anne-marie-photography_0003

Anne-Marie Photography in Putney, Vermont

Website:  http://www.anne-mariephotography.com/
Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/AnneMariePhotographyNE/timeline

The portraits all appear to be her original work, however the wedding images are not.

Website:

Original source (stock)

anne-marie-photography_0001

Original photographer

anne-marie-photography_0002

Original source

anne-marie-photography_0003

Original source / Original photographer

anne-marie-photography_0004

Facebook:

Original source  (more is copied than highlighted)

anne-marie-photography_0005

  • CrackerJacker

    Looks like the offending photos are gone already! That might be a record….

    • Marc W.

      And now FB not opening.

      • Photo Stealers

        FB is working for me, bio is still there from The Pioneer Woman.

        • Marc W.

          Ah, the link you have up there doesn’t load on mobile. I’d recommend moving the /timeline part of the URL.

    • chuck knuckles

      It opens for me. The only two pictures in the portfolio are generic ‘farm’ pictures.

  • Helena

    Wowser. That was quick.

  • tmmiokhal

    I suspect she’s blocking people from FB considering I just checked and it’s still up and fully available to me…for now anyway. lol

  • U Really That Dumb?

    Likely she has it set to US only.

  • Andrew

    Looks like she just added 2 more wedding stock images on her website home page…

    • V323

      Wow, that’s pretty brazen.

    • CrackerJacker

      Fauxtographer unclear on the concept. Good luck getting images that match this look from her, prospective clients!

      At least she doesn’t watermark the stock images…

    • Celine (peaceetc)

      *sigh* She doesn’t get it, does she?

      Anne-Marie, if you see this — you’re a photographer. As such, you shouldn’t use others’ images to represent your business. At all. It’s extremely misleading, as potential clients should hire you on your actual work, not what you wish you could do. If you don’t have work to use, then go out there and work for it. Don’t take the easy route, like you’ve apparently already done. Just do it right.

  • Anne-Marie Photography

    I am beyond remorseful for having those images one my site. I started a photography business 2 months ago, and needless to say, it was much more an undertaking than I anticipated. I have done everything myself, from marketing materials, to my website, and so on. I should have read about the legalities of photography before I went ahead and even tried to get my business off the ground. I had no idea (until now) that using those images (which I found by searching google for”free wedding stock photos”) was illegal or even immoral. I feel like an idiot now, because after this whole mess I looked into it all and it seems so blatantly obvious now. Photographers work really hard to capture such beautiful images, and they should be getting all the credit for those images. I honestly just didn’t think about it. And that is totally my fault. So, I have since taken the images down. I did, however, purchase 2 stock photos and I put those up. After reading shutter stock I thought that was totally legal. But now, I am thinking even more, that ethically, it is still wrong. Although I have not and never would, claim those images were mine or taken by me, I can still see how that might be very misleading. I will need to make right on that too. I apologize profusely to the photographers that shot the photos I had used. There work is exquisite and deserves recognition, but not in this way. I feel absolutely horrible about all of this. Thank you to everyone on here for teaching me a real life lesson here, and helping me realize I have to this about things before I do them. I really am mortified. I plan to go out and find a couple getting married that I could photograph free of charge to get my wedding photography experience. Or possibly another photographer that would let me be a second shooter. I absolutely love photography, and chose to leave my career in corporate America for it. The last thing I want is for anyone to think I am not earning my way in the photography world. From this moment on, I promise to do just that. – My sincerest apologies, Anne-Marie

    • Marc W.

      “I did, however, purchase 2 stock photos and I put those up. After reading shutter stock I thought that was totally legal.”

      Have you read the Shutter Stock EULA? I’m guessing not because you missed this!

      c.RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF VISUAL CONTENT
      YOU MAY NOT:
      ix. Falsely represent, expressly or by way of reasonable implication, that any Visual Content was created by you or a person other than the copyright holder(s) of that Visual Content.

      source: http://www.shutterstock.com/license

      So um, yeah.

      “Although I have not and never would, claim those images were mine or taken by me, I can still see how that might be very misleading.”

      You’re a “photographer” and you put photos in your PORTFOLIO that you didn’t shot…. what did you think people would think?

      “I apologize profusely to the photographers that shot the photos I had used.”

      Did you? Did you really? I don’t mean on here… I mean TO THEM? Did you offer compensation for using their work for commercial gain for 2 months?

      “Thank you to everyone on here for teaching me a real life lesson here, and helping me realize I have to this about things before I do them. I really am mortified.”

      Maybe don’t think that owning some gear is all you need to have a business. A photography business is mostly business with a small tiny part doing photography.

      • Anne-Marie Photography

        I never put those photographs in my portfolio. I had them on my pricing sheet. I hear what you are saying though. Again, I am sorry and that is all I can say. The bashing is not needed, we all needed to start somewhere.

        • Marc W.

          Yes, we all start somewhere… we start by learning. Be it about photography (ie. shadowing / 2nd shooting / etc) or business (ie. learning about laws, rules, just plain business, etc).

          Speaking of, have you registered your business with the local government? Did you even check if it’s required?

          • Marc W.

            I did not find your other company (which you state is an INC) or Anne-Marie Photography as incorporated (or possibly as registered business database) based on the Vermont Business search site thingy.

          • Anne-Marie

          • U Really That Dumb?

            Then you aren’t incorporated. You can’t have it both ways. Perhaps your attorney helping you deal with your IP theft can help you follow all of the laws.

          • Marc W.

            Fair enough concerning your photography business, what about the other?

          • Anne-Marie

            The other company is registered. I have the paperwork. The company is not actively in business anymore. Recently, when I left my job to work from home, I was going to start it back up. But decided not to.

        • chuck knuckles

          Anne-Marie, are you charging taxes to your customers and NOT paying it back to the govt? How do you do that as an unregistered company? Or are you not charging taxes at all for work done? I’m sure your local, state and federal governments would love to look into your shady business practices (if only there were some way to let them know…)

          OWNING A CAMERA DOES NOT MAKE YOU A PHOTOGRAPHER!
          IT JUST MAKE YOU A “CAMERA OWNER”, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WHOLE WORLD. You are not special, or even very good.

      • Heather MacEachern

        I am one of the photographers whose image was on her site and no, Anne-Marie did not apoligize to me, return my phone call or offer me any compensation for using an image I took illegally on her website for 2 months.

        • U Really That Dumb?

          Shocking that she would lie about this!
          No, no it’s not. It’s actually commonplace amongst thieves outed here. They hope that people believe the lies they pile on.

          If I were you I’d send her a bill and if she fails to pay you have enough evidence to win hands down. Especially with her continued lies on this page.

          Good luck!

    • U Really That Dumb?

      Looks like you’ve been caught lying again.
      When exactly are you going to come clean and start telling the truth? Remember, the web never forgets and how you respond will impact you the rest of your life.

      • Photo Stealers

        To be fair, I think she is saying she apologizes profusely – not that she already had.

    • Photo Stealers

      Thank you for your apology. Hopefully you can make things right with Heather.

      • Anne-Marie

        I am trying very hard to do just that. I absolutely will.

  • Leisa Billings-Hart

    So you want them to stop doing this , so they send an apology, you tear it to pieces, decided that it’s not genuine enough and then crucify her anyways? Thank you for the example of this act for my article. I am writing a full length feature on exactly what you do here. It started as a freelance article about patroling artistic “borrowing” and the more I read and researched the more it evolved. This does not appear in any way to be about “cleaning up the photography business”. Even those who do respectfully apologize to you, admit to their wrongs and try to make amends, are received with distasteful comments, name calling, personal and artistic criticism, rude remarks and of course, if there is not a monetary offer involved in the “acceptance of their wrongs and making things right”, they face retribution by your followers all over their web sites, review sites, your blogs, FaceBook and any other family or friends associated with these people that you can “reach out and touch”. It sure appears to me that what you are after has nothing to do with a cause for the good. You are out for money and harm. I will forward you a copy of my article when it’s finished. I have been collecting screen shots like this for some time. I think this last one makes enough to show your patterns.

    • U Really That Dumb?

      Leisa,
      Apparently comprehensive reading skills are lacking if you claim they are actually remorseful. In order to be remorseful they have to actually NOT be lying. However, you fail to comprehend the fact that the majority of the time, the thief continues to lie. So perhaps you should go through and reevaluate your article and gather actual facts and not just the opinion of past thieves.

    • U Really That Dumb?

      Leisa,

      You also failed miserably at reading the post from one of the people she stole from. Perhaps you’d like some help interpreting this.

      Short version: Anne-Marie LIED about apologizing. End of story!
      http://stopstealingphotos.com/anne-marie-photography-putney-vermont/#comment-2681252021

      • Anne-Marie Photography

        Again, I am not sure why you are referring to. I never lied about apologizing.

        • U Really That Dumb?

          So now you’re claiming that Heather is lying?

          • U Really That Dumb?

            Heather MacEachern Marc W. • 16 hours ago

            I am one of the photographers whose image was on her site and no, Anne-Marie did not apoligize to me, return my phone call or offer me any compensation for using an image I took illegally on her website for 2 months.

          • Anne-Marie

            I absolutely never said that. I called Heather and left her a voicemail today. Is it possible she wrote that before receiving my voicemail? Why would I lie about contacting her? She is the one that deserves my apology the most. Not any of the critics on this site (no offense).

          • U Really That Dumb?

            You called her “today”. So NOT before you wrote the apology yesterday?

          • Anne-Marie

            I didn’t know who the photographer was yesterday. I also didn’t lie in the apology I wrote yesterday. I never said that I had reached out to her when I wrote that yesterday. Please re-read it.

          • U Really That Dumb?

            The links are clear as day above. How could you “not know”.
            Also, you were given ample warning prior to this post going live. You decided you didn’t have to listen.

          • Anne-Marie

            What are you talking about? I was not given any ample warning of anything. Yesterday, a photographer in Canada messaged me on Facebook and asked me if I knew that all the images on my website needed to be my own. After that, she sent me a link to this page and I was on it. I took the pricing sheets (which the photos were on) down from my site the moment she alerted me. Do you want me to send you screenshots from my phone? This is absurd. You do not know me and have no right to attack my character. I immediately apologized for what I had done, after learning it was not okay. What are you trying to prove? Again, I am terribly sorry those images were on my website for 9 days, and seen by no-one since my website gets absolutely no traffic since I am just starting out. I also received a whopping zero wedding clients or inquiries from the 9 days those sheets were on my site. What do you want from me?

          • U Really That Dumb?

            Again you’re saying Heather is lying.
            Read her comment.

          • U Really That Dumb?

            Have you written her a check for the commercial use now that you have her information?

          • Anne-marie

            I will consult with Heather about that when she returns my phone call.

          • U Really That Dumb?

            How about apologizing to the other photographer you stole from?
            What about sending the appropriate funds to Shutter Stock?

    • U Really That Dumb?

      You ALSO failed to comprehend the fact that she was given prior warnings by the people she stole from to remove the stolen images and she decided that she didn’t have to listen to them.

      But again, you claim you read everything.

      Would you like links to the countless other thieves that are still lying?

      You can also get the links to the people that actually cleaned up their act, but I’m guessing that would undermine the “facts” you’re claiming in your article.

      • Anne-Marie Photography

        I am not sure what you mean, here. What prior warnings did I have?

    • U Really That Dumb?

      Lesia,
      You may also want to look at court records for past thieves. Not only have they lost in court, but some have had multiple attorneys fire them because they not only have no case, but have been the ones harassing this page and people who have commented. Heck, one thief is looking at international charges if she continues with the harassment.
      So before you decide you have “all the facts”, you should probably make sure you have all sides of the story and not just the side of the people caught stealing.

    • Celine (peaceetc)

      Leisa, there is more to the story you haven’t seen. Anne-Marie’s apology is appreciated, but important details were left out. It’s not up to me to divulge them here, but there is always more than what is seen on here.

      If you are writing an article, I do hope you will take the time to interview those on the other side of this issue, namely the person who runs this site, the photographers who have had their work stolen, and how people in the photography community feel about the site and the work it does.

      You’ve already expressed a clear bias on the matter, so you’ll forgive me if I don’t see that you will make an effort to look at all sides of the issue.

    • chuck knuckles

      “respectfully apologize”????
      She hasn’t “respectfully apologized” to anyone. Explain how she has, please!
      Have you contacted Heather MacEachern and the other VICTIMS from whom she stole images, to ask them about these ghost-apologies? I’m sure your due diligence has taken you there long before you came here to claim otherwise. Right?

      • Anne-marie

        I left a voicemail for Heather MacEachern. The other photo was stock photography, so I am unclear about who to reach out to, since I am not certain there is any harm done in that one case.

        • U Really That Dumb?

          PLEASE reread the post above and actually click on the links.

        • chuck knuckles

          So when you wrote here yesterday stating that you had already respectfully apologized, you were lying, correct?
          You tried contacting her today to cover for yesterdays lie, correct?

          So even after she receives this apology, it does not change the fact that you LIED here yesterday, and tried today to cover for it today, correct?

  • Leisa Hart

    Anne- Marie,

    I have been contacting people who’s information I have seen on this site. I am interested in interviewing you for an article and getting your side of what has happened to you as a result of this action. I would like to know about harassing personal messages, phone calls, threats, requests for money and facebook or Twitter harassment. Please email me @ bothsidesout@gmail.com!

  • U Really That Dumb?

    And? You still don’t address the comments she made.

    • Anne-Marie

      Again, I am waiting for her to return my call. I left her a voicemail apologizing and asking her to reach out to me. Are you going to tell me you are sorry for accusing me of lying, yet?

      • U Really That Dumb?

        Heather MacEachern Marc W. • 16 hours ago

        I am one of the photographers whose image was on her site and no, Anne-Marie did not apoligize to me, return my phone call or offer me any compensation for using an image I took illegally on her website for 2 months.