Never ever point out a fraud...

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.

banquetbear wrote in post #17094655
...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.

Numenorean wrote in post #17094667
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.

...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.

sarahashleyphotos wrote in post #17094673
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.

banquetbear wrote in post #17094676
...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.

sarahashleyphotos wrote in post #17094696
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/

sarahashleyphotos wrote in post #17094696
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.

banquetbear wrote in post #17094642
...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

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.

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/

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

sarahashleyphotos wrote in post #17094602
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.

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.

MattPharmD wrote in post #17096745
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.

banquetbear wrote in post #17096842
...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.

MattPharmD wrote in post #17096911
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.