[benjamincburns]

I may be misunderstanding something here. To paraphrase, the argument this article opens with is "we didn't agree that you were working for me, so I don't have to pay you" along with "because we didn't have an agreement which protects your ownership of your work, I can do whatever I want with it." I thought the law (shop law?) defaults to an independent contractor owning his or her own work in most (every?) states? Even if the law defaults to a work-for-hire agreement (where the client owns the work outright) for independent contractors, how could the client reasonably argue that he/she somehow doesn't need to compensate the contractor (essentially saying "Me? You weren't working for me!"), while simultaneously arguing that somehow the client has any/all rights to the work?

I'd hope that anyone in this kind of situation would think through this kind of logic, short circuit to "okay, I'm dealing with a ripe asshole here" and take the same action which they would toward anyone else outright stealing from them.

Edit:

Regarding contract/no contract, experienced/knowledgeable clients will require a contract when dealing with an independent contractor, even if for no other purpose than to protect their ability to make use of the output of said contractor's work.