Tweet
Thanks Atticus.
Regarding the freelance designer/photographer, it may be that I have misunderstood but I took the 'temporary hire' as a contractor rather than an employee of the company. If I am wrong on that interpretation then it may be that the freelance designer (or their company) owns the image by virtue of the photographer being an employee - but again that depends on where the company actually resides in case the local country law is different.
Even if the freelance designer decided on what they charge, that sum could be inflated if the same image is being offered elsewhere on the internet at a fraction of that cost and would want some form of evidential proof.
Anyway, it sounds like Pixsy cannot take legal action without the copyright owner's permission so I stand by my previous position that this is pretty much a bluff, mostly anyway since there might be that 1% who actually want to take it to court.
Regarding the freelance designer/photographer, it may be that I have misunderstood but I took the 'temporary hire' as a contractor rather than an employee of the company. If I am wrong on that interpretation then it may be that the freelance designer (or their company) owns the image by virtue of the photographer being an employee - but again that depends on where the company actually resides in case the local country law is different.
Even if the freelance designer decided on what they charge, that sum could be inflated if the same image is being offered elsewhere on the internet at a fraction of that cost and would want some form of evidential proof.
Anyway, it sounds like Pixsy cannot take legal action without the copyright owner's permission so I stand by my previous position that this is pretty much a bluff, mostly anyway since there might be that 1% who actually want to take it to court.
Comment