<- all tokdocs
2026.10.09@mostjanda

Janda calls his client-side AI feedback clause "the one that nobody has"; a July 2026 designer contract template and the Graphic Artists Guild's November 2025 handbook already published the same restriction

Business
Watch on TikTok

View on TikTok ->

The artifact is a 56.866667 s portrait MP4 (QuickTime/MOV brand set, major_brand=isom, encoder=Lavf58.76.100), 1080x1920 at 30/1 fps, HEVC Main profile video (1,706 frames, 574,613 bps) with HE-AACv2 stereo audio at 44,100 Hz (1,228 frames, 48,157 bps), 629,577 bps overall, 4,475,248 bytes on disk; yt-dlp recorded it as format bytevc1_1080p_629573-1 with tbr 629, and ffprobe confirms every one of those numbers independently. The post timestamp is epoch 1791551020, which is 2026-10-09T13:03:40 UTC, matching the upload_date field 20261009. The handle is @mostjanda, uploader id 6748231800609424389, channel name "Michael Janda", audio credited as "original sound - Michael Janda" with artist "Michael Janda". The description runs 885 characters. Metadata was captured at epoch 1792388277, which is 2026-10-19T05:37:57 UTC (metadata.json mtime 2026-10-19 00:37:57 local), and at that moment the counts stood at 13,700 views, 412 likes, 13 comments, 157 reposts and 461 saves. I read 16 of the 28 extracted frames: 001, 002, 003, 005, 007, 009, 010, 011, 013, 015, 017, 020, 023, 024, 026 and 028, spaced two seconds apart so frame N sits near (N-1)x2 seconds. Frames 001 and 002 (0 s and 2 s) hold a lower-two-thirds black title card reading "Your Contract Needs These 02 A.I. Clauses" over a yellow-highlighted subtitle "How You Use A.I. and How Your Client Is Allowed to Use It" and a gray byline "Build a Better Creative Business // Michael Janda"; frame 003 (4 s) drops to a talking head in a backward cap and blue-rimmed glasses behind a foam-windscreened microphone, shelves of vinyl figures behind him, with a nauseated-face emoji composited at lower right and the burned caption "this is going"; frame 005 (8 s) reads "your contract needs two" with "two" in yellow; frame 007 (12 s) shows a mid-type overlay "A.I. can help you think. It should not replace your thi" above the caption "clause No. 1 defines how you use"; frames 009 and 010 (16 s and 18 s) give the full Clause 01 card, headed "Clause 01" in yellow and "Responsible A.I. Usage" in white, with body copy that begins "We may use AI tools to support research, ideation, and production efficiency; however, all final creative and strategic decisions are made by humans" and ends "Final copyrightable creative deliverables are human-generated and will not be AI-generated work."; frame 011 (20 s) reads "the point is not to hide your AI"; frame 013 (24 s) reads "clause number two is the one that nobody has"; frame 015 (28 s) catches a half-typed "A.I. should n"; frame 017 (32 s) completes it as "A.I. should never become another stakeholder in your approval process."; frame 020 (38 s) animates in the Clause 02 card and frame 023 (44 s) shows it full-bleed, headed "Clause 02 / Human Led Feedback and A.I. Usage", running from "Our strategy and creative process relies on feedback informed by your knowledge of your business, customers, and objectives" through "Processing and responding point-by-point to AI-generated feedback is not included in this project scope. If submitted, we may ask that it be consolidated into clear, human-directed feedback before work continues, or additional fees may be required."; frames 024 and 026 (46 s and 50 s) type out "I'm gonna freakin' charge you more money." over the caption "processing it is an additional"; frame 028 (54 s) closes on "screenshot both clauses". No contract document, email client, ChatGPT window, feedback thread or template download link appears in any frame I read, so the "12 pages" that anchors the hook is never shown. The spoken argument is that freelancers and agencies should carry two AI clauses, one defining the studio's own AI use and one defining what the client may submit as feedback, with AI-dumped feedback treated as out of scope and billable. The transcript holds 186 words across 11 Whisper segments, and the final segment ends at 56.78 s against a 56.866667 s video stream, a 56.840998 s audio stream and a 56.894694 s extracted audio.mp3, so nothing is timestamped past the end of the audio and no hallucinated tail needs discounting.

The speaker's name, books and handle check out against his own site

Everything identifying in the video matches first-party material. His site lists him as Michael Janda, author of Burn Your Portfolio (2013), The Psychology of Graphic Design Pricing (2019) and Creative Business Sanity Systems (2025), founder of the Utah agency Riser (founded 2002, sold 2015), and later Partner and Chief Creative Officer at EKR. The same page lists his TikTok as @mostjanda while his Instagram, YouTube, LinkedIn and Facebook all use "morejanda", which explains why the handle on this video differs by one letter from his handles elsewhere. The lower-third byline in frames 001 and 002 reads "Build a Better Creative Business", which is a phrasing consistent with the stated mission on his about page, "Help creatives run better businesses and have better lives", though I did not find that exact string presented as a formal brand name on the site, so treat the lower third as video art direction rather than a registered program title.

"The one that nobody has" is a sales line, and dated prior art contradicts it

At 20.88 s the video says "Clause number two is the one that nobody has. It defines how your client can use AI when they give you feedback." The idea of a counterparty-side AI restriction was in circulation before this video posted on 2026-10-09. A designer contract guide published 2026-07-07, three months earlier, describes exactly the same restriction, stating that "the client agrees not to submit the designer's work to AI tools for feedback or critique, use AI to edit or generate derivative works". The Graphic Artists Guild shipped the 17th edition of its Handbook: Pricing & Ethical Guidelines on 2025-11-04, advertising "Model clauses for your contracts that reflect today's client expectations and technology risks" alongside "Clear, contextual breakdowns of how Generative AI is impacting your rights, rates, and workflows". Further afield, the Authors Guild publishes model AI clauses that bind the counterparty rather than the creator, including "No Uploading to Consumer-Facing AI Systems" ("Publisher shall not upload the Work or any of Author's personal information to consumer-facing AI systems...without written permission from the author") and "No Substantive Editing with AI" ("Publisher agrees and warrants that it will not use AI to substantially edit a manuscript"). The honest version of the claim is that client-side AI feedback clauses are uncommon in freelance creative contracts, not that nobody has written one. I could not establish adoption rates for any of these clauses, so how rare they are in signed contracts stays unverified.

The spoken clause is a prohibition; the clause on screen is a negotiation

At 42.44 s the video says "This clause tells your client they're not allowed to do that," and at 49.46 s it says "processing it is an additional scope and additional budget," with the overlay in frames 024 and 026 reading "I'm gonna freakin' charge you more money." The card on screen in frames 020 and 023 is written in permissive language throughout. It says AI-generated critiques "should not be submitted as client feedback", that the client is asked to "review, evaluate, and prioritize AI-assisted ideas", that point-by-point processing "is not included in this project scope", and that "If submitted, we may ask that it be consolidated into clear, human-directed feedback before work continues, or additional fees may be required." Three hedges carry the operative weight: "should not", "we may ask" and "may be required". A reader comparing the voiceover to the card gets a prohibition in audio and a request with an optional fee in writing. There is a second mismatch between the card and the post. The description quotes the clause as "AI-generated feedback that requires additional processing may require additional budget", and that sentence does not appear in the Clause 02 text visible in frames 020 or 023. Anyone following the instruction at 54.86 s to "screenshot both clauses and stick them into your contract" ends up with the card text, not the description text.

Clause 01's copyright sentence is stricter than what the Copyright Office actually requires

The Clause 01 card ends "Final copyrightable creative deliverables are human-generated and will not be AI-generated work." The underlying rule is narrower than that sentence implies. The Copyright Office's registration guidance, published at 88 FR 16190 on 2023-03-16, states that "Copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity" and that "If a work's traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it," and it imposes a duty where applicants "have a duty to disclose the inclusion of AI-generated content in a work submitted for registration and to provide a brief explanation of the human author's contributions to the work." The Office then narrowed the question further in Part 2 of its AI report, Copyrightability, published 2025-01-29. Summarizing that report on 2025-02-06, the Office wrote that "The use of AI to assist in the process of creation or the inclusion of AI-generated material in a larger human-generated work does not bar copyrightability," that copyright does not extend to "the mere provision of prompts", and that "The outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements." So a deliverable that contains AI-generated material can still be registrable where a human supplied sufficient expressive content. Promising a client zero AI-generated work in the final file is a commercial commitment that goes beyond the legal floor, and a studio that signs it has bound itself more tightly than registration law requires. Selling that stricter commitment is defensible on its own terms, provided nobody mistakes it for a restatement of the rule.

"12 pages", "four hours" and "the next pandemic" carry no source

Three quantities in the script have no backing in the video, the description or the frames. At 30.98 s the video says the client "runs your work through ChatGPT and sends you 12 pages of generic AI slop. Then you spend four hours responding to a robot." Neither figure is attributed, no feedback document appears on screen, and the opening transcript line at 0.0 s uses the vaguer "pages of feedback" before the title fixes the number at 12. Both are Unverified. At 5.06 s the claim that this is "going around like the next pandemic" is a prevalence claim with no measurement behind it. The closest dated, sampled evidence I could verify runs adjacent to the argument rather than at it. The 2025 Stack Overflow Developer Survey, with over 49,000 responses from 177 countries, reports that 66% of developers cite "AI solutions that are almost right, but not quite" as a top frustration, that 45.2% say "Debugging AI-generated code is more time-consuming", and that 84% "are using or planning to use AI tools in their development process". Those numbers describe developers reviewing AI output, not design clients generating feedback, so they support the shape of the complaint without sizing it. On terminology, the American Dialect Society selected "slop" as its 2025 Word of the Year, announced 2026-01-09 at its 36th annual vote with more than 300 attendees, "recognized for its widespread use for low-quality, high-quantity content, most typically produced by generative AI". That dates the vocabulary the video uses. It does not count how many clients are sending it. I attempted to pull the Upwork Research Institute's 2024 workload study for a directly measured figure on time lost to reviewing AI output, and both the Upwork press release and the research landing page returned HTTP 403, so I am not citing its numbers here.

Key Takeaways

  • Verified: The speaker is Michael Janda, author of Burn Your Portfolio (2013) and The Psychology of Graphic Design Pricing (2019), founder of the agency Riser (2002, sold 2015), and his own site lists @mostjanda as his TikTok handle while his other platforms use "morejanda".
  • Verified: Both clause cards appear in full on screen, Clause 01 ("Responsible A.I. Usage") at frames 009 and 010 near 16 to 18 s, and Clause 02 ("Human Led Feedback and A.I. Usage") at frames 020 and 023 near 38 to 44 s, so the instruction at 54.86 s to screenshot them is actionable from the video alone.
  • Correction: The video says at 20.88 s that the client-side AI feedback clause "is the one that nobody has." A designer contract guide dated 2026-07-07 already described the client agreeing "not to submit the designer's work to AI tools for feedback or critique", the Graphic Artists Guild Handbook 17th edition dated 2025-11-04 advertises model generative-AI clauses, and the Authors Guild publishes counterparty-side AI restrictions including "No Uploading to Consumer-Facing AI Systems" and "No Substantive Editing with AI".
  • Correction: The voiceover at 42.44 s says the clause "tells your client they're not allowed to do that." The Clause 02 text on screen says AI critiques "should not be submitted", that "we may ask that it be consolidated", and that "additional fees may be required". The written clause requests and optionally bills where the voiceover prohibits.
  • Partial correction: Clause 01 promises that "Final copyrightable creative deliverables are human-generated and will not be AI-generated work." Copyright Office Part 2, published 2025-01-29, states that "The use of AI to assist in the process of creation or the inclusion of AI-generated material in a larger human-generated work does not bar copyrightability," so the clause commits to more than registration law demands.
  • Clarification: The description quotes the clause as "AI-generated feedback that requires additional processing may require additional budget." That sentence does not appear in the Clause 02 card shown in frames 020 or 023, so the screenshot and the caption give a signer two different texts.
  • Unverified: The "12 pages" of feedback and the "four hours" spent responding, both spoken at 30.98 s, have no source in the video, the description or any frame I read, and no feedback document appears on screen.
  • Unverified: The prevalence claim at 5.06 s that AI feedback is "going around like the next pandemic" is unmeasured. The 2025 Stack Overflow Developer Survey (49,000+ responses, 177 countries) shows 66% of developers frustrated by "AI solutions that are almost right, but not quite" and 45.2% saying debugging AI-generated code takes more time, which describes review burden among developers rather than client behavior in creative projects.
  • Context: The Copyright Office's 2023-03-16 registration guidance at 88 FR 16190 also imposes a disclosure duty on applicants for works containing AI-generated content, which is a practical reason a studio might want Clause 01 in writing even though the clause overstates the legal baseline.
  • Context: The American Dialect Society named "slop" its 2025 Word of the Year on 2026-01-09, nine months before this video posted, which dates the vocabulary the hook relies on.

Resources

Published October 9, 2026. Writeup generated from a favorited TikTok.