Selling native InDesign files to customers

[skiph23010641]

how do people price this ?

[Willi Adelberger]

I would not pay a dime for it. InDesign is a professional programm and a file does not fit in a system of another user. 

[Frans v.d. Geest]

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

[Peter Spier]

I charge by the hour for the time I spend doing design work for clients, plus any other costs associated with the job if I must use outside resources. Output files are part of the job and are delivered in whatever format is required at no additional charge.

[Derek Cross]

If you do supply native InDesign files to your customer, I suggest you add a strong caveat with words to the affect that you will not be responsible for taking back these files to work on again, should they make further changes to them themselves or have changes to them by another designer.  This might protect you from a complete mish-mash!

[kglad]

in the future, to find the best place to post your message, use the list here, https://community.adobe.com/

p.s. i don't think the adobe website, and forums in particular, are easy to navigate, so don't spend a lot of time searching that forum list. do your best and we'll move the post (like this one has already been moved) if it helps you get responses.

<"moved from using the community">

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

@skiph23010641

It depends on your initial agreement. 

Either free - or sky is the limit. 

[skiph23010641]

Years ago I heard other people mention that if a customer decides to
purchase the .indd file at a future date they generally determine the price
at 3x of initial design charges. I imagine that 3x is higher now. Thoughts?

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

@skiph23010641

I think it should be closer to 10x - extra "0" at the end - but it depends on too many factors. 

[James Gifford—NitroPress]

I can't remember the last time I had a project agreement that addressed the source materials, so I'd venture that unless you're working with a fairly sophisticated/savvy client who is perhaps outsourcing this project from in-house or regular providers, they aren't going to think of it at the time.

So it's a topic that comes up three or six or thirty months later when they hire an in-house person, or a new provider, and get the idea that the files will provide a basis for further work. (That they are usually wrong for several reasons is neither here nor there.)

No good answers; I can't think of much that is more dependent on case-by-case details.

Pricing would be based on the complexity and amount of skilled work that went into creating the materials. If it's something any journeyman ID'er can replicate in a few hours, it's not worth a lot. If you used years of skill and understanding to build a platform that saved money elsewhere (as in printing, proofing, smooth export, reusability down road), and it would take another expert to replicate it... proportionately more.

Loosely speaking: how much would you charge to do the same project from scratch, not including any revenue from printing or downstream services? About that, plus a markup.

But I'm 100% with @Derek Cross in that it's a one-way transaction. You will not take the project back over (either at all, or with some notion that you'll continue with changes made by someone else). The files come with no tutorial or support service; within reason, you'll answer a few questions if the new designer has them, but otherwise they get what they get and it's up to their new person to sort out design issues and move things forward. If they are trying the clever trick of taking pro work and expecting the owner's daughter to pick up on updates and production because she watched some YouTube videos... it's vaya con Dios.

[I am doing a project now, a massive textbook update, that was done by a skilled ID pro... but well over a decade ago. Between coping with outdated files and some design/file practices I don't want to preserve, and the updated material, it's been a headache and I've honestly done more start-from-scratch on each chapter than trying to update prior work. And I just got one of those Word files from hell that must have been run through every possible file-mangler... and being a synthesis of old and new material with no good prior model, it's having to be sorted out line by line and endnote by endnote. So even having good prior material isn't always much of a help or solution...]

[Peter Spier]

Presumably you were paid to do the work to create the files initially, and absent a contract that says otherwise, those files are considered "work for hire" and are actually the property of the clienbt and you have no claim for further payment.

On the other hand, if you are asking how much you should be cahrging for your work, in general, that comes down to what sort of work you do, and what skills, special advantages you bring.

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

@Peter Spier

Contract should clearly specify what buyer is receiving - all source materials, incl. INDD files - or just a printed and trimmed stack of paper or PDF.

If buyer wants to receive source materials - and my expertise - he needs to pay. 

For a simple flyer - can get source files for free. 

But what if it required years of experience - and some clever tricks? 

When you buy a car - blueprints are not included 😉 

[Peter Spier]

 

When you buy a car - blueprints are not included 😉 

By @Robert at ID-Tasker

There is a difference between selling art (or mass-produced cars) created without a commission by oneself and producing a custom product to order. I've paid thousands of dollars for custom house plans, but been forced to sign contracts specifying the copyright remains with the designer or they would not do the work. Personally, I think this is wrong, but that's the way it works. So far, no designer has resold the plans for my houses, as far as I know, but they could, while I cannot.

As a designer I sell my skills and tricks, but not my tools. Any materials specific to the design are part of the final product and belong to the client who paid for their creation. Most times they don't ask for production files, but some do, and the cost of providing them (bundling and delivery of files, not creating them) is tacked onto the final bill in those cases, generally far less than an hour's time at my regular rates.

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

@Peter Spier

But it's your way - and I respect that.

But I don't think that buyer is entitled to free "source files". 

[Peter Spier]

They weren't free. I charged them for the time I used to produce them.

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

They weren't free. I charged them for the time I used to produce them.

By @Peter Spier

But we're not talking about the time it takes to copy already existing files 😉 

But the fact, that buyer isn't entitled to get for free our "experience". 

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

They weren't free. I charged them for the time I used to produce them.

By @Peter Spier

But we're not talking about the time it takes to copy already existing files 😉 

But the fact, that buyer isn't entitled to get for free our "experience". 

By @Robert at ID-Tasker

Or by "produce them" you mean all the time you've worked on this job? 

[Peter Spier]

Yes, I charge for the time I spend on the job. Clients who drag out the process end up spending more than those who know what they want and communicate well. I also charge for all the time I spend "fixing" images in photoshop because the client doesn't have good images.

I do give lot of free advice, though.

As for copying exisiting files -- usually takes longer to write a bill.

But the OP has been absent from this discussion for some time now and I'm not sure in what context the question was really asked.

[Peter Spier]

And my rates are based on my years of experience and exceptional skills.

Many years ago I had a discussion with someone looking to hire a designer at the local newspaper about why it would be more cost effective to hire me at $30/hr than to hire someone who needed more training at $15, only to have them leave for a better paying job once they had the skills. While he agreed, the corporate bigwigs did not and $15 was the maximum they would offer.

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

Yes, I charge for the time I spend on the job. [...] .

By @Peter Spier

That changes things 😉 you charge buyer for the files - whether he wants them or not 😉 

[James Gifford—NitroPress]

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. 

[Peter Spier]

Absent a contract that specifies ownership, at least where I live, the courts would disagree.

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

Absent a contract that specifies ownership, at least where I live, the courts would disagree.

By @Peter Spier

Maybe... 

But you can then make his life much harder - for going this "extra mile" of taking you to court instead of understanding, that source files were not part of the agreement...

[James Gifford—NitroPress]

I'd fall back on my comment that any case would have to be judged (formally or informally) on its own merits. I can't bring to mind a case where there was a serious tussle over source materials; sometimes a client asks, from anger/disagreement or being sneaky/cheap or simply having evolved to the point where they now have an in-house person. No is usually taken as no; yes usually involves some quid-pro-quo, even if it's just a continued cordial business relationship.

But in a case where the source represents some significant value (in time invested/complexity/usefulness for reprint or updated edition) and was not included fairly clearly in a written agreement, I'd say most courts here in the US would listen to a reasonable argument that such materials are not part of the production and not necessarily to be given freely to the client. And for what dim memories I can pull up of such cases (mostly second-hand), that's been the case.

It's much more common for those who hire photographers to discover they don't "own" anything but the prints, and throw a huge legal fit over it.

[Peter Spier]

I guess the bottom line here for me is that if you think you need to charge a client a separate fee for their files you probably don't value your work highly enough to start with and you should re-evaluate your pricing structure, or work only under written agreements that specify that no source files are included.