In my contracts I have clauses to the effect of:

"Client promises that all artwork provided for Designer is owned by Client, or Client has permission from the owner to use it. If Client is sued for copyright violation, Client will state that it was not Designer's fault."

Whether it's effective, well, I'm not a lawyer, but this at least specifies that you're putting the burden of proof on the client, and the client is signing it.

I would stonewall along the lines of Ryan's approach:

"Other firms may be using [image]. I have no way of knowing if those other firms received permission from the artist. Without that signed permission, I legally cannot use it in your work. This is for my protection and for yours."

If the client persists, I'd either fire the client or let the client fire me, it's not worth my livelihood.

In my contracts I have clauses to the effect of "Client promises that all artwork provided for Designer is owned by Client, or Client has permission from the owner to use it. If Client is sued for copyright violation, Client will state that it was not Designer's fault."

Whether it's effective, well, I'm not a lawyer, but this at least specifies that you're putting the burden of proof on the client, and the client is signing it.

I would stonewall along the lines of Ryan's approach. "Other firms may be using [image]. I have no way of knowing if those other firms received permission from the artist. Without that signed permission, I legally cannot use it in your work. This is for my protection and for yours."

If the client persisted, I'd either fire the client or let the client fire me. It's not worth my livelihood.

In my contracts I have clauses to the effect of "Client promises that all artwork provided for Designer is owned by Client, or Client has permission from the owner to use it. If Client is sued for copyright violation, Client will state that it was not Designer's fault."

Whether it's effective, well, I'm not a lawyer, but this at least specifies that you're putting the burden of proof on the client, and the client is signing it.

I would stonewall along the lines of Ryan's approach. "Other firms may be using [image]. I have no way of knowing if those other firms received permission from the artist. Without that signed permission, I legally cannot use it in your work. This is for my protection and for yours."

If the client persisted, I'd either fire the client or let the client fire me. It's not worth my livelihood.

In my contracts I have clauses to the effect of:

"Client promises that all artwork provided for Designer is owned by Client, or Client has permission from the owner to use it. If Client is sued for copyright violation, Client will state that it was not Designer's fault."

Whether it's effective, well, I'm not a lawyer, but this at least specifies that you're putting the burden of proof on the client, and the client is signing it.

I would stonewall along the lines of Ryan's approach:

"Other firms may be using [image]. I have no way of knowing if those other firms received permission from the artist. Without that signed permission, I legally cannot use it in your work. This is for my protection and for yours."

If the client persists, I'd either fire the client or let the client fire me, it's not worth my livelihood.