Summary
- Around 650 freelance photographers are opposing the Wall Street Journal’s new contract
- The disputed terms change the ownership status of commissioned photographs
- The newspaper would gain broad rights to sublicense images to third parties
- Photographers fear that their work could be used to train AI models
- The Wall Street Journal says the changes are necessary to protect its digital archive
- Professional associations are calling for transparency, consent, and fair compensation
Hundreds of freelance photographers are refusing to sign the Wall Street Journal’s new contributor agreement, expressing concerns over the control and future use of their images.
Around 650 freelance photographers who work with the Wall Street Journal have joined an organized protest against the newspaper’s new contractual terms, while several contributors say they will not accept new assignments until the agreement is revised.
The case has significant implications for the wider photography industry because it concerns not only ownership of the photographs but also the ability to sublicense them to third parties, potentially including companies developing artificial intelligence systems.
What Changes Under the New Contract
The Wall Street Journal informed its freelance photojournalists about a revised version of its standard contributor agreement in November 2025.
The strongest objections focus on two provisions. The first concerns ownership of images created as part of an assignment. The second gives the newspaper broad authority to sublicense photographs to third parties without first obtaining the creator’s approval.
According to the photographers, the language does not include a clear exclusion for artificial intelligence companies. This means that the images could theoretically become part of licensing agreements or datasets used to train AI models.
The Photographers’ Campaign
The protest is being organized by Your Visual Colleagues, a collective representing freelance photographers whose administrators have remained anonymous.
Within approximately six months, 650 photographers who have worked with the Wall Street Journal declared their support for the initiative.
Turning down assignments is a difficult decision for professionals, as many depend financially on this work. However, they argue that accepting the terms could establish a dangerous precedent across the industry.
Why Copyright Is Critical
Freelance photographers do not receive the stability, benefits, or employment protections available to permanent staff members. In return, they generally retain ownership of their work and can generate additional income by licensing their images again.
The introduction of work-made-for-hire provisions can transfer copyright ownership from the photographer to the publisher.
Professional associations warn that granting a creator a joint copyright or certain rights at a later stage is not always equivalent to holding full ownership from the moment the photograph is created.
The Connection to Artificial Intelligence
Concerns are being amplified by licensing agreements between major media groups and artificial intelligence companies.
News Corp, the parent company of Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal, has already entered into an agreement with OpenAI covering access to current and archived content from several of the group’s publications.
Photographers fear that an image archive which a company can sublicense without restriction could acquire considerable commercial value, while the original creators remain uninformed, excluded from negotiations, and uncompensated.
The ASMP and NPPA do not reject AI licensing agreements altogether. They are calling for clear terms, transparency, the photographers’ consent, and financial participation.
The Wall Street Journal’s Position
The Wall Street Journal says the revisions are necessary to protect the integrity of its online archive and ensure the long-term preservation of the photographs it commissions.
The newspaper also says that photographers will be able to receive joint copyright, allowing them to participate in the commercial market for their work.
It has also reportedly increased its freelance day rate to $600. The protesting photographers argue that the higher fee does not compensate for the value of the rights they are being asked to surrender.
Verbal Assurances Are Not Enough
Representatives of professional associations stress that any protection must be explicitly included in the written contract.
A verbal promise that unpublished photographs will not be used for AI training, or that sensitive material will remain protected, does not carry the same legal weight as a clear and binding contractual provision.
The photographers’ demand is therefore not limited to the newspaper’s current practices. It concerns what the company may be able to do in the future under the rights granted by the agreement.
What We Think
The dispute at the Wall Street Journal demonstrates that photography contracts must now explicitly address the use of images by artificial intelligence systems. An increase in a daily fee cannot, by itself, replace a creator’s long-term control over their work. Clear terms, informed consent, and fair compensation are the only sustainable basis for collaboration.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why are photographers opposing the new contract?
They are objecting because the new terms change the ownership status of their photographs and allow broad sublicensing of the material to third parties.
Could the photographs be used to train AI systems?
The contract does not explicitly mention artificial intelligence, but the absence of a specific exclusion has raised concerns that images could be licensed to AI companies.
How many photographers are taking part in the protest?
Around 650 freelance photographers who work or have worked with the Wall Street Journal have declared their support.
What is the Wall Street Journal’s position?
The newspaper says the revisions protect its digital archive and ensure the long-term preservation of the photographs it commissions.
What are professional associations requesting?
They are calling for clear and binding contractual provisions, consultation with creators, and compensation whenever images are licensed or used to train AI systems.
