Buying a finished piece of art doesn’t mean you own everything that went into making it.

One freelance illustrator completed a banner and other artwork for an indie game. The client approved every step and paid in full, so she delivered the final files exactly as the contract said.

The drama started two days later, when the client demanded her working files so their own designer could change the artwork. Her contract said those files cost extra, so she quoted the fee.

The client didn’t take it well at all.

Instead of understanding, they accused her of holding their art hostage and threatened to trash her reputation online.

Keep reading for the full story.

AITA for refusing to give a client my unflattened PSD file after they already paid for the final PNG?

I am a freelance illustrator doing character art and TTRPG assets, and my contract explicitly states that clients receive high-res flattened final files while raw working PSDs remain my intellectual property unless an additional raw asset fee is paid.

So the freelancer describes their latest project.

A client recently commissioned a custom banner and character key art for an indie game launch, approved every milestone, paid the final invoice, and received the agreed-upon PNGs.

Two days later, they emailed asking for the full PSD so their in-house designer could rearrange elements, isolate background layers, and alter lighting.

That’s when the freelancer was forced to explain their process yet again.

When I politely explained that raw layer access for infinite reuse requires an expanded license fee (quoted at my standard 50% of the commission price), they blew up, accused me of holding their art hostage, and threatened to blast my portfolio with scam reviews.

Other artists understood where she was coming from.

My artist colleagues told me to hold my ground because releasing unflattened working files without a proper license opens the door for clients to cannibalize your work or feed raw layers into generative tools.

But soon she received another perspective.

However, a few non-artist friends think that since the client already dropped hundreds of dollars on the project, withholding a file format feels petty and isn’t worth the public backlash.

I feel like I am just enforcing standard industry licensing, but the threat of a bad reputation in the indie dev community is making me second guess myself.

AITA for putting my foot down on handing over the raw layers?

When you’re a freelancer, it’s important to protect your work.

What did Reddit have to say?

Even if the client does decide to publicly shame them, there’s a clever way to spin it.

A contract is a contract.

The client shouldn’t be able to bully their way into free work.

If you enjoyed this story, check out this post about an employee who alerted their manager after seeing a customer sign the wrong name on a credit card slip.

Sometimes non-artists just don’t get it.

This illustrator did exactly what her contract said, yet the client still treated that like some kind of scam.

The final files were delivered and paid for, and as the contract clearly stated, the layered file was never part of the deal.

Her friends who call it petty are clearly missing what’s at stake. As a freelancer, you can’t just hand someone the right to replicate your work.

Her files belong to her, at least until the fee is paid.