art with any artist in the world and have the files FTP’d to your server.
You don’t have to pay agency fees or even work with an agent. You don’t need a physical office. It’s both a buyers and a sellers market depending on your perceived value at any given moment.
Does this hurt artists. Maybe, but I would also argue it’s really just a democratization of the field. For every artist that is hurt by the globalization of our field, another one is having opportunities that were impossible just ten years ago.
That’s a bit off topic but it provides context for why I don’t think digital masters are all that big of a deal. Generally they just make everyone’s life easier if your client and all their manufacturers also have them. It’s also a bit of insurance should yours get destroyed (which is quite common with digital files – analog art is far more durable)