Join our efforts by signing up for our newsletter.
What is this dispute actually about?
In November 2025, the Wall Street Journal introduced a new freelance contract that classifies your work as "Work Made for Hire" (WMFH). Under this classification, Dow Jones — not you — becomes the legal Author of your photographs. That's not a technicality. It means you permanently lose authorship rights, including the right to reclaim your work after 35 years under Section 203 of the Copyright Act. We believe this is fundamentally wrong, and over 650 photographers have agreed by joining our effort to push back against this contract. We need your help.
Why does Work Made for Hire matter so much?
Copyright isn't just about money — it's about authorship. When your work is classified as WMFH, you don't just license a photo; you legally cease to be its creator. The Journal becomes the author. That has long-term consequences for how your archive is valued, how you can use your own work, and whether you can ever reclaim it.
I work for Reuters or the Associated Press, which have WMFH contracts. Why should I care about this?
One reason we are pushing back is because the WSJ had one of the best contracts. We fully owned the work after the short embargo period and we could license the images out freely and pursue infringements. We were the authors of our work under that contract, and that is meaningful now and in the future. And just because you signed one WMFH contract, that doesn't obligate you to sign another. Each WMFH contract is damaging to your archive and ownership. Every publication that introduces a WMFH clause makes it easier for the next one to do the same.
Declining — even if you've signed elsewhere — is a meaningful act of resistance that protects not just your own archive but the broader principle that photographers are the authors of their work.
What does this have to do with AI?
News Corp has signed deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars with OpenAI and Meta to license content — including potentially your photographs — for AI training. Under the new contract, Dow Jones can sublicense your work to any third party, for any purpose, without your consent and without sharing revenue. WMFH makes this permanent and irrevocable. Under the old 2011 contract, photos were actually excluded from the OpenAI deal — because that contract didn't permit it. The new contract closes that gap.
Aren't all these AI companies already training on all the photos uploaded to the internet (especially Instagram and Facebook)? Why should I care about one company licensing more photos to train AI?
It is true that just about every image uploaded to the internet prior to 2022 has been used to train Large Language Models used by AI systems. And yes, Meta is using public posts on Facebook and Instagram to train its AI models. In Europe, you can opt-out of this training. In the US, you can opt out by setting your Instagram account to private.
Nevertheless, just because photos are being exploited in this manner already, that does not mean that we should be fully resigned to it for all of our work in the future. The million- and billion-dollar AI training licensing deals that are now being made, including the WSJ/Meta deal, show that the AI companies need more photos. We believe it's worthwhile to push back against this problematic usage now that we know about it and can say no.
Has the contract changed since November?
Yes — three times. Dow Jones has made some concessions: the embargo period was shortened, the day rate was raised from $500 to $650, the March 2026 version added limited mutual indemnification, and there are now some carve-outs allowing photographers to use their images outside of the original publication context. But the core issues — Work Made for Hire, unlimited sublicensing with no revenue share, and broad indemnification of Dow Jones by photographers — remain unchanged.
What's our ask? What would a fair contract look like?
At the most basic level: photographers should retain authorship of their work and license images to publications — not surrender them. A fair contract would keep copyright with the photographer, with the publication receiving a license to publish. It would include a meaningful revenue share when images are sublicensed or used commercially beyond the original publication, and it would give photographers a voice — and a share — in any AI-related use of their work. The current contract inverts this relationship entirely, stripping authorship and handing Dow Jones unlimited rights with no obligation to photographers in return.
I already signed the new contract. What can I do?
The contract includes a termination-at-will clause (Section 7.4/7.6). You can terminate the agreement in writing. We've developed a Termination Toolkit with guidance on how to do this with templates for two different ways to do this. You can do this immediately to make a statement, or just wait until the next time an editor contacts you for an assignment.
Will the WSJ stop assigning me if I don't sign?
Yes — at this point, you cannot work for the WSJ without signing the new contract. We know that's a real financial consideration for many photographers, and we don't take it lightly. Our collective strength depends on holding firm together. The more of us who decline, the harder it is for the Journal to operate as normal — and the stronger our negotiating position.
Am I at legal risk for participating in this effort?
We are exercising our right to free speech — speaking out about contract terms that affect our livelihoods is protected expression. We are not a union and cannot give individual legal advice, but we are confident that participating in this effort, signing our statement, and making your voice heard are all within your rights.
Why doesn't Your Visual Colleagues form a union?
As independent contractors, freelance photographers are not covered by the National Labor Relations Act, which means we don't have the right to formal collective bargaining the way employees do. Forming a traditional union isn't a legal option available to us.
Instead, we are organizing as advocates, not bargaining as a union. We are speaking out collectively, withholding our labor individually, and making our voices heard publicly. None of that requires a union — it requires solidarity. And with over 650 photographers standing together, we're demonstrating that freelancers can organize effectively even without the formal protections that employees take for granted.
How can I help beyond signing?
A few things make a real difference right now: writing directly to Lucy Gilmour and Timothy Huynh at the WSJ photo desk with specific, personal reasons you can't accept these terms (especially if you're a long-time contributor); spreading the word to photographers in your network who may not have heard about YVC; and joining one of our local Signal or WhatsApp organizing groups to stay connected with photographers in your region. We'll be in touch with more on all of these fronts soon.
Who is behind Your Visual Colleagues?
We are an anonymous collective of freelance photographers. We're keeping our identities private to protect our professional relationships while this dispute is ongoing. To learn more about our work or get involved, visit https://forms.gle/kxETNASfz6msjMnJA
Join our efforts by signing up for our newsletter.
Explore resources on this site:
FAQs: Your Visual Colleagues put this together to answer the questions we hear most from photographers who have signed our statement — and those who are still deciding.
AI and Photojournalism: The introduction of AI into newsrooms puts truth, trust, and the safety of the people we photograph at risk. Here's why it matters.
AI and Commercial Photography: From ad campaigns to stock libraries, AI is displacing photographers and dismantling the client relationships that sustain commercial careers.
The WSJ Contract: Publications like The Wall Street Journal are rewriting the terms of freelance photography. Here's how we got here — and what the fine print actually means.
Understanding Your Contract: Three contract terms every photographer needs to know — and what to do if you find them in your agreement.
What You Can Do: Concrete steps photographers can take right now to protect their work, their archive, and the people they photograph.
Resources: Organizations, tools, and legislation for photographers navigating the age of AI.