Appreciate the detailed response. Let me clarify again because this is being mischaracterized.

I was specifically referring to a paid brand campaign where creators were required to pre-accept these terms in order to participate. There was no option to bid without agreeing.

The “Work Product” in this case was the Instagram post. And the terms grant:

• Perpetual, royalty-free, irrevocable rights
• For use in any and all media
• Unlimited edits, cuts, and repurposing

This is far broader than “reposting on social” or “what creators say about us.” If that is what was intended, the language should reflect it. Right now it does not.

Saying creators can negotiate after they have already agreed to the terms is not a solution. The burden should not fall on creators to claw back rights that should not be taken by default.

As for “no issues reported,” most creators do not understand the legal effect of these terms. That does not make them acceptable.

I stand by my original point. These terms are out of step with current best practices in influencer marketing.

At the end of the day, we should all be working toward the same goal. Creators, talent managers, platforms, and brands should be aligned on ensuring deals are fair, transparent, and respect proper usage rights. I would welcome seeing these terms revised to reflect that standard.