[mpchlets]

I don't know, this is a new site: https://www.google.com/#q=site:nycfreshmarket.com

There is no cache, so I think this is an over-reaction at this point by the designer and only discredits their business sense and will most likely result in not getting paid for this job.

The phrase 2 wrongs don't make a right comes to mind. WE already have a legal system in place to handle these issues, no reason to defame on the internet, which is truly a permanent record.

[mgkimsal]

> WE already have a legal system in place to handle these issues,

And... it may take years, at best. I did work for someone in mid 2008, they didn't pay (I should have had a down payment). I filed a lawsuit in NYC, and it's now 5 years later and it's still in the queue. If I was to get a judgement next year, it might be several more years of trying to collect before I get paid, if ever.

IIRC, they changed the passwords as I was delivering the final work, although, at the time, I didn't know it was the final work, because there was some other stuff slated to be done the following week which was 'put on hold'.

[kintamanimatt]

> WE already have a legal system in place to handle these issues

If you've ever had to sue someone you'll know that it's a distraction and not a magical solution to problems. Even when you get judgement, you've then got to collect and there are people that will drag their heels making your victory a pyrrhic one.

The person that didn't pay their web designer deserves to be shamed. You can argue that it's unprofessional of the web designer (and it probably is), but it's also unprofessional of the client.

[emiliobumachar]

The legal system is a realistic option only if there was a written contract in place, which is not always the case.

[icoder]

Really? AFAIK in my country (Netherlands), a 'verbal agreement' is also legally binding. Is that different in US? Of course it may be harder to proof, but at the end of a website building job there's often enough paper and email trails to make your case.

[mpchlets]

A verbal (oral) contract is a contract in the US - though very hard to prove. Chain of custody of the code is one way.

Intellectual property rights are all the rage these days and that would mix into this.

[emiliobumachar]

I'm not an american, but yes, I believe verbal contracts do apply in the US. I called it unrealistic because it's much harder to prove. As you pointed out, it's possible.

[balloot]

Having a proper contract is the responsibility of the contractor. If he didn't bother to present one, he doesn't get to make up for it by holding the website hostage.

[alexqgb]

Actually, he does. With IP contracts the onus falls on the buyer, not the seller, who is granted full ownership of their work from the moment of creation. Making sure you have clear title to the the work of another isn't the contractor's responsibility, it's yours.

That said, there are a ton of things having to do with the scope of work, reviews of work in progress, acceptance or rejection of completed work, and payment terms that are absolutly the contractor's responsibility. But again, securing clear title to the work is the buyer's concern, not the seller's.

[balloot]

So you think the contract designer now owns nycfreshmarket.com and the contents of the site unless its demands are met?

I would love to see a single case ever where a company's domain and website were turned over to a contract designer due to a pay dispute.

[alexqgb]

No, the inference you're drawing does not follow from what I said. I simply pointed out that, contrary to your assertion, the onus for securing clear title to the work rests with the buyer, not the seller. Assuming that the designer is also hosting the site, they are presumably free to limit access until they've been paid.

[balloot]

Everything you said is correct. But it has nothing to do with the issue here.

The seller is not "limiting access". They are not taking away the work they produced. They are instead publishing defamatory messages on the client's domain against the client's will. They are essentially claiming the domain as their own, which is the real issue here. This wouldn't be an interesting or controversial story if nycfreshmarket.com was a white screen, or a coming soon type thing.