In an increasingly crowded digital landscape where content is king and creators often struggle for fair compensation, a recent accusation of intellectual property theft has ignited a conversation about ethical practices in the tech startup world. Waleed Ahmed Khan, a freelance writer and content creator, has publicly accused Haris Shahzad, the founder of the AI-powered content platform Social360.ai, of publishing his work without consent, credit, or payment.
Mr. Khan’s account, shared in a fiery online post, details a common scenario for many in the gig economy: the speculative submission. After connecting with Haris Shahzad on LinkedIn to discuss content opportunities, Mr. Khan penned a blog post titled “Boost Engagement with AI-Generated Memes and Videos Using Social360.ai.” He subsequently sent the completed piece to Haris Shahzad via WhatsApp, anticipating feedback and, presumably, a paid commission.
What followed, according to Mr. Khan, was radio silence. “Crickets. Nada. Not a single reply,” he wrote, describing the lack of communication from Haris Shahzad. The silence was allegedly broken not by a reply, but by the unexpected appearance of his meticulously crafted article on Social360.ai’s website.
“He slaps my work on his website without my consent. No heads-up, no thanks, no payment. Just pure ghosting,” Mr. Khan asserted in his public broadside. He claims that despite repeated attempts to follow up via WhatsApp and LinkedIn, Haris Shahzad remained unresponsive, effectively “acting like my work’s yours to steal.”
The dispute highlights the precarious position of freelance writers and content creators who often invest significant time and effort in speculative submissions, hoping to secure work or establish long-term collaborations. For Mr. Khan, the blog post was more than just words; it was “my hustle,” he stated, emphasizing the personal investment in his craft. He cited research, including a Forbes study on meme engagement, to underscore the quality and effort put into his work.
Mr. Khan’s public call-out, which includes an appeal for others who may have had similar experiences with Mr. Shahzad or Social360.ai to come forward, aims to “shine a light on this shady game.” He concluded with a direct challenge to Mr. Shahzad: “You wanted my content? Now you’ve got my attention. Step up, own it, or the internet’s gonna make you famous for all the wrong reasons.”
As of press time, Mr. Shahzad and Social360.ai have not publicly responded to Mr. Khan’s accusations. The incident serves as a stark reminder of the critical importance of clear contracts, communication, and respect for intellectual property in the rapidly evolving digital content industry. It also underscores the power of public platforms for individuals seeking recourse and accountability in an era where digital interactions often outpace formal legal frameworks.
Will this hold any weight in court?
The writer sent an unsolicited submission to Haris Shahzad without a prior agreement, and the implied expectation of payment or credit for such a submission is not universally recognized or legally binding in all contexts.
Detailed Points:
-
Unsolicited Submission and Implied Consent (or Lack Thereof):
- Many companies, especially those in the digital and creative industries, have explicit policies against unsolicited submissions or state that unsolicited submissions are treated as non-confidential and without obligation. While Waleed might not have seen such a policy for Social360.ai, the onus is often on the sender to inquire about or confirm such policies before sending work.
- The act of sending a complete, ready-to-publish blog post without a formal request, contract, or even a clear verbal agreement on terms (like payment or specific usage rights) can be interpreted as a submission for consideration rather than a guaranteed paid commission.
- From Haris’s perspective, he might have seen it as a demonstration of Waleed’s capabilities, a sample of his work, or an idea submitted for review, not necessarily as a deliverable for which payment was immediately due. He might have considered it “free content” if he didn’t initiate the creation or explicitly agree to payment terms.
-
Ambiguity of “Connecting on LinkedIn about content”:
- “Connecting on LinkedIn about content” is vague. It doesn’t necessarily imply a formal work agreement or a request for a specific, paid piece of content. It could simply be a networking conversation where Waleed chose to proactively send a piece of content to showcase his skills.
- There might have been no explicit agreement or even a clear understanding from Haris’s side that this particular blog post was being offered under the condition of payment or immediate publication with credit.
-
Lack of Formal Contract or Agreement:
- In professional settings, especially for creative work, a formal contract or at least a clear written agreement (e.g., via email) outlining deliverables, payment terms, deadlines, and intellectual property rights is standard. The absence of such an agreement weakens Waleed’s legal standing regarding payment.
- WhatsApp is often used for informal communication. While evidence of communication, it may not carry the weight of a formal contractual agreement, particularly if specific terms were not explicitly agreed upon.
-
“Crickets” as a form of non-acceptance:
- While frustrating for Waleed, the lack of a reply could be interpreted by Haris as a tacit rejection of the offer to collaborate or a signal that the content was not suitable under the implied terms of payment.
- If Haris did then use it, the argument would pivot to whether his silence constituted a rejection of the terms while still allowing him to use content that was “freely” provided. This is a weaker point for Haris, but still part of the devil’s advocate.
-
Perceived Value and Use:
- Haris might argue that the blog post, while submitted by Waleed, was eventually used in a way that he believed benefited both parties (promoting Social360.ai, even if indirectly promoting Waleed’s skill). This doesn’t negate the lack of payment but attempts to frame the use as less malicious.
- He might also claim that the content provided minimal additional value to his platform or that he made significant edits or additions that justify his claim to it.
In essence, the devil’s advocate argument for Haris would focus on the lack of a clear, explicit, and legally binding agreement before the content was created and sent.
The argument would be that unsolicited submissions carry inherent risks for the creator, and without pre-established terms, the recipient is not necessarily obligated to pay or even provide credit, particularly if the submission was purely on the sender’s initiative.
It’s crucial to note that this is a devil’s advocate argument designed to explore potential defenses, and it doesn’t necessarily reflect a legally or ethically sound position. In many jurisdictions, using someone’s creative work without their consent and without compensation would constitute copyright infringement or a breach of implied contract, regardless of whether it was “unsolicited.”
