FB: https://facebook.com/lemontreeinc (it’s been down since the onset)
Originally I only published this company to my Facebook page because they only used stock images from what I could gather and while I’d love to out all the shady effers along with the stealers ain’t nobody got time for that! However, this photographer duo was quick to jump on the FB page and be jerks and that annoyed me. Then this article was posted and their comments annoyed me more. Then I found one photo on their blog that was stolen and I decided to post this. *They’ve since sent me the proof the image was stock, I’m leaving this up because they were so kind to work with.
Also an interesting sidenote, Carston Leishman used to run Leishman Photography and all links are gone. Twitter is located here. Makes me wonder if something happened before as some of the blog titles are the same as the ones with the plagiarized copy below.
Update 4/11/13 @ 8:23PM:
I’ve updated this blog post with a lot more screen captures that I think will support my case that they were using these purchased images in their gallery to represent THEIR work.
There’s also some more comments from Carston and he even sent me a message.
Their website now looks like this.
But this morning it looked like this.
The main image was used in their original wedding gallery, now offline, and it is a stock image. It was also used in the wedding gallery seen below.
I outed a bunch more of their stock images on the Facebook page here if you are curious.
Oh yay, screencaps procured! Many of these are stock images, the first two images on the first line, the first image from the second line, the third image on the fourth line, the first image on the last line.
Here’s one of the screencaps of the images that were included in the gallery above as seen on the Lemontree site. The caption on the bottom says, “It’s fun to see what each other was doing on the wedding day.”
This is a stock image but would you know that reading the description on the bottom or would you think it’s their own work?
Another image from their wedding gallery, now removed. Pay attention to the caption on the bottom which reads, “Having us photograph your getting ready means you’ll have the whole days memories captured for you.”
Again, it is a stock image.
Another image from the now closed gallery, again, notice the caption on the bottom insinuating that they took this image which reads, “A lot of time and effort goes into decorating a venue. We try to capture each venue’s ambiance as it was meant to be.”
Another stock image, again, given the caption you would infer they took this image.
They commented to thePhoto Stealers page and ended up deleting their comments so here is the original conversation before they deleted their comments when they realized they didn’t have their stories straight. I don’t know who Loreena is but I’m assuming she is someone associated with the studio or Carson and Mandy.
Loreena did comment more but I didn’t capture that, darn. She did however send me some love notes.
Awww feel the love? I do.
Today an article was posted on Medium London about this company and they were quick to defend themselves again.
They’ve been singing the same tune everywhere I’ve seen their local photographers calling them out. I have to give props to the London Ontario photographers, you guys are pretty awesome.
Let’s put this new story to the test shall we? Also, buying stock images to represent your own work is NOT supporting the industry.
The blog is now 100% their own work eh? Yeah… no. Here’s what their blog looks like at the moment.
Right off the bat what catches your eye? That camera? Mine too. It’s stock and not their 100% own work.
Let’s start with this blog post.
The image is from Dana Lynn Photography seen on her website here on the 13th image.
Not only is the image not theirs, but the text isn’t theirs as well. It is seen here on The Wedding Community with credit to Wedding Venue Advisor Gemma Edwards.
Another blog post.
The beginning paragraph is lifted from Mrs2be.
Another blog post from Lemon Tree.
Another blog post by LemonTree.
I can’t find the source for the wedding dress image but here is the article as seen on She Knows funny, it doesn’t sound like the author’s name is Mandy.
100% all of their own work eh?
Earlier use of stock on their blog:
The girls in the poppies are a stock image.
Here’s what their Facebook page looked like before they shut it down.
Now here’s what Carston sent to me:
I cannot find this image on Dreamtime via image search if it is a stock image there, I cannot locate it.
It’s sure been interesting hearing all of the justifications regarding this mess. Here’s some of my favorites!
Any stock pictures used were bought and paid for to create advertising.
There has been no misrepresentation of my work.
My work is better than any of the stock images presented.
Using some stock images to create an association to a product is perfectly legal, non intrusive and somewhat necessary these days in a world where thievery is abundant. Do you really think I want my work stolen like all the items you post up here?
Our blog sites uses 100% of our own images because we are blogging about our work. Our main site only has a couple stock images used to fill the gap where needed.
We did in fact use stock photography on our facebook banner and a couple of product images on our website, and are completely OK with this. This choice was based on not having a perfect image to place there at the time we were trying to launch.
… we have since removed any stock images which might be interpreted as representing our own work and replaced with our own. All of our galleries, session posts and banners are still 100% our own work.
… by purchasing a stock photo we are supporting our fellow photographers and the industry.
At no point did we claim any purchased image to be ours, nor did/do we suspect that a potential customer could base their decision to use our services on the items in question.
I was also unaware that some of our written content was plagiarized, and am working to fix the issue. Using stock photography in a written article is a non issue. We are not ashamed of doing so.
In closing here’s the bottom line issue with using stock images in a gallery of a photographer’s works, be it on a website or Facebook. Clients are booking you based on the images they see. No two photographers are a like and the images they booked you on are most likely NOT going to be what their end result is. The images used on Lemontree are a clear case of this. The images above they used in their wedding portfolio to “fill in the gap” are cleanly edited and shot in a traditional style. The images from the weddings they actually have photographed are NOTHING like the stock images. The style and editing are vastly different and even a non-photographer can tell the difference between the two.
Why do I care? Because people like Lemontree come in to a market using images that took years of training and experience to create and pricing themselves as a newcomer. Clients shop around and this means that for every session Lemontree and other photographers that use images in their galleries that they did not create themselves book, someone that has never once misrepresented themselves has lost the client to photographers like Lemontree. Furthermore, once the client is “burned” by one of these photographers, how likely are they to test the waters again? I’ve heard many stories of clients who were ripped off and would never pay a professional again because of the experience.
A message from Carston:
As stated, we have never stolen a photo. You are accusing us of doing so. We have made a formal apology to the community for using some stock photos.
Please correct the accusations of theft. I was also unaware of any plagiarized content on our site and it has been rectified.
Text doesn’t just jump onto your blog or website, someone puts it there. You didn’t realize someone would find out you plagiarized and I’m sorry but that IS theft – even if you didn’t technically steal a picture you stole someone’s words. You didn’t list a source, you paired it with a stock image and your signature. I don’t care if it’s gone now that you were caught. It’s something you should NEVER have done in the first place. While there may be some grey area in your eyes for using stock images in your gallery to represent your work, I can’t imagine that even you see the grey area in plagiarizing.