Selling native InDesign files to customers

On that specific point, I think it's incumbent on the client to say they're going to want all source materials and files, for whatever reason — so the job can both be priced fairly and any long-term expectations can be. I will and have build a complex project for a client to take away so that some journeyman can update ti over time, or whatever — but that was understood from the get-go, and the differences between that INDD file and one I might have built for internal use... would be understood by any pro here. 🙂

It goes both ways. When I came to Denver, I had an early client who had a fairly simple need to build a business image and materials. $1,.000 would have seen him fully set up with print materials based on a freshened logo and business identity, a good website, truck vinyls, all that. But he refused to let me do any finished part of the whole, instead having me do this piece and that piece that he then took to someone else to move along to the next step, so that he could do work in trade with a printer or vinyl shop. I finally stopped answering his calls, since a $1-200 task cost me more than that in time and attention overhead. I saw the results later. Sure hope he saved a lot of money.

I think the arguments are more various and subtle than that, but this is an argument that goes back to lead type days, if not cave paintings, and I don't know of any definitive answer.

In one scenario, which applies (as noted) to most photographic work, the client is "inherently" only entitled to the end product — the actual prints and often watermarked digital exports. This would be equivalent to printed brochures, a finished presentation, an animated video etc.

In a slightly more generous interpretation, a client could ask for and expect to receive PDFs or equivalent so they could reproduce the finished work on their own terms.

I have trouble getting to the level where a client is (again "inherently") entitled to the working source files for their own further use. In a one-shot project or relationship, it's probably a moot point; you won't be doing further work for them in any case. But in a situation where you're paid to produce specific end results, I think there's a line between those results (and maybe "PDFs") and the expertly-crafted files and components that led to those results. The client may have paid you to do that work... but it doesn't necessarily mean they own the right to the work. It's like saying they're entitled to dies, molds, jigs and so forth as wel as the finished article.

It does get blurry in that an INDD file overlaps a lot with PDFs and finished productions, moreso perhaps than mechanical dies and jigs. But I have to maintain some disagreement that, absent a specific contract for which adequate compensation was paid for that developmental and expert-level work, a client somehow owns everything back to the first sketch on a napkin. I think that assumes pay for the project and results includes pay for your skilled processes as well — and that's not something usually requested or spelled out until they later get clever and greedy about it.

I mildly disagree and think that a case could be made either way; if the job was a brochure or posters or the like, defined as that, and delivered... whatever you did to complete the task is your own work and property.

I note that it is almost universal for photographers to retain ownership and rights of negatives, raw photo files and sometimes copyright, even for corporate, event and wedding shoots. I don't think ID files and other "working components" are any different. 

Did you understand the question at all I wonder...