U are liable to be sued. He posted it on public domain does not mean that u have the right to post. My advice is take it down.
That in itself ... I think is a breach in CS regulation ....
I suggest you take it down and delete that thread before it goes to the Mods ....
Same sentiments here, best to remove the pictures then take further action, the legal way. Don't turn this into a disadvantage on your part. Being a neutral party, I feel that its better if you can confirm the details before deciding on suitable follow-up action. I hope you'll able to sort this out soon and get your money back.
Last edited by Override2Zion; 30th October 2008 at 02:28 PM.
Nikon D200/D700/D800 User :)
ok ok... my bad... did it out of anger
To the TS:
Just curious, you started this thread 4 days ago, have you tried to contact him during these few days?
If this is the same Pierce that many of us are thinking, he is still active in CS few minutes ago. He probably already know what is going on.
I know the Mods have locked the thread so hopefully you can still delete them ...
Otherwise you will have to delete them from your hosting site.
If what mystudio had mentioned is correct and Pierce Teo is still accessing the site, he could have done a screen capture and may be able to use that against you.
You purpose of this thread was to get your payment for the work done; so don't let anger cloud your judgement and turn the whole situation against yourself.
You may also be receiving my lawyer's letter demanding that you pay back my lunch which i vomited when I clicked on your posted images of your model just now .....
always the Light, .... always.
hey guys... thanks for all your support this past few days. so far, I still have not heard from him or his partner. I will try to do whatever you guys have suggested. Sorry if ive hurt anyone's feelings here. But my big thanks goes to the mods and senior members who have been helping me alot. and not forgetting ppl who have given me really productive suggestions.
Actually, posting his pic online may have a positive effect. It gives certainty to the person under question, as opposed to a name "Pierce Teo". What if I had a friend who is also called Pierce Teo" but is unrelated to this matter. Without the pic, poeple may think that he's the Pierce Teo who owes people money.
Last edited by vince123123; 30th October 2008 at 04:45 PM.
these information are readily available online via 'whois' search.
like vince123123 mentioned, singapore got no privacy law
if anyone doesn't want their information be known so easily, they should make sure their personal info are not posted up in the internet, or better, don't go online.
If yes he can claim copyright to the end client when the main photographer did not pay him.
But if he did not and the end client can prove they paid for the images. Then it is a issue only with the freelancers and the main photographer under singapore law for "Job for hire"
As there no contact between the end client and the freelancer, the only binding contact here is only with the freelancer and the main photographer. But again the freelancer could be lucky that the end client take as an issue with the main photographer, as what other countries company would do because they respect the copyrights of the photographer require under their law.