By now, many of you have received the new Freelance Photographer Contributor Agreement from Dow Jones/Wall Street Journal. While the effective date is 2026, they are asking for signatures now.
After legal review and discussion, it is clear that this contract represents a significant step backward for freelancers. It introduces a “Work Made for Hire” clause and allows WSJ to sublicense our work to third parties for profit. They have said that they will increase the rate to $600, but we feel that is not given how much they gain from this contract as well as the increased demands for video and long hours.
Many of us have already sent individual responses, but there is power in numbers. We have drafted a collective letter to Lucy Gilmore and WSJ leadership asking them to pause the rollout and rewrite the contract with actual freelancer input.
Please read the letter below and share it widely with freelance colleagues. If you agree, please add your name to the list https://forms.gle/BZHh3nzYdFMS7a4V9 by midnight PST on December 23rd, 2025.
We value our relationship with the WSJ, but we need to stand together to ensure it remains sustainable.
Hello, colleagues.
The new WSJ freelance contract is yet another example of a national newspaper not compensating photographers fairly (not to mention the effects of inflation and ACA premium increases).
We’re writing to flag critical issues we should all be aware of before signing this new contract effective Jan 1, 2026.
Afterall, the WSJ has no staff photographers. Freelancers and wires illustrate 99.99999999% of their stories.
We hope this can be an opportunity for the WSJ to do the right thing. We need to push back collectively on the WFH language and the rates by emailing Timmy Huynh (timmy.huynh@wsj.com) and DoP Lucy Gilmore (lucy.gilmour@wsj.com). Also please feel free to write to other WSJ photo editors or anybody else in the industry who should see it.
You can use the language below as a template. Add what you want and tweak what you want:
Template:
I have reviewed the new contract terms and would like to discuss critical concerns regarding the “Work Made for Hire” classification, sublicensing and the current rate structure.
1. Work Made for Hire & Copyright Structure: Section 1.2 classifies our work as “Work Made for Hire.” While I appreciate the subsequent clause assigning a joint interest back to the photographer, classifying freelance work as WMFH is legally problematic for independent contractors. It alters the fundamental authorship of the work and strips creators of rights under the Copyright Act. Proposal: If Dow Jones requires joint ownership, this can be achieved through a direct assignment of specific rights rather than a Work Made for Hire framework. I ask that the WMFH language be removed in favor of a standard assignment clause.
2. Compensation & Sublicensing: The move to a co-ownership model grants Dow Jones significantly more value — specifically the right to sublicense images to third parties (Section 1.3) without paying royalties to the photographer. This is a major departure from the previous contract, which allowed secondary market sales to generate revenue for the creator.
Furthermore, the base day rate has remained static despite inflation and increased scope, specifically:
* Video Demands: We are increasingly asked to capture video, which adds significant workload in the field and post-production.
* Hours: Day rates often do not account for days that stretch well beyond 8 hours.
To ensure this partnership remains sustainable, we need a review of the rate and sublicensing structure and copyright language.
Decisions regarding rights, rates, and liabilities must include the voices of the people doing the work, particularly when a new contract fundamentally shifts so far from the previous agreement.
I strongly urge Dow Jones to pause the rollout of this contract and reconsider these terms by convening a working group of regular freelancers to assist in a rewrite. If you need assistance identifying a representative group of photographers, organizations such as Women Photograph or Diversify Photo would be excellent resources to help facilitate this conversation.
This must be the standard for any impactful contract change in the future.
No comment yet, add your voice below!