got a contract this week for a brand identity project and buried in the terms was a clause saying I have to certify that NO ai tools were used in any deliverable. and not just generation — it said “AI-assisted ideation, generation, or refinement”
also requires me to provide process documentation (psd files, sketches) on request
first time ive seen this. on one hand i appreciate that they care about authentic work. on the other hand the clause is so broad it technically prohibits spell check (which uses NLP), photoshops content-aware fill, and like… basically any tool made after 2020.
i pushed back. we negotiated it down to: “no AI image generation tools. AI-assisted features in standard creative software (spell check, auto-color, content-aware fill) are permitted.”
anyone else running into these? how are you handling them?
I’ve gotten three of these in the last 6 months. The first one was super broad like yours. The other two were more reasonable — basically just “no AI-generated images or text in final deliverables.”
My approach: I don’t push back on the principle (I appreciate clients who care), just on the scope. Like you did. The key is getting the language specific enough that it covers what they actually care about without banning basic software features.
Protip: ask them to define “AI” in the contract. Watch them struggle lol. It forces a productive conversation about what they actually mean.
Seeing this from the other side — I work in education and our institution is writing these clauses for contracted curriculum developers. The intent is to ensure we’re not paying for AI-generated courseware. But yeah, defining the boundaries is incredibly difficult.
We ended up with: “Primary creative and intellectual content must be originally authored by the contractor. Use of AI tools for grammar checking, formatting, or code assistance is permitted. Use of AI tools to generate substantial text, images, or course content is not permitted without prior written approval.”
Not perfect but workable.
tbh i think the process documentation requirement is actually kind of great? not as a gotcha but as a standard practice. I already record my sessions (mentioned this in another thread) and include process timelapses in deliverables. Clients love it.
Reframe it: the “no AI” clause isn’t a burden, it’s a chance to show your value. The fact that you CAN provide process documentation is your competitive advantage over someone outsourcing to AI.
The legal dimension here is important. These clauses create liability. If you sign it and the client later decides (correctly or not) that you used AI, you could face breach of contract claims.
Make sure:
- The definition of “AI tools” is specific and agreed upon
- There’s a dispute resolution process
- The burden of proof is reasonable (they can’t just run your work through a detector and use a score as evidence — those are too unreliable)
I’m not a lawyer but I’ve reviewed enough of these to know the vague ones are dangerous.
really helpful feedback all around. the “ask them to define AI” suggestion from @voidvibes92 is gold, definitely using that next time.
@w.moses.flint.54 good reframe. i already keep pretty thorough process docs so this is more formalization than new work. and yeah it does differentiate me from the “I made this with midjourney and photoshop for 45 minutes” crowd.
seems like these clauses are here to stay. probably worth developing a standard response/negotiation approach. anyone interested in collaborating on a template?