Should I push back on a perpetual license clause in a freelance design contract?

[MadisonMS]

I just had a potential client ask me to sign a contract that includes a perpetual license to all the work I produce for them, even after the project ends. I’m not sure if this is a standard clause for freelance design work or if I should be pushing back on it.

[Anthony_G]

That perpetual license clause isn’t standard for most freelance design work. Usually the client gets rights to the deliverables for the project, and you keep ownership of the underlying work or at least a right to reuse it afterward, with a portfolio carve‑out. I’d push back to limit the rights to the project scope, add a portfolio carve‑out, and consider a time‑bound license for client use.

[AaronZM]

I’ve actually pushed back before and found that clarifying the scope of use helps a lot. In one case I kept a nonexclusive portfolio license and trimmed the multi‑media rights to what was actually delivered. It still felt fair and prevented a later surprise.

[Robert_C]

Maybe the real issue isn’t the rights talk but how the project boundaries were defined. If they want long lasting access, it could be about the value you’re still providing or about future iterations. It might help to ask for specifics on where and how the work will be used, even if you don’t change the core terms.

[Ryan.J]

A practical move I tried last quarter was to propose a separate license for portfolio use and keep master rights myself, while offering the client a nonexclusive license for project purposes. It bought us time to negotiate and made the terms easier to swallow for both sides.