Here’s a thought: if you are called out for using stolen images as ads for your mini sessions delete *all* the stolen photos you’ve used, not just the ones called out.
Then, also don’t do whatever the fuck this idiot idea is:
You cannot use images that you do not have the copyright to for advertisement of your own photography work. Not privately, not publicly.
I noticed that she has cropped out watermarks so she’s aware of what she’s doing and could have easily found the original sources and asked for permission (at least sometimes) but chose not to.
It seems that the Milwaukee area as a whole is having an issue with wedding photographers in the market – SB Photography, who I’m told is pretty popular, has been getting called out for a few months for missing deadlines. The owner made a 2ish HOUR “apology” on You Tube. Gotta monetize that shit! There’s a thread on Reddit that’s been getting continued comments from more and more brides.
Updated 8/21/2024: Britany decided to threaten a lawsuit against me claiming slander but then chose to come to the original Facebook Post about her to lie about me/Photo Stealers (apparently a guy named Ed works with me on this page? NEWS TO ME!) and just being an absolute menace.
Since she’s being such an utter chaos gremlin I’m updating this post with not only more proof of her using images on her website that she did not create but also stories from one of her “clients” who is rightfully upset with the images they received from Britany’s ‘associate’ that she sent that had never photographed a wedding before.
I got married in the Outer Banks so I’m in a lot of groups related to it since it’s one of my favorite places on Earth. I also still have a great relationship with my wedding photographers so I feel protective of the photographers in the area.
This morning I saw a post come across my feed that was alerting people that Bluegrass Photography, who for was advertising *really* cheap mini sessions ($45) for the Outer Banks (I’m assuming while she is there on vacation, she does not live there), uses images in her ads that aren’t her own.
Cue the research don’t undercut my beloved photographers AND have stolen images! Also, this isn’t everything from the FB group but I have places to be today so I had to cut it off.
Last September, I received numerous messages from various people questioning Meg’s newest “medium” as she called it. Many were curious if it was actually AI as there were some tells (fingers being the big one). Meg was denying they were AI creations and I took the issue to Substack. While I was confident in her use of AI I wasn’t sure if it was a fit for the blog.
Eventually I got more messages and someone pointed me to MidJourney as the likely place that Meg was actually creating this art, not in Photoshop as she claimed. I dug in and discovered her username which showed her creations and yes, many of her new pieces being sold in her shop and posted to her social media were from MidJourney.
Eventually it was just too much for Substack so I made a post here, notating at the top she hadn’t stolen photos (but did include the infamous Troll image that was used for a sale ad she didn’t have permission to use). I outlined the numerous pieces that were actually from MidJourney and Meg’s claims they were not AI.
Around this time I got a few messages from various people pointing out that Meg’s shop, Meg Bitton Productions, actually was selling items that she also didn’t have the rights to redistribute and despite her claims in the comments of most of these listings, she did not own the intellectual property rights to all the pieces within. To be honest, I just didn’t have the time to dedicate to it then AND I wasn’t up for another battle at the time.
Fast forward to March when I received a barrage of rambling incoherent messages from Meg alerting me to the fact she’s been sent some kind of letter from a past thief (it seems that she’s alluding to AEllis and 17 others) wanting her to join their cause. We had some back and forth where I offered to take her post down in exchange for the letter after consulting my legal team, which apparently is *not* what she wanted and I had misunderstood her and sent her into another tailspin.
There’s a lot of messages but here’s just one that I think captures the essence of what I’ve been sent over the past couple weeks by Meg.
I honestly thought perhaps she had me confused with someone else. The only posts I have made about her on Photo Stealers is about the AI content. It’s possible I commented on others posts online when she’s come under fire for her controversial images but I never posted a blog about them. If you have no idea what I’m talking about this blog covers it well (not by me to be VERY clear).
The messages continued in fever dream akin to “Willy’s Chocolate Experience.” Meg claims over and over she’s never stolen anything and she also claims I am the one who stole her words and thoughts to gain traffic. I used screen captures in the post (fair use) to tell the story about her using AI images and denying they were AI.
So… I went back to the old messages. I started my research. Once I started digging in I realized what a Pandora’s Box I got into.
This post likely doesn’t even scratch the surface. You’d think after my experience with Lisa Saad I’d be very experienced with searching teeny tiny bits and bobs but apparently not. If you sell any kind of overlay/brush/stock images you may want to peruse the store to make sure your copyrighted items are not being resold here as well.
I’ve verified with many of the original artists directly and confirmed they are the original artists. I’ve also confirmed with them that they have not privately sold distribution rights to Meg/Meg Bitton Productions as the platforms most of these are hosted on do not allow distribution of the files.
TLDR; Meg Bitton is selling overlays, brushes and other various bits and bobs that are not her own original works and she does not have the right to resell.
Is this also a mistake? You be the judge I guess.
Admittedly I am terrible at this video overlay stuff but I’m trying since I know due to Meg’s manipulations some are harder to see. In my opinion, these haven’t been transformed enough to be considered unique even IF that was permitted with a license (and not all of these items are stock).
List of collections sourced below:
This is a running list of the packages for sale that I’ve found at least one item that is not Meg’s original copyrighted work.
This wall of shame is dedicated to photographers that feel that it's okay to steal others' work and post it as their own. Oh I'm sorry, it's okay to let their "web designer" do it.
