Skip to main content
Out of Scope

is using my work beyond the agreed license out of scope?

Yes — if you granted a license limited to specific channels, terms, or territories, using the work beyond those limits is outside what the client paid for and requires a new license. The exception is when your agreement transferred full ownership or granted an unlimited license outright.

Why this answer

Usage rights are a form of scope, and they're priced like one. When you license work for a defined use — a single campaign, a set of channels, a region, or a time window — you're selling permission to use it within those bounds, not the work itself. The fee reflects the value of that bounded use. When a client takes work licensed for one purpose and runs it across every channel, in markets you never quoted, or indefinitely past the agreed term, they're consuming value they didn't buy. This isn't a technicality. A photo licensed for a website costs differently than the same photo licensed for billboards, packaging, and paid ads, because the reach and commercial value differ enormously. The client may not see the boundary — work feels like theirs once it's delivered — but ownership and a limited license are distinct things. Expanded usage outside the granted license is new commercial use, and new commercial use is new scope.

When the answer flips

It's In Scope when your agreement granted broad rights from the start: a full copyright transfer, an unlimited or perpetual license, or 'all uses' language means the client can use the work however they like, and expansion isn't a fresh question. It also doesn't apply if the new use clearly falls inside the channels and term you licensed — moving a web banner to a different page of the same site isn't an expansion. The ambiguous cases come from vague license language: 'for marketing use' could be read narrowly or broadly, and the boundary you assumed may not be the one the client assumed. When your grant named specific, limited uses, expansion beyond them is out of scope; when it used sweeping or undefined terms, you may have less to stand on, and the fix is tighter wording next time rather than a confrontation now.

What to do next

Treat this as a licensing conversation, not a violation accusation — clients frequently overstep usage rights without realizing the limits exist. Point to the specific license terms in your agreement, name the use that exceeds them, and offer an expanded license at a fee that reflects the broader reach. Something like: 'The original license covered [channels/term]; using it for [new use] is beyond that, so let's set up an expanded license — for [scope] that's [fee].' Price the expansion against the new commercial value, not your hourly time, since you're selling rights, not labor. Offer tiers if it helps: the specific added channel, or a broader buyout that covers future use so the client isn't back asking again. Get the expanded grant in writing before the broader use continues. And tighten your license language going forward so the next agreement names channels, term, and territory explicitly.

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

Frequently asked questions

Doesn't the client own the work once they've paid for it?+

Only if your agreement transferred ownership. Paying for a project commonly buys a license to use the work within agreed limits, not the copyright itself — those are separate things, and which one applies depends entirely on your contract's language. If you granted a limited license, you retain ownership and the client's rights end at the boundary you set. 'I paid for it' establishes that they bought something; the contract defines exactly what.

How do I price an expanded license?+

Price it against the commercial value of the new use, not the hours involved — you're selling reach, not labor. A use that puts the work in front of far more people, in new markets, or for a longer term is worth more, and the license fee should track that. Reference standard usage pricing in your field as an anchor. The original fee bought bounded use; the expansion fee buys the additional value the broader use unlocks.

The client says they didn't know the license was limited. What now?+

Assume good faith and treat it as licensing, not theft. Most clients don't track usage terms closely and genuinely didn't register the boundary. Point them to the specific language, explain the limit plainly, and offer the expanded license as the path forward. Keeping the tone collaborative gets you paid and preserves the relationship; treating an honest overreach as a violation usually achieves neither.

What if my license language was vague about channels and term?+

Then your footing is weaker, and the honest move is to negotiate rather than insist. Vague terms cut against the drafter, so a sweeping or undefined grant may be read more broadly than you intended. Resolve the current case pragmatically — a fair expanded-license fee both sides can accept — and fix the real problem by writing precise channel, term, and territory limits into every future agreement. The lesson is in the next contract, not a fight over this one.

Should I license expanded use as a one-off or a buyout?+

Offer both and let the client choose. A one-off expansion covers the specific new use at a lower price; a buyout grants broad future rights at a higher one and saves you both from renegotiating later. Clients who plan to keep growing the usage often prefer the buyout once they see it; those with a single new use take the cheaper option. Pricing both makes the tradeoff explicit and the decision theirs.

How do I write usage terms that prevent this?+

Spell out the license explicitly: the channels covered, the term, the territory, whether it's exclusive, and what triggers a new license. Add a line stating that uses beyond the granted license require a separate agreement. Naming each dimension removes the gap between the limits you assume and the ones the client assumes. A precise usage clause is what turns 'they're using it everywhere' from a frustrating surprise into a clean, pre-defined conversation.

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