Skip to main content
Out of Scope

is asking for source files out of scope?

Yes — editable source files are a separate deliverable from the final output, and unless your contract names them in the deliverables list, handing them over is new work. The exception is a contract that explicitly transfers working files or a buyout that bought the rights to them.

Why this answer

What you deliver and what you keep are two different things. A client pays for the result — the finished logo, the exported video, the published page — not necessarily the layered, editable apparatus you used to make it. Your working files are the engine; the deliverable is the car. Standard practice across design, video, and development is that source files (the .psd, the project bin, the unminified components, the editable .ai or .fig) are retained by the creator unless the agreement says otherwise. Handing them over does two things the client didn't pay for: it transfers your method and structure, and it removes any reason to come back to you for future edits. That second part is why source files command a premium — they're the difference between a one-time deliverable and a transferable asset the client can hand to anyone.

When the answer flips

The verdict moves to In Scope when your deliverables clause lists source or working files explicitly, or when the contract is a full work-for-hire or rights buyout where the client purchased everything you produced. It also flips if you quietly delivered an editable file earlier in the project and set the expectation without meaning to — precedent counts. For developers, source code is a special case: code is frequently the deliverable itself, so 'source files' there usually means the repository, which is often in scope by default. And if the client only wants a minor export in a different format rather than the layered working file, that's a format request, not a source-file request, and is often a quick courtesy.

What to do next

Separate the two requests in your reply: a different export format is one thing, the layered editable file is another. For source files, point to the deliverables clause and say plainly: 'The project covered the final exported files; the editable working files are a separate asset I license separately.' Then quote a source-file release fee — commonly 25–50% of the original project fee, since you're handing over future edit-ability and the client's reason to rehire you. Send a short release agreement that specifies what's included and what license the files carry. If they decline, confirm in writing that you retain the working files and remain available for paid edits.

Settled reads your contract and gives you the exact verdict for this situation — try it free →

Frequently asked questions

Aren't the source files mine since I paid for the project?+

You paid for the deliverables named in the contract, which are usually the final exported files, not the editable working files behind them. Source files are a distinct asset, much like buying a printed photo doesn't include the photographer's RAW negatives. If you want the working files, that's a separate line item to license or buy.

How much should I charge to release source files?+

A common range is 25–50% of the original project fee, sometimes more for complex builds. You're pricing two things: the future edit-ability you're handing over, and the loss of the client's reason to come back to you for changes. Set it once and apply it consistently so it reads as policy, not a negotiation.

What if the client wants source files so they can use another freelancer?+

That's exactly the scenario the release fee is built for. It's a legitimate request — they may want a backup vendor or an in-house team to take over. Charge the release fee, transfer the files cleanly, and resist the urge to gatekeep. A clean handoff with a fair fee protects your reputation better than a fight.

Should I just include source files by default to avoid the conversation?+

Only if your pricing already accounts for it. Including working files by default is a valid model, but it should be reflected in a higher rate, because you're selling a transferable asset, not a one-time result. If your rate is built on the assumption that clients come back to you for edits, bundling source files for free undercuts your own business.

Is delivering a PDF or a flattened file the same as a source file?+

No. A flattened PDF, a rendered video, or a published page is the deliverable. A source file is the editable structure — the layers, the project timeline, the component tree. Delivering the former is completing the job; delivering the latter is handing over your working apparatus, which is why they're priced differently.

How do I prevent this dispute on the next project?+

Add one sentence to your deliverables clause: name the exact final formats you'll deliver, and state that editable source files are retained by you and available for separate license. That single line turns a potential argument into a simple menu choice the client makes upfront.

Related reading

Answer scope creep from your actual contract — not a template.

Settled reads your contract and the client's request, gives you a verdict (In Scope / Out of Scope / Ambiguous), and drafts the email grounded in your specific clause.

Try it free →Read the scope creep guide