Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
Thread started 13 Aug 2014 (Wednesday) 18:48
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Never ever point out a fraud...

 
Numenorean
Cream of the Crop
5,013 posts
Likes: 28
Joined Feb 2011
     
Aug 13, 2014 19:32 |  #16

How you would like to proceed is notify all of those review sites and send them the documentation so that they can remove those false reviews and ban her IP address.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
sarahashleyphotos
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
254 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: VA
     
Aug 13, 2014 19:33 |  #17

banquetbear wrote in post #17094655 (external link)
...if thats the case, report them to shutterstock, and if shutterstock wants to go after her for violating their terms of use, then they can. If they choose to ignore it, thats their choice. But are you sure she didn't take those images and sell them for stock? If your answer is "I don't know", then you shouldn't have called them out before finding out for sure.

Possible but highly doubtful since they sent a friend (the photographers are guys) off to threaten me and react the way she did and the images come from all over shutterstock, pintrest, stock placeholders for websites like wix.com ect.


Canon 5D | Canon 40D | Canon 7D
10-22mm, 50mm f/1.4, 10-22mm, 75-300mm
sarahashleyphotos.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sarahashleyphotos
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
254 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: VA
     
Aug 13, 2014 19:35 |  #18

Numenorean wrote in post #17094667 (external link)
How you would like to proceed is notify all of those review sites and send them the documentation so that they can remove those false reviews and ban her IP address.

I have done that.


Canon 5D | Canon 40D | Canon 7D
10-22mm, 50mm f/1.4, 10-22mm, 75-300mm
sarahashleyphotos.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
banquetbear
Goldmember
Avatar
1,601 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 156
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Aug 13, 2014 19:36 as a reply to  @ post 17094655 |  #19

...all I'm saying is, as you have found out, playing around on social media is a dangerous game. Its scary enough having my personal life attached to this persona. There are too many crazy people in this world for me to want to dip my toes into it too often. Don't do stuff if you don't have to. You didn't have to do this. There were a couple of other ways of dealing with it that didn't involve publicly outing yourself.


www.bigmark.co.nzexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
banquetbear
Goldmember
Avatar
1,601 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 156
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Aug 13, 2014 19:44 |  #20

sarahashleyphotos wrote in post #17094673 (external link)
Possible but highly doubtful since they sent a friend (the photographers are guys) off to threaten me and react the way she did and the images come from all over shutterstock, pintrest, stock placeholders for websites like wix.com ect.

..."highly doubtful" is not"yes I'm sure." You have publicly stated that they did not take the images, and did not have the legal right to use those images. You may well be correct. (In fact, it is highly probable you are.) But they didn't "threaten you" before you made the allegations. So you can't use that to back up your decision to post in the first place.


www.bigmark.co.nzexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sarahashleyphotos
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
254 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: VA
     
Aug 13, 2014 19:45 |  #21

banquetbear wrote in post #17094676 (external link)
...all I'm saying is, as you have found out, playing around on social media is a dangerous game. Its scary enough having my personal life attached to this persona. There are too many crazy people in this world for me to want to dip my toes into it too often. Don't do stuff if you don't have to. You didn't have to do this. There were a couple of other ways of dealing with it that didn't involve publicly outing yourself.

Like I said im not supper worried about them trying to hurt my business and have reported the false reviews. Im more shocked at the juvenile behavior and that they are still using the stock images.

Also them deleting and ignoring my first post asking about the stock images does not exactly scream innocent.


Canon 5D | Canon 40D | Canon 7D
10-22mm, 50mm f/1.4, 10-22mm, 75-300mm
sarahashleyphotos.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Liquidity
Junior Member
24 posts
Joined Aug 2007
     
Aug 13, 2014 22:52 |  #22

sarahashleyphotos wrote in post #17094696 (external link)
Like I said im not supper worried about them trying to hurt my business and have reported the false reviews. Im more shocked at the juvenile behavior and that they are still using the stock images.

Also them deleting and ignoring my first post asking about the stock images does not exactly scream innocent.

Wow. People are amazing.

Maybe you can create a blog post of your experience (on your site). Address what happened. And then what the bad people did because you called them out on it. Then you 'control' the story and explain it away so it will not hurt your business????

Or next time send the information to http://stopstealingpho​tos.com/ (external link) ???




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
meaton
Member
81 posts
Joined Jul 2012
Location: London, England
     
Aug 14, 2014 03:46 |  #23

sarahashleyphotos wrote in post #17094696 (external link)
Like I said im not supper worried about them trying to hurt my business and have reported the false reviews. Im more shocked at the juvenile behavior and that they are still using the stock images.

Also them deleting and ignoring my first post asking about the stock images does not exactly scream innocent.

The world is full of bad people. So what?

Yes, their behaviour is bad but I'm actually wondering why you felt the need to get involved? You are never going to change anything.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
seanlockephotography
Member
67 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2014
     
Aug 14, 2014 05:13 |  #24

banquetbear wrote in post #17094642 (external link)
...it is quite possible they purchased those images: or maybe even provided those images for stock.

If you are going to accuse someone of fraud publicly: make sure you are sure of your case first. If you are unsure, send them to a site like Stop Stealing Photos and let them do the legwork.

Yes, the OP is out of place, in two ways:
1. Posting a damaging review on the other companies page in an attempt to discredit them, without actually using the "product" of a photography session
2. If the content was licensed properly from Shutterstock, there is no reason these uses would be against the license agreement. There is no statement of ownership or implication. A photography business may use "filler" content to keep their readership or decorate their page, just like a restaurant may use image content where they did not create the food. For example (and this is just a random grab from an image search) Burger Chalet did not create the food pictured on it's page: http://burgerchalet.co​m (external link)

Sarah's competitor here has several instances of their work on their facebook page which speaks for itself and they don't seem particularly active anyways. It's unclear why she's taken this vendetta out against the other party and back in March gotten two of her friends to leave reviews as well.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bacchanal
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,284 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
     
Aug 14, 2014 06:40 as a reply to  @ seanlockephotography's post |  #25

It's a bit hindsight, but if you really think someone is a fraud, instead of going after them personally, I would notify these folks: http://stopstealingpho​tos.com/ (external link)

ETA: looks like you already know of them, but that's where I would go first rather than striking out on your own.


Drew A. | gear | photosexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
moose10101
registered smartass
1,744 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 296
Joined May 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
     
Aug 14, 2014 12:42 |  #26

sarahashleyphotos wrote in post #17094602 (external link)
Unfortunately on facebook to report copyright infringement it has to be your image.

I see absolutely nothing unfortunate about that. You have no standing in the matter, so you have no way of knowing whether anything is being infringed.

God help us if anyone could file a report on any image.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MattPharmD
Senior Member
Avatar
255 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2011
     
Aug 14, 2014 18:37 |  #27

I would respond to her last request informing that you intend to sue her for Libel. As you are both US companies, and it would be fairly easy to prove she posted reviews and is not actually your client.

We are all so quick to encourage people to litigate copyright infringement, I think this is exactly the kind of thing that Libel suits are made for. People need to know that what they say on the internet can have consequencies.

BTW: you don't actually have to follow through depending on the consequences.


Photography is just a hobby for me.
Twitter: @PharmNerdMatt (external link)
Youtube:The PharmNerd (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
banquetbear
Goldmember
Avatar
1,601 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 156
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Aug 14, 2014 19:49 |  #28

MattPharmD wrote in post #17096745 (external link)
I would respond to her last request informing that you intend to sue her for Libel. As you are both US companies, and it would be fairly easy to prove she posted reviews and is not actually your client.

...you are aware the OP posted a "false review" first? And the other photographer may well have paid for the use of those images? And while there might be a technical breach of use of licence, thats up for shutterstock to decide a course of action and not the OP? Using your interpretation of libel, the other photographer has an equally strong case against the OP. In reality I doubt either one could put a case together for libel, and if they could there are thousands of reviews on Amazon that had better watch out.

Going to court for this would be silly. Threatening to go to court (with no intention of following through) is really bad advice. You have no idea what could happen if the other party took that threat seriously.


www.bigmark.co.nzexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MattPharmD
Senior Member
Avatar
255 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2011
     
Aug 14, 2014 20:42 |  #29

banquetbear wrote in post #17096842 (external link)
...you are aware the OP posted a "false review" first? And the other photographer may well have paid for the use of those images? And while there might be a technical breach of use of licence, thats up for shutterstock to decide a course of action and not the OP? Using your interpretation of libel, the other photographer has an equally strong case against the OP. In reality I doubt either one could put a case together for libel, and if they could there are thousands of reviews on Amazon that had better watch out.

Going to court for this would be silly. Threatening to go to court (with no intention of following through) is really bad advice. You have no idea what could happen if the other party took that threat seriously.

The first "false review" doesn't claim anything that isn't true. The images are verifiably from shutterstock, and Shutterstocks license does not allow images to be used in this manner. A statement must be false before it can be Libel.

The other photographer claimed the OP ruined her wedding. This is a false statement that is damaging to her reputation (definition of libel). So my defination of libel (actually Merriam-Webster's) does not include the OP's post.


Photography is just a hobby for me.
Twitter: @PharmNerdMatt (external link)
Youtube:The PharmNerd (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
seanlockephotography
Member
67 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2014
     
Aug 14, 2014 20:54 |  #30

MattPharmD wrote in post #17096911 (external link)
The first "false review" doesn't claim anything that isn't true. The images are verifiably from shutterstock, and Shutterstocks license does not allow images to be used in this manner. A statement must be false before it can be Libel.

The person being attacked is definitely allowed to use the images in this manner. This is no different from anyone else licensing the image and posting them in their feed or header. Just because it is a photographer makes no difference.

What the typical stock license does not allow is claiming copyright or creation, which the attacked person is obviously not doing.

And there are all of two subjects - the flowers and 2-3 with the girl. Not sure why the OP has gotten so twisted over this. One can only assume she feels her business is threatened in some way.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

11,457 views & 0 likes for this thread
Never ever point out a fraud...
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
751 guests, 285 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.