The shift toward Work Made for Hire contracts didn't happen overnight — and the WSJ dispute offers a detailed case study in how it unfolds.
How we got here: For 14 years, WSJ freelance photographers operated under a 2011 contract that preserved their copyright. Dow Jones received a broad perpetual license to publish and archive photographs, but the photographer remained the legal author. That contract had limits: it restricted third-party sublicensing to republication in connection with the original article, and it didn't permit use of photographs in AI training deals.
In November 2025, Dow Jones issued a new Freelance Photographer Contributor Agreement that changed the fundamental structure of that relationship.
The new contract introduced three structural shifts:
Work Made for Hire: The new contract classifies all commissioned photographs as works made for hire, making Dow Jones the legal author. Dow Jones then assigns a joint copyright interest back to the photographer — but the WMFH classification remains, stripping the photographer of authorship status and termination rights under Section 203 of the Copyright Act.
Unlimited sublicensing: The new contract grants Dow Jones the irrevocable, nonexclusive right to sublicense photographs to any third party, for any purpose, with no revenue share and no obligation to notify the photographer. There is no carve-out for AI training.
Indemnification: Early versions of the contract required photographers to indemnify Dow Jones against claims arising from "alleged" breaches — meaning even unproven third-party claims could expose photographers to legal costs. A March 2026 revision added partial mutual indemnification, but the photographer's exposure remains broad.
The NYT comparison: The New York Times contract offers a meaningful contrast. Rather than using WMFH language, the NYT assigns joint copyright directly — both the photographer and the publication hold copyright, the photographer retains authorship status and termination rights, and sublicensing to third parties requires a 50% revenue share. The NYT achieves identical archival protection without stripping photographers of authorship.
Publications that argue WMFH is a legal necessity are not being straightforward. It is a choice — and the NYT's model demonstrates that a fairer alternative exists.
The broader pattern: The WSJ contract is not an isolated case. Across the industry, publications and commercial clients are updating agreements in ways that expand their rights over photographers' work while reducing photographers' ability to control or benefit from it. The mechanism varies — WMFH language, unlimited sublicensing clauses, the absence of AI carve-outs — but the direction is consistent.
If you've already signed the contract, you can still terminate the agreement going forward. 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.
Understanding your contract is the first line of defense. The next section outlines what to look for.
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.