Fraud "photography" caught using stolen images for portfolio!

[SnapsbyPoteat]

(sorry if this was already posted)
I'm a fan of alex michele photography on facebook- her work is amazing. http://www.facebook.com/alexmichelephotography

A couple weeks ago another facebook fan found some images that belonged to alex on 'jayde madison' photography portfolio! She had been using other photographers images for her own portfolio! It's built up so much hype that it was on the evening news in Viriginia recently. Apparently the BBB is getting involved and there are 8 clients who have come forward with complaints as well. Just thought I would share. It really is disgusting that someone would do this.

Check out this video from the TV station here:
http://www.wtvr.com/videobeta/6b978d...l-Photographer

[alabama1980]

http://www.petapixel.com/2010/09/15/...chaos-ensures/

Reminds me of this similar story. I don't understand why people think they can get away with that. If you could deliver that quality in the first place you wouldn't need to lift the photos....and if you can't deliver the quality then you're going to be hosed come shooting time.

[dcatbagan]

I enjoyed the customer's 'reasons' to why she was disappointed.

[mdvaden]

Originally Posted by alabama1980

http://www.petapixel.com/2010/09/15/...chaos-ensures/

Reminds me of this similar story. I don't understand why people think they can get away with that. If you could deliver that quality in the first place you wouldn't need to lift the photos....and if you can't deliver the quality then you're going to be hosed come shooting time.

This reminds me of something that came to mind a few days ago. I was thinking about discussions on this board about copyright, and what a pain infringement is, especially if maybe the images are not registered.

Then the thought came that it would be handy if a person using images, presented them falsely as their own. It's been said that fraud is a lot easier to deal with in regards to penalizing someone for being dishonest.

[CallumPhoto]

Originally Posted by dcatbagan

I enjoyed the customer's 'reasons' to why she was disappointed.

"She's not centered" was my favourite. But seriously I would love to know why she thought she could get away with this haha. Her photos and the ones she pinched are in totally different leauges.

[focus.pocus]

I have a strong feeling there are going to be more & more of these type stories going around in the near future... some locals in my area have FB pages and advertise as POHTOGRAPHERS and to be blunt their work sucks... to many people with a DSLR think because they spend big bucks on a camera and a few lenses and some family member or friend tells them they do good work then they can become a professional... and NO I am no pro and don't want to be... I do it for fun... when it becomes a job then I think the fun goes out of it...

[amfoto1]

That's freakin' hilarious! There's nothing like some good media coverage to get your name out to the public, is there?

Jayde hould write a book: "How to put yourself out of business before you even get started"

This sure isn't the first case of it's type.... We had someone post here a year or two ago that one of their images had been stolen and submitted to a photo contest... and won something.

You have to be some kind of especially clueless idiot to mis-represent someone else's work as your own and somehow think that's an okay thing to do.

Apparently there is actually no person named "Jayde Madison", either. The photographer's name is Beth something. Hmmm, identity theft, too?

Website seems to be gone... But of course, they're still on Facebook.... and even fraud charges can't stop Craigslist! http://richmond.craigslist.org/evs/2048425682.html

[RDKirk]

We teach our kids to do this nowawadays. They cut and paste off the web for their high school and college papers, presenting other people's work as their own--and it's become a tacitly acceptable practice. There is no concept of anything about it being wrong. "It's just to get my foot in the door...the work I'll do for my employer will be my work."

[TopHatMoments]

And yet Dana is still in business, thou the first three photographs ( no wait pic's ) on her shortfolio,
Ook like something from a scary movie project.

[MJPhotos24]

Originally Posted by RDKirk

We teach our kids to do this nowawadays. They cut and paste off the web for their high school and college papers, presenting other people's work as their own--and it's become a tacitly acceptable practice. There is no concept of anything about it being wrong. "It's just to get my foot in the door...the work I'll do for my employer will be my work."

If you're talking about ripping off papers and such, plagiarism, that's one thing - but you can use images in educational material without permission protected by fair use in the US. Problem is nobody - teacher or parent - doesn't teach that beyond that scope it's illegal.

[RDKirk]

Originally Posted by MJPhotos24

If you're talking about ripping off papers and such, plagiarism, that's one thing - but you can use images in educational material without permission protected by fair use in the US. Problem is nobody - teacher or parent - doesn't teach that beyond that scope it's illegal.

Actually, it's pretty darned hard in practice to use a someone else's image legally under Fair Use.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Using an image almost always runs afoul of consideration #3. Unlike a song, poem, or novel of which you can quote a small portion, use of an image is almost always the entire image. That alone is normally a "fair use" killer.

Because the entire image is usually used, it will also run against consideration #4, because if the full image is available in an unauthrized source, there is less need to go to the authorized source.

Running afoul of #3 is because of the nature of the image as a nearly atomic whole that running afoul of #2 is almost always the case.

So people depending on "Fair Use" for an image are normally depending on conideration #1 alone...and the Courts rule pretty strictly on that -- a whole lot of non-profit and educational organizations have wound paying infringement penalties. Parody or editorial criticism under fair use requires that the parody or criticism be specifically of the used work. For instance, I can make fair use of someone's copyrighted image of a politician under consideration #1 only in a criticism or parody of that photograph--not of the politician.

[TeleFragger]

Originally Posted by RDKirk

We teach our kids to do this nowawadays. They cut and paste off the web for their high school and college papers, presenting other people's work as their own--and it's become a tacitly acceptable practice. There is no concept of anything about it being wrong. "It's just to get my foot in the door...the work I'll do for my employer will be my work."

Sorry but MY family is excluded there.. All papers must be accompanied by source locations, etc..... we stress this heavily to our kids that it is not their work .... also anything they do MUST be written in their words... if it is taken from the book, web, they must redo it ... (he is 10...and gets A's and some B's)..... My wife and I are striving for his success

[PeteA]

Originally Posted by TeleFragger

Sorry but MY family is excluded there.. All papers must be accompanied by source locations, etc..... we stress this heavily to our kids that it is not their work .... also anything they do MUST be written in their words... if it is taken from the book, web, they must redo it ... (he is 10...and gets A's and some B's)..... My wife and I are striving for his success

I was thinking the same, all the way through school I've been taught how to show sources properly. One of the biggest things taught was "It's better to quote (in context) and show that you understand it, than to copy and change the quote to pass it off as your own".

I've got used to people ripping off images I've taken. This happens on a highly regular basis when it comes to retail. You just call them up nicely and ask them to remove it within 24 hours or you'll sue them for the value of each order they've had with that product. Since they can't prove how long they've had that picture legally you could take all sales from when the picture was taken and out online. Fun times.


I think it's extremely sad that people have to rip off other peoples work instead of learning how to do it them selves.

[spiralspirit]

Originally Posted by RDKirk

We teach our kids to do this nowawadays. They cut and paste off the web for their high school and college papers, presenting other people's work as their own--and it's become a tacitly acceptable practice. There is no concept of anything about it being wrong. "It's just to get my foot in the door...the work I'll do for my employer will be my work."

I don't know where your kids go to school, but in both high school and university there were plagiarism 'sessions' that made it quite clear that it was not acceptable, and the punishments on those caught are quite severe.

It's easy to do, but it's inevitable to get caught because nothing gets forgotten now that everything is digital, and the punishments are pretty harsh.

It's not tacitly acceptable anywhere I've been or with anyone I know...

[Dennis_Hammer]

My daughter's school makes them wash their papers through a website that checks for plagiarism. Not sure how efficient it is but she claims the fact that you have to do it stops quite a few from trying. The results are sent straight to the educator. They also now turn in their work through a website things have changed.