Advertising hourly work and swithching to low ball flat rate after interview.

[s_mcallister]

This is mostly just me complaining but, for the last several weeks I have had most, if not all of the clients I'm interviewed by, trying to change the terms of the job after the interview. They are advertising high hourly rates and then requesting low ball flat rates after the fact. This, plus several other weird isues have been popping up since the beginning of the new year.

Also, almost none of my former clients wanted to have zoom interviews, and now all of them do. They're all actng as is they're offering long term jobs with benifits or something. If their job is so amazing and special, perhaps they could stick with the advertised rate. It just feels as if the whole system got hacked or something. Nevermind the insane amount of clients who want 800 NFT images for $150, which I'm positive is nothing but a copyright law suit waiting to happen.

Am I the only one experiencing this?

[ericaandrews]

No.  This is fairly common, especially now with inflation causing folks to resort to 'drastic' measure to get high-priced goods and services for free or cheap. 

This is usually a client running a scam, a 'fake' client, or a cheap client that wants to 'lure' in good talent but can't really afford the price tag.  The easiest way to spot the 'time wasters' and 'connect wasters' is to look at their hire history.   If they are OFFERING a 'high' hourly rate, but their 'average' hourly rate is dirt cheap, they usually have no intention (or ability) to pay the rate they are advertising.  Also, if they are offering a high hourly rate and most of their  current or past hires are low-priced 'fixed' contracts, they are also usually wasting your time and trying to attract a higher quality of talent than their bank account (or credit card) can actually afford. No different than a customer in a broken down Volvo attempting to "window shop" at a Ferrari dealership. The saleman would spot them a mile away and ignore them because it's unlikely to result in a viable car sale.  The best indicator of a client's true ability and intention to pay a competitive hourly rate is a PAST history of paying similar rates. 

[prestonhunter]

I regard this as "dirty pool."

It is unethical for a client to do this.

I don't know if I can find a specific ToS violation in this.

But I believe a freelancer SHOULD be able to report a client for doing this, and I believe the result should be that a client's account and communications are investigated. And if a client is found to be intentionally posting hourly jobs and then hiring only using fixed-price contracts... Not because freelaners request to do so, but because it is a deceptive hiring practice used by the client...

Then such clients should have their accounts suspended until they can convince Upwork's Trust and Safety Team that they have seen the error of their ways, repented, and won't do it again.

[prestonhunter]

re: "Nevermind the insane amount of clients who want 800 NFT images for $150, which I'm positive is nothing but a copyright law suit waiting to happen."

You are frustrated. I get that.

These clients are behaving unethically.

But I assume that you know that with regards to who owns the copyright for creative works commissioned by Upwork clients, when a client pays a freelancer in full for their work, the AMOUNT of money that the client pays is not a basis for determining copyright ownership.

[s_mcallister]

Unless they're getting signed contracts that relinquish rights from the freelancer, I imagine there will eventually be a problem. So many people on the platform seem to think that because they request "work for hire" that they actually own the work. I often make their heads explode when I tell them I charge 2 to 3 times my normal rate to sell the rights.

[prestonhunter]

re: "signed contracts that relinquish rights from the freelancer"

That is not necessary.

Upwork's default contract language is clear:
A client who pays a freelancer for work on Upwork owns all copyright and all rights to the work produced by the freelancer. This is unequivocal and well understood.

If a freelancer desires otherwise, then the freelancer must get a client to agree to an alternative additional contract. Which is allowed. But without such an additional contract, the freelancer has absolutely no rights whatsoever to any artwork or other types of work that he produces for the client. Not even the of authorship.

Every piece of artwork I have hired Upwork freelancers to create for me?
I am the legal author, artist, illustrator, creator of those works of art.

re: "So many people on the platform seem to think that because they request 'work for hire' that they actually own the work."

That is correct.

These clients do indeed own the work.

Feel free to read the applicable document:
http://www.upwork.com/legal

[s_mcallister]

Well that figures... 

[ericaandrews · Accepted solution]

You shouldn't be surprised: UW always, ALWAYS does what's in the best interest of clients over the freelancers.  

If you are concerned about ownership rights, you could just offer them one 'lower' price for the work WITHOUT the rights (and add a document to the proposal stating there will be no ownership rights, and another higher-priced option that affords them the work with ownership rights over the work.   That actually might be a good candidate for a 'project' in the UW project catalog, where you can offer 2 different pricing 'tiers' - one with ownership rights, and one without. 

[feed_my_eyes]

---

Steven M wrote:

I often make their heads explode when I tell them I charge 2 to 3 times my normal rate to sell the rights.

---

I'm sure you do. The rest of us charge whatever rate we feel is appropriate and don't try to negotiate extra for selling the rights, because the client already owns them by default.

[s_mcallister]

Yes I know, I've been made painfully aware of UW's policy. It's honestly been so long since I signed up that I had forgotten.

However, my personal policy on rights, regardless of UW rules, is completely in-line the Graphic Designers Guild and US copyright law. As freelancers we often give the store away and hurt the industry by doing so. All artists should maintain their rights whenever possible. There's a reason why the US government saw fit to grant the creator rights for their lifetime +50 years. If someone sells work dirt cheap and gives the rights away, they hurt their community as much as them selves. 

We should all have increased rates for ownership, rush work, and plenty of other stuff

[feed_my_eyes]

I agree with you, but it's pretty difficult to win projects on Upwork if you insist on that, because it's not the norm here. But nobody is forcing you to sell your work dirt cheap - why not just charge a higher hourly rate up front, negotiate higher rates for rush work, etc.? 

Ironically, clients could just as easily complain to Upwork about a bait-and-switch on your part, if your profile rate is $38 but then you want 2-3 times more than that to give up the rights.

[letizia-farisato]

Hi Steven, I totally understand and share your frustration about clients advertising well-paid hourly jobs and then trying to change the terms to low ball fixed price contracts after the interview.

Sure thing the inflation may have implications on this (yet it's still not a justifiable behavior), but honestly I've seen this issue ever since on Upwork (and I'm here since the beginning of the platform), and I complained myself about Upwork allowing this unethical behavior of clients. As a freelancer, I feel deceived by these people that attract me to their job posts in such a fraudulent way, wasting my time, and therefore my money.

I totally agree with Preston when he says that a freelancer should be able to report a client for doing this, to get them investigated and possibly get their account suspended if found guilty of such deceptive behavior.

[leo_rj]

I am a 2D artist and Its not only you, I have been through the same problem recently. Exactly. Now, only with NFT clients that offer hourly/rate and then ask for a fixed price test, keep the art and dont move forward. Maybe my art dont fit what they ask, but i think its too suspicious.