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...

 
Aki78
Senior Member
Avatar
963 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 34
Joined Jun 2006
Location: New Hampshire USA
     
Aug 26, 2014 05:05 |  #46

sarahashleyphotos wrote in post #17094579 (external link)
Also I still very much stand by the fact that using stock images anywhere near a photography business is misrepresentation and unethical. I have no personal issue with the business other than that is very very wrong.

It happens all over the place. I'd just leave these people be. It's ridiculous people would do this but don't put yourself on their level either.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
seanlockephotography
Member
67 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2014
     
Aug 26, 2014 06:40 |  #47

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17117453 (external link)
These people are creeps. They got caught with their pants down and get defensive and in fact offensive.

Clearly from how they operate they are not endowed with honor, and thus, the only safe option is avoiding them.

Which party are you talking about? The OP or the company they attacked?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MattPharmD
Senior Member
Avatar
255 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2011
     
Aug 26, 2014 20:00 as a reply to  @ seanlockephotography's post |  #48

seanlockephotography wrote in post #17102905 (external link)
So, no word from the OP why this vendetta against another business?

BarrySpug wrote in post #17117427 (external link)
I'm starting to think there is more to this than the OP let on initially. As others have said and asked, why would OP go after this business in the first place?

OP, if you're still actively posting, please give us the full explanation for clarity.

I imagine it was a righteous type desire to "right a wrong." Again the website stopstealingphotos.com does this on a major level. Yet the person running that website has no personal interest (that I have noticed) in any of the cases of "photo stealing" that are presented there.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
delta0014
Senior Member
Avatar
316 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 101
Joined Oct 2013
Location: GA
     
Aug 27, 2014 08:30 |  #49

This is why I have 2 facebook accounts. My normal one and a fake one (that looks real) with none of my personal information attached to it. I can leave comments/reviews anonymously.


5D Mark IV
24-70L f2.8 ii / 85L ii / 135L / Rokinon 14mm f2.8
Yongnuo 600RT x 3
Just a hobby - CC always welcome.
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
memoriesoftomorrow
Goldmember
3,846 posts
Likes: 290
Joined Nov 2010
     
Aug 27, 2014 09:16 |  #50

MattPharmD wrote in post #17119803 (external link)
I imagine it was a righteous type desire to "right a wrong." Again the website stopstealingphotos.com does this on a major level. Yet the person running that website has no personal interest (that I have noticed) in any of the cases of "photo stealing" that are presented there.

Actually Corey Anne has had her own work stolen too. Quite recently.


Peter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MattPharmD
Senior Member
Avatar
255 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2011
     
Aug 27, 2014 12:55 |  #51

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #17120612 (external link)
Actually Corey Anne has had her own work stolen too. Quite recently.

Then I shall correct myself to say "most of the cases." The point I wanted to make still holds true. With the exception of the posts she makes about her own work being stolen.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ryanshoots
Senior Member
344 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2010
     
Aug 27, 2014 16:36 |  #52

Even it 2014, it's worth picking a photographer with photos on the wall in a studio.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Christopher ­ Steven ­ b
Goldmember
Avatar
3,547 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
     
Aug 27, 2014 16:45 |  #53

What's that ?

ryanshoots wrote in post #17121396 (external link)
Even it 2014, it's worth picking a photographer with photos on the wall in a studio.



christopher steven b. - Ottawa Wedding Photographer

www.christopherstevenb​.com (external link)| Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
groundloop
Senior Member
983 posts
Likes: 37
Joined Jun 2012
     
Aug 27, 2014 20:32 as a reply to  @ Christopher Steven b's post |  #54

Let's see..... the OP hasn't weighed in for 2 weeks now. I bet we can keep this thread going for at least another month without her. Anyone wanna' put some money on that? :rolleyes:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
juicedownload
Senior Member
Avatar
374 posts
Joined Jun 2011
Location: Harrisburg, PA
     
Aug 27, 2014 21:05 |  #55

groundloop wrote in post #17121766 (external link)
Let's see..... the OP hasn't weighed in for 2 weeks now. I bet we can keep this thread going for at least another month without her. Anyone wanna' put some money on that? :rolleyes:

Probably.

I think I had to manually set in my forum profile to send notification emails for threads I post in. Prior to that I would just check and sometimes forget about the thread. Point being, maybe she doesn't have any reminders to check back.


Harrisburg Wedding Photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mikeinctown
Goldmember
2,119 posts
Likes: 233
Joined May 2012
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Aug 29, 2014 08:36 |  #56

I feel sorry for the Op that people here appear to have attacked her for pointing out theft. She posted the conditions of licensing from the site, and going by the screen shots taken, there is a violation of the agreement.

not sure I would have handled it the same way, but clearly the photo site misrepresented their work and then bahaved in a manner no business should when they retailiated.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
seanlockephotography
Member
67 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2014
     
Aug 29, 2014 13:32 |  #57

mikeinctown wrote in post #17124281 (external link)
I feel sorry for the Op that people here appear to have attacked her for pointing out theft. She posted the conditions of licensing from the site, and going by the screen shots taken, there is a violation of the agreement.

not sure I would have handled it the same way, but clearly the photo site misrepresented their work and then bahaved in a manner no business should when they retailiated.


She has no proof of "theft", and it isn't a violation of the condition of licensing, screenshots or not. And she did it over 3 or 4 images, the use of most of them wasn't even within the last year. It's an odd choice to start a "cleanse the internet of what I think is inappropriate" campaign.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mikeinctown
Goldmember
2,119 posts
Likes: 233
Joined May 2012
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Aug 29, 2014 13:54 |  #58

Was going by the quoted part of the licensing agreement from the first page. When these people may have used them is irrelevent.

Even if licensing them for use as an advertisement where they are portraying themselves as the creators of the photos, it is still dishonest of the company to do so, making people think their work is of a given quality that is represented, when it may not be.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
seanlockephotography
Member
67 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2014
     
Aug 29, 2014 14:01 |  #59

Why do you think they are portraying themselves as the creators? Do you see copyright claims anywhere? Did they say "Check out this random bunch of flowers we shot"? Nope. The mere use of a stock image by a photographer, or an icon by a designer, or a sound sample by an audio artist does not imply ownership.

When they used them would be irrelevant if we were actually pursuing a violation, but in this case, it speaks to the OP's determination to dig into the past to find something to rate this other company on.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
texkam
"Just let me be a stupid photographer."
Avatar
1,477 posts
Likes: 755
Joined Mar 2012
Location: By The Lake in Big D
     
Aug 29, 2014 14:52 |  #60

Sometimes taking a different approach can work.

I noticed someone marketing themselves on social media using others watermarked images and implying they were samples of their work. Because this person did not know me, I was able to respond as a potential customer, and politely play dumb. "I'm confused. An image you are posting here is watermarked xyz photography, another is watermarked abc photography. I don't quite understand, did you actually shoot these photos?" The response back was "No, these are just representative of a type of shoot I COULD do." To which I replied, "Oh, I see. Well, could you provide us a link to some of your work? Thank you." The response, "My website is still under construction."

Yeah, politely busted for all to see! The key is the person in question must not know you, or that you are trying to attack them.

Some folks doing this stuff may have good intententions, but are clueless to the fact that this could mislead the customer, and could possibly land them in hot water if the photographer found out. Without an explicit explanation that the work shown is not theirs they are using questionable methods to market. On the other hand, others know exactly what they are doing and simply don't care.




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

11,459 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 is potatopicker21
667 guests, 296 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.