DanaNichole_0001

Dana Nichole Photography in Kansas City, Missouri

Website: http://www.dananichole.com/

Blog:  http://dananichole.com/blog/

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/dananicholephotography

Craigslist: http://kansascity.craigslist.org/bfs/4405757468.html

Crowd Savings:  http://www.crowdsavings.com/kansas-city/23486-dana-nichole-photography

Yelp: http://www.yelp.com/biz/dana-nichole-photography-kansas-city-2

One question I get a lot is why is wedding images the most featured here.  Partially it is because I’m a wedding photographer so that’s what I’m naturally drawn to but also these images tend to be the most stolen.  Many photographers start out doing portraits but then decide they are going to “break into” weddings because they see that’s where the money is at (never you mind that weddings are more expensive because they are much harder!).  Since they do not have their own portfolio to draw from for advertising, they use others.  This happens in other genres too (boudoir is second runner up!) but weddings seem to be the biggest money draw is so therefore it’s the category that’s most often featured.  I’m going to be doing a FAQ post soon, feel free to comment with your burning questions.

Her website appears to  be clear due to the lack of wedding images but the other sites are not so clean, including her blog which I find amusing that she disabled right clicks on.

Update 04/17/2014 @ 9:00AM

The owner/husband of the owner have commented below claiming the issue was only with the ONE Craigslist ad and the images were all from free wedding image websites.  I already showed images from the blog and Facebook, added images from the second Craigslist ad that included the recessional with the petals.

Note, it doesn’t matter if you are using free stock images (which all of these images are not stock imagery) it is dishonest to use these images to represent your personal body of work as a photographer, often it is also against the TOS of the stock image site.

Original photographer

DanaNichole_0007

Unknown original source

DanaNichole_0008

Unknown original source

DanaNichole_0009

Original source

DanaNichole_0010

Unknown original source

DanaNichole_0011

Original source

DanaNichole_0001

Original source

DanaNichole_0002

Unknown original source

DanaNichole_0003

Unknown original source

DanaNichole_0004

Unknown original source

DanaNichole_0005

Unknown original source

DanaNichole_0006

 

Unknown original source

DanaNichole_0012

Unknown original source

DanaNichole_0013

Original source

DanaNichole_0014

 

  • Joseph Philbert

    They cleaned up a bit.

    • Just a Girl

      Lol she deleted your comment after she said Thanks!

      • Joseph Philbert

        And blocked too

        • Justin Case

          aww, Joseph, you’re just misunderstood.

    • Photo Stealers

      She had been doing some cleaning up between when I got her information and when she was outed.

      • doncalifornia

        I wonder how that happens. Is it that the people reporting her to you are also sending her messages about her photos? Or they are getting hold of original photographers who then hit her with messages? It’s weird how all of a sudden they feel someone’s looking over their shoulder and so they start cleaning up before the hammer comes down.

        • Justin Case

          Basically, you’ve hit it on the head. I think that by the time they are reported here, some of the aggrieved photographers have already been notified. I know that when I have noticed people being listed on the Facebook site or on the ‘About Me’ page, I look up some of the original photographers and let them know. I think it’s only fair, and keeps the original photographer’s options open and prevents them from being broadsided by some of the bile that gets spewed by people outed here.

          • ZenInsight

            We were more than broadsided. See my first post. We had no idea..and NOTHING on any part of any of our stuff was stolen. Only the Craig’s list ad had pics that were not commercial..and we didn’t know. This site is not about helping photographers keep their stuff safe, it’s a smear campaign site that attacks people before even giving them the benefit of the doubt.

          • Justin Case

            sorry, I was saying the photographers who have been stolen FROM should not be broadsided. The ones who do the stealing know what they have done.

          • Joseph Philbert

            What do you mean its not about helping photographers .. who do you think created the images you used as ads? A monkey?

          • doncalifornia

            Yeah that makes sense. These people always seem to know they’ve been caught, right before they are outed, and they go into preservation mode.

          • Justin Case

            and I think this whole thread actually makes this point. In spades.

      • ZenInsight

        Nope. Nothing was cleaned. that’s why it’s so confusing. Only the Craigslist ad had the problem. We did not know…also we APOLOGIZED and removed it the second we heard. But no…people have to make up stuff to harm someone with any consideration of the real truth. What is the point of this site, to help photographers or to hurt people that may have made a mistake. So sad. Really. I explained exactly what happened in the top post.

        • Photo Stealers

          There were images on the blog and on Facebook. This is not “just” a Craigslist issue.

    • ZenInsight

      NO. We didn’t clean up ANYTHING. See my post above. We removed the Craigslist ad, which we did not intentionally take anyone’s photos from their site…it was 6 pics from some free photo site that ripped them off the web. It wasn’t done on purpose and no one cared to ask. The second we heard we fixed it and were flagged anyway. See my post.

      • Aubrey

        I don’t know about the craigslist stuff. Only how my work was involved in this.. My work was stolen and posted on your Facebook page. Soo……

        • ZenInsight

          What pic? One that she liked Does it say she took it?

          • Photo Stealers

            This image was posted by Dana. Not liked. Not shared. No credit to another photographer. No clause stating this is an image that was not taken by Dana. Posted by Dana Nichole Photography with an ad for her photography services.

          • ZenInsight

            Direct link to this please!

          • Aubrey

            Here is a screen shot. This is theft. It doesn’t have to say “taken by Dana Nichole Photography” to be theft and completely dishonest. She stole this from my site and posted it on her page. It’s black and white. There is no gray area in this.

        • ZenInsight

          there are tons of photos that she liked and posted… Aren’t there?

      • Photo Stealers

        There were two Craigslist ads not one.

        • ZenInsight

          Yep. the second has NO copyrighted photos.

          • Photo Stealers

            They both had images that were not Dana’s. The first was full of images that were NOT stock, the second was full of stock images. NEITHER ad has/had all her own original work.

        • ZenInsight

          You just can’t admit that may be this was a mistake. Too much ego involved huh.

          • Photo Stealers

            No ego at all. There is no mistake. Those images presented in the ads on Craigslist nor the ad on Facebook nor on the blog were taken by Dana.

          • ZenInsight

            there are tons of images on the facebook blog she likes. I told here if they are not watermarked to apply credit. She never thought about it. the craigslist ad had images that were on a free site..they were not as we were told and took them down immeditely.

            The newer images are from here.

            http://all-free-download.com/f

            And they state:

            License: Public Domain Dedication (You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.)

            But this site isn’t interested in the well being of all involved. it’s just an attack sqaud.

          • Joseph Philbert

            I bet a weeks pay the stole images are NOT on that site.

  • captain-confuzzled

    lololololol

    • BullShite

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
      Oh my GOD, that was AWESOME.

    • doncalifornia

      um…. you’re… welcome.

    • Joseph Philbert

      Dies!!..

  • BullShite

    You know what I think it is with the wedding photography with the FAKERS??
    If you are outside of the industry, and just decide that you would like to buy an expensive camera and be a “photographer”….. in this world of instantaneous digital imagery, and easy to use photo editing/enhancing programs, along with the fact that these people tend to charge ridiculously LOW, unlivable prices for their “work”…. they must assume that one of the only things that people will actually pay money for is WEDDINGS.

    If you think about it: that is the ONE DAY you will not ever be able to replicate. You could always replicate a bad portrait, or a picture of your sleeping newborn… but not a wedding, so that is something that the potential bride/groom would, in the mind of the FAKER be willing to spend “good” money on.

    You can TELL these people think this, because this is where they start…. never-mind that it would seem to me (I’m barely an amateur with photos, so I could be very wrong, not my industry) that weddings would be HARD. I mean with the travel expenses, the amount of running around you would have to do, the hundreds and hundreds of shots… I am sure I am missing a lot here…but that is my opinion as someone that is totally outside the industry.

  • “Dana isa Seventh Day Adventist Christian whose number one desire is to serve the Lord” hehehe this makes me giggle. I wonder when she’ll play the God card. And then “Dana Nichole photography delivers a truly unique style”… hahahahaa
    This is too much.

    • BullShite

      The Jesus people seem to have the WORST morals.

      • ZenInsight

        The secular people seem to have the MOST judgement

        • BullShite

          Yes, well I find it funny that you don’t consider the FACT that if your God exists, that this JUST MIGHT be a way of punishing the BOTH of you for being liars and frauds? I DO believe that there is no moral ambiguity in the fact that all judeo-Christian religions CONDEMN theft, and lying. Perhaps your God is just as pissed off as the photographers you stole from and the “judgemental” people like me who take this sort of thing seriously.

          I’m an atheist, and I would NEVER EVER dream of taking someone’s image of the internet and passing it off as my own, or using it to promote my business without permission, or FAIRLY paying for it. That is just how I roll, because I was raised with a MORAL COMPASS in a heathen religionless home, and I don’t even have the fear of eternal Hell fire or a pissed off Jesus to scare me into submission. I’m just a responsible adult. How come YOU and your “wife” have such an issue being one??

          I WOULD RATHER BE A JUDGMENTAL ATHEIST THAN A WILLING THIEF PLAYING HYPOCRITICAL LIP-SERVICE TO GOD.

          • ZenInsight

            Your argument makes zero sense.

          • Zero sense to an idiot in denial. I don’t follow your god, hence I’m not breaking any of his rules like you do by lying and stealing.. and I get the added benefit of judging you two as liars and thieves. It’s a nice deal if I have to be honest. 🙂

  • TC

    After looking through some of her own work I can see why she would want to steal others pictures. Yikes, it ranges from bad to horrible. She doesn’t have far to fall on Yelp either as she is only sitting at 3 stars to start with.

    • ZenInsight

      Hey guess what. Yelp SUCKS. We had a bunch of customer try to post great reviews and Yelp HID the comments. We gave up on that stupid site…it didn’t work for us. There is a way you can view hidden comments. Dana cares about her customer. Do you know she GIVE PICS AWAY FOR FREE to people who can not afford them! NO ONE THINKS.

      • No one cares. You know why. Because this uber-generous untalented hack of a wife steals photos from professional photographers and claims them as her own. If she didn’t do that, people would care about her giving away crappy photos she took.

  • ZenInsight

    What a total crock. Fully lying. First of all. She didn’t clean ANYTHING up, except for the single informed ad from Craigslist which she had NO IDEA was not commercially available pictures, because she didn’t make the ad. I did. I am her husband.

    I feel really sorry for people that do this. Did anyone consider asking “Did you know your pics on Craigslist were copyrighted?”. NO, it becomes an instant smear campaign . Talk about morally corrupt people.

    The second we heard that the images were not stock (which were found on sites offering FREE wedding photos” we removed them. There WERE NO other photos ANYWHERE, on any part of any blog, or Facebook, or anything else. Yet even though the pics in question were removed and the as reports with Commercially available fee pics, an attack began on her Facebook page.

    Does anyone ever consider kindness to someone that may not have done something intentionally.

    This is the world today, attack first, don’t bother to have any compassion for anyone else life. And then brag about it.

    Good job. Also, make sure to state more falsehoods, like how someones pic (which has THEIR SIG ON IT) on her blog, which she never claimed her own, is stealing.

    Wow.

    • ZenInsight

      If anyone in here is a REAL photographer, then rather than humiliate someone, and harm their teeny tiny, makes no money for years and then less than 5k only last year business, I dare you to stand up to me face to face to discuss the issue. It wasn’t intentional! Stop creating all these false accusation, and “cleaning up” etc. We didn’t clean anything..because we didn’t have to. this was only an issue on Craigslist and was fixed within 5 minutes of knowing.

      Unbelievable.

      • Photo Stealers

        Maybe that’s a sign that one should stop trying to be a photographer and instead should enjoy it as a hobby.

        This isn’t a false accusation. Those images belong to photographers other than Dana.

        • ZenInsight

          You are ignoring the point. WE DID NOT KNOW. You don’t care about photographers…just about smear campaigns.

          • CB

            How in the world can you claim that you DID NOT KNOW???

            Im pretty sure I’m aware if I took a photo with my own camera or not.

            Did your wife take the photos she’s advertising with? No? THEN SHE CANNOT USE THEM TO ADVERTISE A PHOTOGRAPHY BUSINESS.

            You claim it’s “legal” which may or may not be true, since that website probably steals from photographers themselves – but that still doesn’t change the fact that it is illegal via false advertising – not copyright infringement. It is still breaking the law. So just stop. You’re acting a fool.

    • Joseph Philbert

      Let me put it this way 99.9 % of the images you see online are copyrighted with or without watermarks unless otherwise stated.

      • ZenInsight

        Except our own. We didn’t watermark anything. Go look.

        • Joseph Philbert

          Do you even understand what copyright means ??? A watermark has nothing to do with copyright.
          Once the images is captured its is copyrighted to the person who pressed the shutter button.

          Marks or no marks that is how it works .. I suggest you read up on it.

          • ZenInsight

            Clearly you don’t understand that I am saying we were not concerned with people taking or using the photos. I understand the legality aspect.

        • Joseph Philbert

          Q: Who owns the copyright in a photograph once it is taken?

          In general, when the shutter is released, the photographer who pressed the button owns the copyright. An exception is when the image falls into the “work-made-for-hire”(also known as “work for hire”) category. A work-made-for-hire relationship is created in two situations: (1) the photographer is an employee hired to take photographs for the employer—an example would be a photojournalist who is an employee of a newspaper but not a wedding or portrait photographer who is hired for one event; or (2) the photographer is hired to provide photographs for collective works or compilations and signs a written agreement that specifically states that the work is to be considered a work made for hire. Therefore, freelance photographers are subjected to work-for-hire status only when they agree to it contractually.

    • BullShite

      I am going to start a business where I offer to paint portraits of people. I bought some expensive art supplies, and set up a free website, and I’ve watched some Bob Ross… I think I am READY now!! Maybe I am not so good at it, like some of the portraits I’ve seen online, so I am going to “borrow” some “free” “stock” images I found of other paintings to advertise my business. No one should be pissed off if what I do is not as good as the images I used…. it’s JUST A PAINTING!

      DO YOU GET IT NOW???

      • ZenInsight

        NO. What are you talking about. We can use free commerical stock pictures as layout examples. That doesn’t mean you flag people.

        • BullShite

          You can NOT advertise photography and use someone else’s photos. It’s SIMPLE. Someone looking at an ad for photographers is going to see these gorgeous and amazing photos and think they are hers. THEY ARE NOT.

          WAKE UP.

          • ZenInsight

            WRONG. We stated they were examples and commercially available.

          • Photo Stealers

            You are wrong. There is nothing in this ad that states the wedding images are not Dana’s, she mentions that the albums are examples of what is available but makes no references to the wedding images. She then goes on to say “to see the quality of our other work” which implies that these images shown are hers.

            Before you come in here blasting everyone it may be best if you have your facts straight. I’m not sure if Dana hasn’t told you everything or if you haven’t even looked at the blog post above but you are not doing Dana any favors.

          • ZenInsight

            I PUT THOSE THERE. I got them from a site that search in Google as freee. It was FOREVER AGO. I UNDERSTAND, they were not. I removed them within 10 minutes of finding out!!

            I’m glad we were told so I could replace them with these:

            The images are from here.

            http://all-free-download.com/f

            And they state:

            License: Public Domain Dedication (You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.)

            AND I stated they were examples and commercially license to use as free.

          • Photo Stealers

            There is nothing in this ad that states they were examples. Also not all images used were stock.

          • ZenInsight

            Wrong again. I have the whole ad. Look at the bottom…the asterisk say ITs….

            (pasting from ad)

            *pics in this ad are used only to show examples of books or location based ideas, and are licensed and commercially available to use*

          • ZenInsight

            So….. NOW what?

            Are you still going to keep the commercially usable images up?

            That’s why this site is not legitimate. It’s just a smear campaign.

          • CrackerJacker

            Wrong. See below.

          • Photo Stealers

            I have the whole ad, there is no asterisk. Perhaps you changed it before it was flagged for deletion but the original ad had no such disclaimer beyond stating the albums were examples.

          • ZenInsight

            I changed it and added that within 10 minutes of finding about about this. Some another admittance that we were in the right there.

            thanks

          • CrackerJacker

            So you stopped lying once you got called on it? Bravo, sir. You are the hero here.

        • CrackerJacker

          What is a “layout example”?

  • ZenInsight

    I fully expect to see my comments deleted, because who has the guts to be kind enough to say, “well, may be we made a mistake. Or may be we over-reacted. MAAAYYY be, this person sis not mean to cause any trouble and possibly is not understood.

    No…let’s continue what is much more fun. Stomping on people as soon as we have a chance to with no regard to their lives at all.

    • Joseph Philbert

      We would never (Photostealers) delete your comments 🙂

      • Photo Stealers

        Someone reported all of the comments as spam but I’ve restored them.

        • ZenInsight

          I’m sure they did. WHo would dare actually talk to me.

    • Justin Case

      Dana, I can understand you feel under attack and are lashing out. It is a perfectly understandable response, but it is not going to help. When you catch your breath, read though a few of the other posts here and see how it only gets worse when people try to justify what has happened as ‘just a mistake’ or ‘a misunderstanding.’

      First, what really upsets people is NOT the unlicensed use of someone else’s photos – ‘stock’ (a widely misunderstood word) or otherwise. That is certainly wrong, especially by someone who wants the same respect for her own work, but if this website tried to go after everyone on the web who used images without attribution or permission, well it would take over all available bandwidth worldwide.

      No, the point is that you are advertising your services as a PHOTOGRAPHER. EVERYTHING photographic that you use in ANY of your advertising should be your own work, or clearly and plainly labeled otherwise. That should be obvious. If you could mistakenly ignore that simple and obvious fact, I really don’t believe you are yet professional enough to be in business. Sorry.

      Lastly, you will likely find little sympathy here, even if deserved. We have heard all the excuses before and all the threats and name calling simply make things worse and last longer. You can thank all the photo stealers who have come before for that.

      Best to take 24 hours, shut things down and think this through. The best way to deal is with full transparency. Contact whomever you can track down and offer to compensate them for the use of their images. Post on your blog, clearly and openly, what has happened and why you are addressing this issue now. Don’t blame others – no one forced your hand to make those posts or use those images as if they were your own. A real, heartfelt apology – without qualification – will go a long way to making this all end sooner.

      • ZenInsight

        I am NOT Dana. I am her husband

  • Justin Case

    sorry to hear about your troubles. I think you have more important things to deal with than engaging here. Just take everything down until you can deal with it with a clear head.

    Sincerely, if you need to come and vent, I understand. If it makes you feel better, please go ahead.

    • ZenInsight

      Does it make me feel better? Seeing my wife cying and asking me to find doctors to get her antidepressants because the baby wakes up every hour on the hour ..is what is hurting me…not this. this is a bonus.

    • ZenInsight

      TAKE WHAT DOWN MAN!!!!!

      We don’t even know where the problem is at this point. The issue was one craigslist ad were I personally got pics from a free site.

      Instead o slaying us. help me figure out where the actual issue is.

  • BobCoolTX

    As a parent I sympathize with what you and Dana are going through with the health problems of your baby – I really do. I hope your baby recovers!
    But your personal life isn’t what’s on trial here – it’s your wife’s business decisions to publish photographs that she didn’t take and represented as her own to drive new business. That’s what this website is all about – outing “professional” photographers who continue to use other peoples’ work to pass off as their own. This website is providing a service to both the photographers who took the original photos and to any potential or current customers of the offending photographers.
    The best thing for you and Dana to do is to focus on your personal life, re-evaluate your business ethics, and come clean publicly. THEN start second-shooting for weddings, maybe for free or little money until _your work_ is good enough for you to use when advertising on your blog, your website, Craigslist, Facebook, whatever.

    • ZenInsight

      Do you sympathize with the bankruptcy we just did less than two weeks ago as well? No one in here cares if this wasn’t on purpose. no one.

      • Joseph Philbert

        Who the hell cares about your bankruptcy problems? Hell murders use that same excuse on the stand for a pity vote…smh

      • Ignorance isn’t a defense and the way your wife is running her business you are potentially looking at ANOTHER bankruptcy.

        Here are a few facts about copyright infringement.

        – Taking down the images in a timely manner doesn’t absolve you of the infringement. The original photographers can still sue you.

        – Copyright violation can go up to 150,000$ PER IMAGE! + 2500$ to 25000$ if watermarks were removed. Removing the images in a timely manner will reduce the damages the judge will assign but won’t make them go away.

        – ALL IMAGES ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT THE MOMENT THE IMAGE IS CREATED! Finding images on Google doesn;t make the picture free to use.

        – ANY use of an image requires a license from the original copyright holder. Now, you’ll claim “fair-use” but your wifes use of the images doesn’t fall into any of the fair use categories.

        Beyond copyright, you are also running afoul other laws … false advertising, fraud, violation of moral rights, stock photography license violations … YOU ARE IN WAY OVER YOUR HEAD!

        Pull everything off line now, inform yourselves of the relevant laws surrounding your business and start fresh.

        • ZenInsight

          Is a timely manner. 10 min?

          • CrackerJacker

            Did you read the rest of the sentence?

          • ZenInsight

            Sue for what? Having a pic on a site that is not your…in a commercial situation, requires removal of the pic. That was done… or is being looked at now. What is there to sue about?

        • ZenInsight

          Wrong. The second craigslist ad definitely used fair use images.

          Here Is an example:

          http://all-free-download.com/free-photos/wedding_cake_192520.html

          How is this not free use

          • CrackerJacker

            See my post above about how it may be legal to use them from a copyright perspective, but not from the perspective of a photographer selling her services.

          • Photo Stealers

            There’s that pesky thing where she claimed it was her work.

          • You apparently don’t know how to read: IT EVEN SAYS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE!!!
            ” Not all of the resources are allowed for commercial use please CONTACT THE AUTHOR FOR DETAILS” (caps added by myself for emphasis).

            FFS Your whole premise here was based on this content scrapper giving you the right to use the images when they CLEARLY STATE THAT THEY DON’T do that and can’t do that.

            As far as FAIR USE is concerned? You don’t even understand what the term fair use actually means!

            Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author’s work under a four-factor balancing test.
            source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

            So let’s see … is a COMMERCIAL AD ON CRAIGSLIST:
            commentary, | NOPE.
            search engines, | NOPE

            criticism, | NOPE

            parody, | NOPE

            news reporting, | NOPE
            research, | NOPE
            teaching, | NOPE

            library archiving | NOPE
            and scholarship. | NOPE.

            So your use of those images is NOT FAIR USE! And that site is what is known as a content scrapper! The images were not uploaded by the original content owners and the site does not have the right to grant use a license to use the images.

            But you haven’t addressed the other important point I made FALSE ADVERTISING, MISSREPRESENTATION and FRAUD.

            Let’s say I am a cabinet maker but I suck at it but I want clients … if I use images from another cabinet maker for advertising I am MISS REPRESENTING MY SKILLS! I AM DEFRAUDING CLIENTS!

  • ZenInsight

    Aubrey is one of her friends….a blurry pic of pumpkins from Google…are you kidding?. The others commercially available for free and free to use without notice (and the Craigs Ad was STILL flagged..even though I STATED at the bottom that the pics were examples and commercially licensed as free to use!!).

    On my way to work I am thinking to myself, why is it that we don’t sue for slander over such a clear mistake that was rectified immediately. Oh, yeh..that Christian theing. *&^% I am supposed to talk to these people first and give them the benefit of the doubt, even though they didn’t do i for us?? Arrrgghhh!!!!

    We received ONE SINGLE EMAIL, about the Craig’s list ad. One. It was fixed within 10 minutes.

    If there is a pic that we have that looks improperly used, why not just let someone know? So they can make an adjustment, or explain the pic, or whatever they need to do. We got ONE notice.. ONE

    Also, her blog COMES right click disabled. She didn’t set that up. Also, she doesn’t watermark her photos, because she never thought anyone would want to take them. Not even her own customers (awaiting jokes about how bad a photographer she is and no one wants them . HAHAHAA..wwhooooo ha ha ha,…she sucks right!! hah ha)

    After reading all of my detailed comments below, I would love to see someone be a real human being and say…ok…may be this wasn’t what we thought it was.

    But I’m betting that no one will do this. No one is human anymore. no compassion. No caring. Just bloodlust for whatever they can do to destroy people at the slightest error in their lives.

    • BullShite

      Oh, there is a threaten to sue! Who has the bingo card?

      • ZenInsight

        Obviously the sue was NOT a threat, I was sharing my reaction to this. Clearly I said that I am not suing, not because I can’t or because it’s wrong, but because it is against my prsonal morals. I’m sure you can read that clearly.

        • Joseph Philbert

          Actually you can sue… you just have no possibility of winning.

          • ZenInsight

            Would never sue…even if defamation destroyed us entirely (not that we make any money off the biz). We wouldn’t sue because it’s against our beliefs.

            Whether we could win or not.

        • BullShite

          Honestly you should be GLAD that it was photostealers that caught you, not one of the photographers that you took images from, who decided to sue YOU. Did you read that article I posted? If you think defending your fraudulent actions HERE is stressful, what do you think an actual lawsuit would do to you?

          At least this way you were stopped before continuing to use other people’s images over the course of years… making a better case for any potential victims of your theft.

          You are lucky, and should be THANKFUL the one photographer on here isn’t pursuing charges against you.

          YES you CAN be sued for just “borrowing” a photo for ANY reason.

          http://www.blogher.com/bloggers-beware-you-can-get-sued-using-photos-your-blog-my-story

    • ZenInsight

      Yelp SUCKS. We had a bunch of customer try to post great reviews and Yelp HID the comments. We gave up on that stupid site…it didn’t work for us. There is a way you can view hidden comments. Dana cares about her customer. Do you know she GIVE PICS AWAY FOR FREE to people who can not afford them! NO ONE THINKS.

      • Joseph Philbert

        Oh wow she give images away for FREE .. no photographer ever does that (sarcasm)

        • ZenInsight

          So what…more lol…for you right? Because none of this is serious and affects peoples lives. You know who got hurt here…guess who….not the original photographer…that’s for sure.

          She hasn’t done a SINGLE wedding yet either. She was asked to do a bunch of Saturday ones…but she keeps Sabbath so she had to turn them down.

          If this site was legit, it would not behave this way when someone is clearly stating a case.

    • Aubrey

      I’m sorry I have to reply to make sure there is no confusion. I am not one of Jana Nichole’s friends. I never knew of this girl until I was notified of my image being stolen and unlawfully used on her Facebook page.
      I really have no desire for any sort of drama, but I do not appreciate lies, and the comment that “aubrey is one of her friends” is a flat out lie.

      • ZenInsight

        If you are not her friend, then I am mistaking you for someone else. I will go to her NOW and ask her what pic this is.

        • BullShite

          Maybe your wife is lying to you too dude. Wouldn’t be the first time this has happened in this forum.

          It burns me that the REAL VICTIM was the one being the decent human being in this. I can tell you if the image was stolen from me, I would not have been so kind about it.

          • ZenInsight

            Nope. My wife doesn’t lie. I’m trying to fix a problem here…not make it worse. unlike the other 8&^^% ups that have done this. We did not do it on purpose. If that isn’t painfully clear by now…I don’t know how to make it more so.

          • Photo Stealers

            She just takes other peoples images and uses them in ads representing her work. Totally different.

          • ZenInsight

            Whatever. I already explained the Craigslist ad. This site is only about harming people. Not protecting. It’s very clear now.

          • Photo Stealers

            I protect many people, just not photographers that try and make a living using another photographers work.

          • ZenInsight

            Good thing we aren’t doing that. Nor do we come close to making any kind of living. lol

          • CrackerJacker

            Liar, liar!

          • ZenInsight

            You should yell liar some more. It makes you right.

            I stated my case. It was ignored. This is a joke. not a beneficial site to help people.

          • CrackerJacker

            Not to help people like you or your wife, that’s for sure.

          • Joseph Philbert

            Good Christians dont lie … they just commit fraud 🙂

          • BullShite

            You know what would fix this?? A REAL APOLOGY.
            Especially to Aubrey, who took a pretty high road on this.
            Making excuses, pretending you don’t understand what you did, using a sick child to garner sympathy…. it’s so much easier to just ADMIT you….SHE….. did wrong. Post it on your blog, post it here, and don’t do it AGAIN.

            If there is really so much stress and trauma in your lives, why are you adding more? Why are you allowing your PRIDES to blind you to your moral obligation? (Also a sin BTW.)

            You guys lied. It was not innocent. It was not a “mistake”. It was a way to make potential clients think that your wife’s skills were better than they are to gain more clients.

            We ALL know this. Your GOD knows this. You two know this.

            Stop fighting it, learn from it, don’t repeat it, and then move on with a clear conscience.

          • ZenInsight

            When I actually figure out where the real issue is..and I can bring this to her with full conviction. I will. but right now], there are still commercial image littered inside of togther to MAKE IT LOOK like more image were in question.

          • BullShite

            See that is the thing. You do KNOW. She KNEW.
            You know it’s wrong to promote a photography business with other people’s photography, free or not.

            You can argue with us until you are blue in the face… in the end, this website is forever. You can MAN UP and tell her to do the right thing by apologizing, or you can let this be the lasting legacy her business, and name have.

          • ZenInsight

            Wrong. I did not know…and nothing you say can create that reality. you just want to feel better about hurting people unnecessarily…

          • ZenInsight

            Of course I will do that. But will this site admit what is falsely accused us of? The admin here has already agreed to 2 errors. The third is the blog.

          • CrackerJacker

            No error there. Dana done wrong.

          • Photo Stealers

            ONE error: that I thought it was two different Craigslist ads when in fact it is one ad that you/Dana changed.

      • Aubrey

        If anyone had compassion in this situation, it was me. I posted a screen shot of the theft on my personal Facebook page, but I blurred out the name just so I wouldn’t stir up drama because that is the last thing I care to do. But now to see my name being thrown around with bold faced lies — well that is what gets my blood boiling.

        The theft of my work, I forgave and forgot. The lies following all of this – I don’t have words.

        I am a petite, little girl, but I am not afraid TO OWN UP to any wrong I do. You should learn a thing to two.

    • Photo Stealers

      Aubrey is one of the photographers whose image was used by Dana. She is not a friend. Regardless of what KIND of images were used to misrepresent Dana’s work, they were not her images to use to advertise her photography business. Even if the images were obtained through legal channels it is generally against TOS to use them in portfolios.

      There are two Craigslist ads, one Facebook image and multiple blog posts that have images that are not Dana’s original works. Some may be stock images but not all images are. Regardless if the image is stock or not, it is dishonest to use images that were not taken by Dana to represent her own work.

      You cannot sue for slander because it is not false. Those images are NOT Dana’s.

      • ZenInsight

        What EXACT images are still in question here. We removed nothing (at least that I know of…now I have t go talk to Dana), beside the Craigslist ad ONE. ad. ONE.. not two..the second was flagged for no reason.

        • Photo Stealers

          I kind of laid it out nice and neat for you above.

          • ZenInsight

            Remove the commercial pics. They are free to use by anyone . Thanks.

          • CrackerJacker

            They are still being used inappropriately to falsely imply the ability of your wife.

          • CrackerJacker

            They are still being used inappropriately to falsely imply the ability of your wife.

          • ZenInsight

            Actually..they are not being used at all now…and they were not falsely implied to be hers as the ad states:

            *pics in this ad are used only to show examples of books or location based ideas, and are licensed and commercially available to use*

          • ZenInsight

            Although we were told the books were not commercial…so i pulled them as well.

            So you can see that this was put on immediately upon notification of the image being copyrighted.

          • Photo Stealers

            Actually the ad states “Examples of wedding books similar to what can also be purchased from the event are attached in the images.” Perhaps you later edited the statement when you changed the images but it was not there originally.

        • Joseph Philbert

          I guess you did not look at the images above.

          • ZenInsight

            I sure did. the ones we had on the craigslist ad were removed immediately. 6 images. Nothing else touched.

            there are a bunch of commercially available pics up there.

          • Come on guys … I only stole 2 cars and I gave them right back after I got caught! No big deal right?

            Also, you might want to read up on fraud and false advertising.

        • Photo Stealers

          I stand corrected: there was only one Cragislist ad but she kept changing the pictures.

          http://kansascity.craigslist.org/bfs/4405757468.html is the ad these images all were from.

          • ZenInsight

            Dude. I changed the pics…
            Because I was told they were copyrighted. Holy crap.. It’s like a broken record in here.

            And she posts pics on the blog she likes all the time. I told her, from here on out she should mention the original location if the image isn’t watermarked.

            You guys just can’t admit, that may be this was an over reaction can you?

          • BullShite

            This “I’m so dense I don’t get it” and “it’s all YOU GUYS not ME” act is ridiculous.

            I know we joke about these thieves using the same goddamned pattern of excuses and behaviors, but it’s so insanely true it’s become almost redundant.

            I mean we have all of the classics: Denial, not my fault, it’s you guys, I’m being attacked, they were “free”, the photographer just “liked” them, maybe I could sue you for defamation/libel/slander etc, oh here’s a family tragedy or two, STILL NOT GUILTY…..

            I just WISH this site was around when I was doing my psychology final in College. The patterned behavior of these people would make an excellent term paper.

          • Joseph Philbert

            Here is a Novel idea … why not use one of your “wife’s” images … I know its strange and feels wrong …smh

          • BullShite

            You mean a photographer should actually use THEIR OWN photographs, and not those of others to advertise their services??

            But what if the photographer doesn’t have the skills of some of the other amazing photographers out there, but still wants clients?
            If she were to use her OWN photos, she might lose potential clients because her skills are still at an amateur level, and if she doesn’t use other, much better photos in her adertisements she could lose out on business……. oh wait I see…

            MIND = BLOWN.

        • Photo Stealers

          Blog images.

          • ZenInsight

            IT WATERMARKED………!!!!!!!!

            Why are you showing me this?

          • Photo Stealers

            There is a very tiny barely seen watermark with the tree. She implies by posting this image to her PHOTOGRAPHY BLOG that these are her images. It’s not terribly difficult to give credit, which she did not do.

          • ZenInsight

            How many image on the blog are not hers . TONS…

          • Photo Stealers

            Exactly the problem.

          • ZenInsight

            How many people post pics on their blogs they like.

            the ONLY single image in this entire situation…out side of the fist craigslist ad that I see relevant…is one of the people holding hands….

            that’s it.

          • CrackerJacker

            How many of those people are photographers trying to sell their services as a photographer. I know you can’t really be this obtuse, so now it’s your ego leading the way.

            Your wife is in the wrong. Fix it. Move on.

            (Oh, plus why would someone troll a free pic site for “pics they like”? I don’t buy that for a moment.)

          • Photo Stealers
          • Photo Stealers

            This image is also not a stock image.

          • ZenInsight

            No . It’s watermarked.

            Like I said. stock, link, or watermarked.

            You just can’t admit you are wrong huh.

            I take that back.. I have recorded two post of you admitting you were wrong. I apologize. I’m a little upset. you do seem reasonable.

          • CrackerJacker

            So what if it is watermarked? Do you understand the first thing about copyright? Go read up on it.

          • Photo Stealers

            There is no watermark

          • Joseph Philbert

            I post images on my blog that are not mine ALL the time… I do NOT misrepresent myself as the creator of said image and when appropriate I credit them. You know the right way.

          • DO YOU HAVE A LICENSE TO USE THE IMAGE? NO!!!

            Giving credit is NOT A LICENSE TO USE THE IMAGE! This does NOT fall under fair use!

          • Garrick Liddell Photography

            This photography art and copyright is mine. I posted to Dana’s Facebook where she posted my work with no reference to me as the photographer. She had the opportunity to click the “share” button from my FB page where I have this image it but didn’t. Dana, If you are going to share this, then please have the decency to give me credit as the photographer or take it down from any of your sites.

        • Photo Stealers

          Facebook ad

          • ZenInsight

            What Facebook ad? Be more specific. Remove the commercial photos from the list up top, so we can se what you are talking about.

          • ZenInsight

            That is NOT an ad… It’s a personal statement…under a pic she liked.. But I CLEARY see that it looks like it is her’s due to the caption. I told her immediately about this pic. To take it down. Thanks for the link.
            This is the FIRST pic that makes sense to me outside the Craiglist situation.

            it’s still no reason to fillet someone. Send a message: “credit my pic, or take it down”

            . So easy.

          • Photo Stealers

            She uploaded it to her album on her photography page. There is no “like” involved here. I highlighted it for you. She uploaded it to her Timeline on her business Facebook page.

          • BullShite

            As a POTENTIAL CLIENT I would look at this and think it was your wife’s, image (BECAUSE SHE IS A PHOTOGRAPHER) not one that she “liked”. Do you SEE where the FRAUD is in this?? (Of COURSE YOU DO.)

            Do you SEE anywhere that she mentions “I really like this photo done by (insert link)?” NO YOU DON’T.

            WHY do you think that is?? Becuase it is a great photo that your wife does not have the ability to create herself so she took it to make others think she did.

          • Joseph Philbert

            Personal statement… why not USE HER OWN IMAGE FOR THIS statement???
            O wait I know why …because her work is not good enough…
            I mean REALLY after checking the FanPage… she has images going back to 2011 are they not good enough to use?

          • CrackerJacker

            Why didn’t your wife see this when she did it? What do you have to do with this, anyway?

          • ZenInsight

            i’m the guy who cares. I’m the one who makes things right. I’m a person with honor. I stand up for my wife’s integrity. I also care about other people’s business and welfare AND feelings!

            How about you!

          • Can’t stand up for integrity that doesn’t exist pal.

          • BullShite

            This is seriously a whole new level of denial blindness. If denial levels were awarded in this forum, you would win. Hands down.

          • ZenInsight

            Whatever makes you feel better.

        • Aubrey

          Dana’s husband… I can’t figure out if you are lying or you are naive and allowing yourself to be lied to. Either way, that does not matter. AGAIN.. Here is MY image that was STOLEN from MY website and UNLAWFULLY posted on YOUR wife’s Facebook page. I then contacted her and told her to remove it.

          • ZenInsight

            Holy *&^%… do you think I would be in here lying for all this time…what good would that do. I feel like pulling my effing hair out over this. I want to solve the problem and help my post pardom depression wife stop crying man. that is ALL.

          • BullShite

            (I repeat, HOW TO FIX THIS:)

            You know what would fix this?? A REAL APOLOGY.
            Especially to Aubrey, who took a pretty high road on this.
            Making excuses, pretending you don’t understand what you did, using a sick child to garner sympathy…. it’s so much easier to just ADMIT you….SHE….. did wrong. Post it on your blog, post it here, and don’t do it AGAIN.

            If there is really so much stress and trauma in your lives, why are you adding more? Why are you allowing your PRIDES to blind you to your moral obligation? (Also a sin BTW.)

            You guys lied. It was not innocent. It was not a “mistake”. It was a way to make potential clients think that your wife’s skills were better than they are to gain more clients.

            We ALL know this. Your GOD knows this. You two know this.

            Stop fighting it, learn from it, don’t repeat it, and then move on with a clear conscience.

        • Melinda Potter

          If she did not click the shutter and make the photograph herself, then it’s being misused. Sit down with her and go through her entire port and ask “Were you present for this picture? Do you know the subject? Did you look through a view finder when this shot was created? Did you click the shutter? If the answer is “No” to any of the above, then it needs to be removed from her online presence. It’s as simple as that. A photographer doesn’t use pictures created by others to market themselves and their services. They create their own images, sometimes for use by others, but NEVER for use by another photographer.

          • BullShite

            I bet $10 he still won’t get it.

    • ZenInsight

      Ok. Amber. Not Abrey. I made a mistake. Which pic is the one Dana CLAIMED was her’s that she posted. Give me a link.

  • BullShite

    Any photographer worth their salt would NEVER use stock imagery, not matter how FREE it is, to advertise their business. It’s like owning a hotel that is a dump, but using photos from the Ritz. In other words, it is a LIE.
    If you own a photo blog and do not state that you did NOT take the photos, you are deceiving people. How do you NOT get this??

    It’s been said over and over to you!

    Also, you can get sued for using other people’s images in your blog:

    http://www.blogher.com/bloggers-beware-you-can-get-sued-using-photos-your-blog-my-story

    • ZenInsight

      It LEGAL to use these images. the Craigs list ad stated they were examples and FREE to use commercially.

      What don’t you get?

      • CrackerJacker

        Your wife is misrepresenting her abilities by using photographs taken by OTHER PHOTOGRAPHERS to sell HER PHOTOGRAPHY services.

        What don’t YOU get?

        • ZenInsight

          The images are from here.

          http://all-free-download.com/f

          And they state:

          License: Public Domain Dedication (You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.)

          • CrackerJacker

            Are you really this thick? There are two issues here. 1) She did steal some photos. 2) She has some photos which ARE FREE TO USE, but ARE NOT HERS to sell her services.

            This is about #2. I will concede, there is no copyright infringement issue with the images used from the website you reference (though their disclaimer at the bottom makes it clear that they are just an aggregator and do not bother to ensure the copyright status of the images they show, so I concede it for the sake of this post).

            Your wife takes photos. She is selling her service as a photographer. How do people know if they want to use a particular photographer? Well, one of the main ways is to review the images that the photographer has taken. So if your wife shows a bunch of images that she did not take and does not identify them as such, what might a normal person assume from looking at her advertising? That these are her work and the style and level of professional results they can expect from hiring your wife.

            Do you understand yet?

          • ZenInsight

            WE SAID ON THE AD THEY ARE EXAMPLES!!!!

            We don’t have any wedding images…and used examples. I don’t see any issue with that legally.

          • ZenInsight

            In fact, the free images don’t require us to say anything about them being examples or free commercial use images…but we did anyway.

            Thanks for conceding over issue number 2. First reasonable person in here regarding the actual images.

          • CrackerJacker

            Do you mean “Examples of wedding books similar to what can also be purchased from the event are attached in the images”? That doesn’t say the images aren’t yours, just that the wedding BOOKS are similar.

          • ZenInsight

            no.

            *pics in this ad are used only to show examples of books or location based ideas, and are licensed and commercially available to use*

          • CrackerJacker

            That’s new! Could you point out on the screen shots posted earlier where that text is?

      • Photo Stealers

        Oh so now the images aren’t from a free wedding images website, they were provided by Craigslist? Try again because that’s a lie.

      • Photo Stealers

        Oh so now the images aren’t from a free wedding images website, they were provided by Craigslist and is legal?? Try again because that’s a lie.

        • ZenInsight

          What?

          The images are from here.

          http://all-free-download.com/free-photos/wedding-pictures.html

          And they state:

          License: Public Domain Dedication (You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.)

          • Photo Stealers

            Again, not all of the images Dana used were stock or free images.

  • ZenInsight

    I’m betting that no one has ever come in here and actually defended themselves against a error. The way people are reacting is what is the real crime here.

    • Photo Stealers

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

      • ZenInsight

        Exactly. I love how funny this is . Dana posts pics she likes on her blog all the time. That might be true on Facebook as well.

        I told her is the pic isn’t watermarked she needs to write credit for the original or to delete it.

        PLEASE, remove all the pics from up top that are commercially free and available for use, so I can AT LEAST see which pics are actually in question.

        • CrackerJacker

          So you don’t know which photos are which? Why not ask your wife?

          • ZenInsight

            I did. She said she would go look. but there are many I’m guessing she just liked. I personally want to know which ones imply she took them.so she can give credit or remove the image…

            Clearly, we want to do the right thing here..not that ANYONE cares at all.

          • CrackerJacker

            Why are you putting the onus on us to figure this out for you??? I mean, PS did a pretty good job above, what more shall we do for you?

          • ZenInsight

            Remove all the commercial images..so i can see the ones that are not FREE license ALONE.

            Thanks.

          • Justin Case

            I’m sorry, ZenInsight, but I don’t see how that is the work of this website. It is your wife’s business, she should be the one responsible for keeping it legal.

            Seriously, if you want to fix this, perhaps it’s best to start over. Take it all down and rebuild it with ALL of your wife’s own photos. And again, I would start with a genuine apology for any trouble caused.

          • ZenInsight

            We apologized to the one person that we know to about the one photo on the Facebook timeline that we can’t even find probably because it was flagged).

            We removed the no-commercial photos (craigs) and I don’t even know where they came from…so I would not know who to apologize for.

            But I do hear you, being kind and rational. thanks. We aren’t taking anything down though…that’s ridiculous.

          • captain-confuzzled

            What is ridiculous and a lost cause is to try to defend and keep photos posted that are not made by your wife. At this point, ANY photo that she didn’t take (as already noted by many others) should be removed from any site that depicts her as a “professional photographer”. If she doesn’t know which photos she took, you have a bigger problem.

        • Joseph Philbert

          HAHAHAAH there is a proper etiquette of posting other images on your blog or on facebook.

        • Michael Goolsby

          “I told her is the pic isn’t watermarked she needs to write credit for the original or to delete it.”

          Sounds like a simple case of the blind leading the blind.

          1 – As a “professional photographer”, why does your wife need image usage advise?

          2 – A a non-professional, why are you the one giving it to her.

        • “I told her is the pic isn’t watermarked she needs to write credit for the original”

          Nope … all she can do is remove the image from her site entirely. Giving “credit” doesn’t give you the right to use the iamge to start with at all. Her use of the image in her blog

    • Joseph Philbert

      In the past I have defended myself against false accusations.. but when I did defend my self I could actually prove I did no wrong. Unlike you there is evidence that you committed Fraud what was done by you is actually a REAL crime under US/International law.

    • BullShite

      Clearly you have never taken ten minutes to go through the other cases on this page. You might want to, because you will quickly come to realize, you are behaving just like all of the others. Except for the ONE thief that actually posted a sincere apology, both here and on her sites. Perhaps then you will understand why we are not buying any of your “excuses”, or excusing your theft because your baby was ill.

      We have heard it ALL homey.

  • Read this: http://www.contentfac.com/copyright-infringement-penalties-are-scary/

    The $8,000 Mistake That All Bloggers Should Beware

  • CrackerJacker

    Oh and having autoplay music is an offense all of its own.

    • I HATE IT when a website start blasting music. Thank goodness Chrome now shows a speaker on the offending tab so I can close it quickly!

    • Joseph Philbert

      hate that…

  • Michael Goolsby

    This is by far NOT the worst example of photo stealing I’ve seen. But it does include a common feature of nearly all photo stealers: amateurism.

    First, there’s nothing wrong with amateurs. Over the next several years, and after 20 years in the business, I’ll be making the transition from professional to amateur myself, as I phase out doing work for hire and then eventually just do photography purely for enjoyment, something I’ve wished to be able to do for years. There are so many places I want to go and so many new people I want to meet, I’m going to be keeping my shutter clicking quite a bit.

    But over the past ten years — and especially the last five — I have seen an over-anxiousness for amateurs to jump into business, and often it is far too soon before they are ready. Much of the time, they are not ready as photographers, but the vast majority of the time, I believe that they are not ready as business operators. And I believe that to the be the case here, too.

    I have to say that it’s been a bit ridiculous seeing this photographer’s husband trying to argue with everyone, and his arguments are equally ridiculous. Basically, his defense has three points: 1) the stealing wasn’t as bad as claimed, 2) using “free” images is not stealing, and 3) we are good people going through bad times and you people are not being very nice to us and should have notified us first.

    And here are the problems with those arguments:

    First, wrong is wrong. When you steal, don’t try to mitigate the offense and say it was only a little bit. Just admit the problem and try to rectify. Anything else is just bullshit excuses.

    Second, when you are a professional photographer, you DON’T USE IMAGES YOU DIDN’T CREATE. The essence of photo stealing, as it pertains to this site, has less to do with image ownership, and everything to do with a given photographer accurately representing his or her work with ONLY those images actually created by them. In short, if you didn’t take the picture, don’t show it. Think of it as drinking and driving: if you make no exceptions, it will never be a problem.

    Finally, personal issues have NOTHING to do with any of this. Being a Christian has nothing to do with any of this. Bringing personal hardships up is just an attempt to MITIGATE the wrongdoing. Just leave it out. Period.

    With these things in mind, this photographer (and her husband) can really only be viewed in one of two ways (or a little bit of both): a professional who knowingly misrepresented themselves and has refused to accept FULL responsibility, or an amateur who had no business being in business until she had properly educated herself about such matters. I am inclined to believe that, in this case, there was probably a little bit of both. This woman was an amateur who jumped into business without fully understanding what she was getting into. With no willingness to take it a legitimate step at a time, she needed shortcuts and had no problem using images that she herself did not create as a means of attracting clients. She wanted to be a professional, but after being caught, also wanted to enjoy the benefit of the doubt that only an amateur gets to enjoy.

    Before I end, I just want to address the Craigslist ad, because I believe that that single ad represents this entire matter. First, it was an ad for wedding photography. But, if I read correctly, her husband admitted she has never shot a wedding before. If that is the case, then why in the love of god is she selling a professional service of which she has no professional experience? Second, she is using photographs she did not take. Why? Simply because they “inspire” her, or some other such nonsense? It doesn’t matter if they were stolen, borrowed or free. In every conceivable way, the PHOTOS DO NOT REPRESENT THE PRODUCT SHE IS CAPABLE OF PROVIDING simply by virtue of the fact that, having never photographed a wedding before, there is no evidence of what she is capable of providing. The husband has made much of the idea that, upon being notified, the ad was removed. Sorry, but no pat on the back here. Your wife is a PROFESSIONAL. She is advertising a professional service. It is NO ONE ELSE’S JOB to tell her how to do her job. The ad should never have been put up in that form. And that you had to be told to take it down in the first place means that you have the right to say “thank you, we messed up” and then keep your face shut for the professional courtesy.

    Bottom line: this business was represented by photos it did not create. Unless it simply wants to be known as a “photo stealer”, the only option it has is to remove any such images not created directly bit it, apologize for the misrepresentation, make whatever amends are necessary, and then shut the hell up.

  • Justin Case

    To Dana and her husband.

    I am really not trying to pour fuel on the fire. You keep implying that you don’t understand what the problem is. So I will give you an example:

    First screengrab is from Dana’s twitter account last Nov:

    Second is where it links to on her BUSINESS facebook page:

    do you really not see how this could be problematic? Would an ordinary viewer, who reads that tweet or just sees the photo on a photographer’s site REALLY not think that it was meant to be the photographer’s image?

    • ZenInsight

      Of course. I am trying to correct ANYTHING that looks improper. this site has taken it way to far.

      • Joseph Philbert

        No this site has taken it to the appropriate level.

        • ZenInsight

          We disagree.

      • Justin Case

        I think there were less than a dozen comments here this morning before you joined in.

  • ZenInsight

    So far here is what we know.

    1. All posts on Dana’s blog were either stock, watermarked or give credit by link

    PhotoStealers accusation: false

    2. All posts on Dana’s website- hers

    Photostealers: no accusation

    3. All post on Dana’s Facebook were her’s, watermarked, or credited except for one picture, which was one she liked and uploaded, and the caption beneath.

    She can NOT find this image on her timeline. But she is contacting the original photographer to apologize for the situation.

    Photostealers accusation: True (but caveat is no ownership was intended, even if pic was not properly shared) Pic removed and original owner contacted

    4. The Craigslist ad original pics was non-commercial copyrighted

    Photostealers accusation: True

    This was definitely the fault of myself. I should have been more careful with the image pull. Within 10 minutes of knowing this, they were removed.

    A revised version was put up, with a statement

    *pics in this ad are used only to show examples of books or location based ideas, and are licensed and commercially available to use*

    using images from.

    http://all-free-download.com/free-photos/wedding-pictures.html

    That are stated to be:

    License: Public Domain Dedication (You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.)

    PhotoStealers has admitted that using commercial pics and stating they are commercial licensed pics is acceptable…even if they don’t like the practice.

    End result:

    Owner made the adjustment within minutes of a single email for the Craigslist ad, AND put a link to Flicker stock photo on blog (umm..why..who knows)

    And is contacting the original owner of the single pic on the Facebook site.

    Now.. if this site was legitimate… that is would be posted in the post, as a follow. up. but this is just a smear campaign. no interest in helping all entities.

    • Michael Goolsby

      After careful consideration of the interests off all parties, and an evaluation of the facts that are germane to this matter and the veracity of all facts herein, I have come to a very thoughtful, balanced, and reasonable conclusion: this photostealer’s husband is a moron.

      • Justin Case

        Ouch.

      • Joseph Philbert

        HAHAHA moron … love it

        • ZenInsight

          Oh..boy… you are smarter than the last guy. Really.

      • ZenInsight

        ooh… yeh. Good one. Super intelligent communication choices. What a burn.

    • Justin Case

      Really, man, I have tried. If this site is really so bad, and not worth your contempt, then just ignore us. If you and your wife have done no wrong, then who cares? Defending yourself here is really not helping.

      • ZenInsight

        Oh no. It helped a lot.

        • Justin Case

          then I guess we have served some sort of purpose after all.

          • ZenInsight

            For sure. Absolutely. But it hasn’t been fixed yet. We are getting there.

    • CrackerJacker

      As a warning to anyone who sees Dana Nichole Photography’s on-line presence and is interested in hiring her, please realize that in the above attempt to take control of the narrative, Dana’s husband has repeatedly turned a blind eye to the fact that by having photographs ANYWHERE in her photography business’s on-line presence (including her blog) that were not taken by her and are not attributed, they can be misconstrued as work that Dana Nichols performed, when in fact, they are not (plus, with the exception of properly licensed or public domain images, she’s still infringing on copyright, even if there’s a watermark on the image).

      So if you are interested, make sure you ask to see work that you can verify is hers.

      • ZenInsight

        Don’t worry…this has noting to do with her business. This is about the PRINCIPAL.

        All work that is not watermarked, linked, or given credit is hers.

        And if there are any that are not of these 3, PLEASE let us know. It is not intentionally done for misrepresentation.

        • Michael Goolsby

          Ahem…. why does she have to be told which pictures are not HERS? Does she not know? Your wife should not be using any photographs on any site related to her business not directly created by herself. She is in the photo business. Photos are the product. Photos are what people see, and what her clients will buy. Why in the world would she even WANT to use photos not taken directly by her? As a professional, it is HER JOB to insure that the photographs on her sites represent her accurately.

          So forget this “let us know” crap.

          As the above poster stated, you are coming across very aggressively as someone who is merely trying to “change the narrative”.

    • Photo Stealers

      There are no links on the blog back to the original photographers. Watermarks don’t cut it per the law. Again, these are used on a PHOTOGRAPHY blog representing the photographer’s work.

      Flickr is NOT a stock photography website.

    • For crying out loud … you have ZERO understanding of copyright law!

      “1. All posts on Dana’s blog were either stock, watermarked or give credit by link”

      Let’s ignore stock images. Watermarked and credit does not give you the right to use the image! PERIODE.

      Read this article FROM AN ACTUAL LAWYER WHO SPECIALISES IN PHOTOGRAPHIC COPYRIGHT!
      http://www.photoattorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Excuses-excuses.pdf

      Of special interest:

      9. I gave credit to the photographer.

      Many mistakenly assume that they may use a photo so long as they acknowledge the photographer or otherwise provide the source of the photo. But, as far back as 1938, courts held that “[t]he fact that the defendant acknowledged the source from which this matter was taken does not excuse the infringement. While the acknowledgment indicates that it did not intend unfair competition, it does not
      relieve the defendant from legal liability for the infringement.” Henry Holt & Co. v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co., 23 F.Supp. 302, 304 (D.C.Pa. 1938).

      3. All post on Dana’s Facebook were her’s, watermarked, or credited except for one picture, which was one she liked and uploaded, and the caption beneath.

      Again … see above!

      4. ish … http://all-free-download.com/free-photos/wedding-pictures.html

      You say that they say this “License: Public Domain Dedication (You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.)”

      But this is what I found on their website: “Not all of the resources are allowed for commercial use please CONTACT THE AUTHOR FOR DETAILS”.

      So you either are lying are can’t read!

      5. sortof: “Owner made the adjustment within minutes of a single email for the Craigslist ad, AND put a link to Flicker stock photo on blog (umm..why..who knows)”

      Correcting the problem does not remove liability nor does it change the fact that you are doing false advertising!

  • Aubrey

    PLEASE READ…

    My photo is the one of the backlit couple in jeans. I’ve gone through all the angry emotions this morning, but I’m choosing to now move on. This is what I posted on my Facebook page a few minutes ago…

    On Monday, I was informed that someone had stolen one of my images and used it on her photography Facebook page. I emailed the photographer and told her to remove my image. It was removed that night and I felt that was the end of the story.

    Not by my doing, the photographer was outed on Photo Stealers last night. What I thought was an open and closed book, turned into a soap opera this morning. One that I allowed myself to get sucked into.

    This world tells us to seek revenge and get even with those who do us wrong, but God calls us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek. Matthew 5:38-39

    I’m learning this morning that it is okay to get angry – that is natural. But the way we handle situations defines who we are. And one thing we need to remember is that we are all sinners and one’s bad actions does not justify another’s bad reaction.

    I wasted a perfectly beautiful morning to anger. I’m sure Satan loved every second of it, but I’m taking my day back.

    Sincerely,

    A sinner, but a child of God
    (just like everyone else)

    • Aubrey

      And I just want to note… I am completely for justice, but I am not for bullying, harassing, name calling etc. I like Photo Stealers. I think this site is valuable, but it would be much more valuable without the sometimes wrong reactions of others (including myself).

      • ZenInsight

        Too bad that’s all this was about. Bullying and name calling. That’s not what I came here for. And I did not do that.

        • Photo Stealers

          Saying something is wrong ≠ bullying.

          • ZenInsight

            Saying something is wrong? lol. ok. Read through the comments again. I have them all recording in my email. You think this site doesn’t bully. What a joke.

            NO HONOR

      • CrackerJacker

        Aubrey, for what it’s worth, this would not have devolved into such a $#!+storm if Dana’s husband hadn’t come in here on the defensive, trying to claim that none of what had been shown was true and attempting to overwhelm the comments with his nonsense. Dana screwed up and hubby made it worse. Yes, things get heated here, but really only when the photostealer doesn’t just own up to the truth. I hope you have a peaceful rest of your day.

    • ZenInsight

      If you are a Christian…then you know what it means to be forgiven. This site does not. I personally apologize for the hand holding photo. It surely wasn’t her intention to make it look like it was hers. It was just a nice pic.

      I told her to contact you. But the things said in this site are false in many ways, even admitted the admin. This wasn’t the way to do it. We should have just been contacted directly.,

      • BullShite

        YOU CANNOT BE FORGIVEN WITH OUT AN APOLOGY!
        This came close, but the idea that she used this photo because she liked it, and not to make it look like hers is false. To say this was not an ad, but a “personal statement” is false.

        A REAL apology, from your WIFE, not you, is how you get forgiveness.

        • ZenInsight

          She is sending (may be did already) to her directly man. You need a new hobby.

          • BullShite

            True. I’m thinking of taking up photography, but until I am really good, I am going to use other people’s photos to advertise my business.

      • Michael Goolsby

        ” It surely wasn’t her intention to make it look like it was hers. It was just a nice pic.”

        This, to me, is the LIE. Your wife is representing herself as a PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER. It is insulting to everyone here for you to suggest that, by showing that picture on her site, she did not intend for others to believe that it represented her work. If she truly, honestly, and sincerely did not have that intent, then please URGE her to take our professional advise backed by combined DECADES in the business (I am in my 20th year myself) and immediately CEASE attempting to be a professional herself until she is far more prepared. For if this was a genuinely naive’ act, there is absolutely no telling what other pitfalls she has in store for herself… and YOU.

      • doncalifornia

        “It surely wasn’t her intention to make it look like it was hers. It was just a nice pic.” Like Michael, I call ‘bullshit.’ That photo was in her timeline on her photography web page and was exhorting people to book photography jobs with her. There was zero mention of the fact that she pulled that photo from another photography site (I believe weddingwire). In other words she did nothing to indicate it was not her photo. ANY reasonable visitor to her page would think she shot that photo. And the others which are not hers. They were clearly, CLEARLY, intended to look like her work. Do you know how many times we read on this site “It was just a nice pic and I was sharing” and “I thought it was so pretty and it’s inspiring” blah blah blah? Like, almost EVERY stealer says that, or in this case as in others, a spouse or partner or friend or alleged client comes on here and says that. It doesn’t work. It’s kind of shameful, actually, to believe we’re all THAT stupid.

      • C Sab

        Don’t even try to use religion against Aubrey. You’re just making things worse for yourself and the thief.

    • doncalifornia

      Aubrey, this sentiment is very thoughtful and forgiving of you, so I don’t want to take away from your intention. But you are just one person she stole from, and you are but a very small part of the photography world as a whole. In other words, while you are generous of heart and mean no ill will toward Dana, you don’t have the moral authority to forgive or dismiss her faults on behalf of all photographers, both those she is stealing from, and those whom are harmed by this general and insidious disease of fraud which is creeping through our industry like cancer. I honestly admire you thought and would be grateful for the forgiveness if I was in Dana’s shoes, so don’t get me wrong, but your blessing alone can’t act as a general pardon from the rest of the world.

  • ZenInsight

    Update 04/17/2014 @ 9:00AM

    Wrong. Misrepresented again. Can’t be honest..?

    Why can’t you just admit the truth. Is it o hard? I stated what the truth was right below here. I enumerated them I admited what looks wrong and what is our fault. But this site has n honor.

    • Photo Stealers

      Which truth have you stated? That *all* images are from a free wedding images website online? That the images used in the ads were provided by Craigslist? That the image on Facebook was “liked” not uploaded by Dana? Do I continue?

      The only thing I was wrong about was that in the comments I mentioned that there were two Craigslist ads. They were the same ad but with different images. However, I only listed one ad in the blog post.

      • ZenInsight

        See my post above.
        you have already rightfully admitted to two mistakes. If you admit to the third one, then we being to be reasonable for what really went wrong.

        • CrackerJacker

          Trying SO HARD to take control… not very zen.

          • ZenInsight

            It is definitely not me with control here. I am not trying to do anything except show where the errors are.

          • CrackerJacker

            Then why do you continue to try to introduce erroneous statements as “facts”? You just make yourself look foolish.

          • C Sab

            Because this person is prob the thief/the thief’s husband/one of their friends desperately trying to make the thief seem innocent and justify their theft of other people’s work since the thief lacks any photographic skill.

          • doncalifornia

            Hey I’ve come to this discussion a little late BUT… does it matter if only ONE Craigslist ad had stolen imagery? Or that SOME of the images were royalty free public domain images?? What matters is that there are multiple images which she has used either in ads or on her sites or social media, which are not her work. She took images from other photographers which are copyright protected, and she is infringing. It’s not complicated. You can try to make it complicated, by pointing to one or two or eleven of the photos and saying they are free and exempt or whatever, but there are still multiple images she used illegally and dishonestly. Why in the world would she, or you, deny this?? Apolo – freaking – gize already.

          • Michael Goolsby

            Earlier, I referred to him as a moron. That hasn’t changed. But now I’m just no annoyed as his insistence to mitigate his own fault by finding the fault in others that I’m beginning to think he’s also just an asshole.

        • Photo Stealers

          ONE mistake. That I thought there were two different Craigslist ads. That has nothing to do with the problem at hand: that your wife/you used images that your wife did not take to represent her body of work.

    • Helena

      Okay, I’ve read every comment and I am still bemused as to why you don’t understand this. This is not about the legality of using the photos, it’s the fraudulent misrepresentation of your wife’s work using images gained from other sites. It may or may not be legal, but it IS morally wrong. Especially advertising to shoot weddings having never shot one.

      It may not have been intentional to misrepresent other people’s photographs as her own, but that is what she did. By using photographs that are not her own, it appears that she took the photos, whether they were watermarked or not. If it is genuinely the case that she didn’t realise how this appears, then just remove all the content that your wife did not personally click the shutter on, actually apologise for the “mistake” and start fresh. Do not keep arguing the toss and making excuses. If life is as stressful as you say it is at the moment, then this is the quickest, easiest way to make it all stop. Posting passive aggressive blog posts and denying any wrong doing on here has just added fuel to the fire, and while I do sympathise with your current situation, it is not an excuse, and carrying on will just anger people more.

  • ZenInsight

    “Note, it doesn’t matter if you are using free stock images (which all of these images are not stock imagery) it is dishonest to use these images to represent your personal body of work as a photographer, often it is also against the TOS of the stock image site.”

    ^^^^This is a lie^^^^^

    http://all-free-download.com/free-photos/wedding-pictures.html

    License: Public Domain Dedication (You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.)

    but lies are required for a smear campaign….

    • Photo Stealers

      These images are again, not all stock images. The site you are listing states that they do not have the rights to the image and are what photographers call an “image farm.” The images that were not stock are not on that website.

      • ZenInsight

        they sure are. Every single image in the second craglist ad was from there..and ALL had the free license. WRONG again!
        Are you POSITIVE you are not mixing the two ads. seriously…

        i can send you all the images. Would you prefer that. YOU have commercially available images in this post. !!

        • Photo Stealers

          This image is NOT stock and there is no “free license” with it.

          • ZenInsight

            Yes. that is TRUE…. its from the first ad.

          • Photo Stealers

            They are being used to represent Dana Nichole Photography’s body of work. Regardless if they can legally be used (I don’t care enough to dig in to each images copyright release) it is unethical to do so.

          • doncalifornia

            ZenInsight, because she is misrepresenting the work as her own. That’s part of the point. One part is unlawfully using other photographers’ work without license. The other part is representing herself with images which are not hers. It’s just all-around wrong. You know, if a client get’s images they don’t think live up to the quality of the photos in the ad, they can sue the pants right off of Dana (and her entire estate, assuming her photography business is not incorporated as a separate entity) for false advertising. Fraud basically.

        • Michael Goolsby

          Why is your wife’s business using image in an ADVERTISEMENT which she did not create herself?

    • Michael Goolsby

      Please, please, please, stop trying to argue something of which you understand so little. You are coming across as a naive non-lawyer trying to argue in a court of law. In a word: silly.

    • captain-confuzzled

      how about you show everyone where is says in the stock TOS that it is okay to represent the images as the body of work of the photographer? Regardless, it is MORALLY wrong. I never understand how people who state that they live a religious life, try to defend IMMORAL behavior. If I made shoes for a living, and showed the quality of my shoes by using pictures of some other shoemaker’s work, how would this be okay?

    • Joseph Philbert

      No its not a lie its actually true… Then again I have seen “Honda” use “BMW” images to sell honda cars 🙂
      Sarcasm.

    • doncalifornia

      But ZenInsight, there is very very very very little photography available which is real Public Domain content. Don’t confuse Public Domain images with Stock Images. Stock is photography which is copyright owned, for sale as stock through stock agency websites. Just because they are stock doesn’t mean they are free to use any way you want. If you pay to use a stock photo, properly, you are still bound to the use restrictions. One thing you can’t do, is put them on your photography web site or blog and pretend that you are the photographer of the images.

    • captain-confuzzled

      Even if the license allows use for commercial purposes, using it to represent your own work is IMMORAL and could be argued to be fraudulent if someone paid for photographic services from your wife and the quality did not equal this work. Please just stop and think about this. If you truly live a spiritual life, the idea of doing something immoral, fraudulent or even mis-representation, should really send you running to eliminate ANY possibility of confusion! the longer you refuse to do that, the more I become convinced that any claims that you are living a religious, Christian life are themselves lies.

    • Justin Case

      sorry, but that is most definitely NOT a stock site. It “is a meta search engine. We gather all other
      free resource into one. Make it easy to find and download.

      All of the resources are gathered by users and public sources on the internet.”

      They do not even claim to have the right to give you rights. I understand how you could be fooled, and if it were only for personal use or for use on a NON-PHOTOGRAPHY based website understandable, but as a business you are expected to do ‘due-diligence’ and research for yourself what rights you have.

    • You apparently don’t know how to read: IT EVEN SAYS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE!!!
      ” Not all of the resources are allowed for commercial use please CONTACT THE AUTHOR FOR DETAILS” (caps added by myself for emphasis).

      • Michael Goolsby

        Great post. A shame it will fall on deaf ears.

    • doncalifornia

      ZenInsight, I went to that site all-free-download.com. What I noticed is that the vast majority of those images each were lifted from other locations on the internet. The reason is, they are indeed stock photos, used in ads and banners and so on by many different companies. But if you trace them back to the stock agency where they originated, you’ll see a use license still needs to be purchased to legally use the photo. The purveyors of all-free-download.com know this too, which is why on every single photo that is on their site, when you click to download, you’ll see there is a DMCA Takedown Notice link highlighted directly below it. It’s their way of Covering their asses. If you click the notice link you’ll see it is a form for COPYRIGHT OWNERS to demand they remove the photo. Get it? This “free” website is just posting photos and denying responsibility if someone like Dana downloads a photo and uses it and gets caught not paying a license to the proper copyright holder. Moral of the story: Just because an image is ubiquitous does not mean it is free to use. Unless a copyright holder SPECIFICALLY dedicates a work to the Public Domain, the photo is NOT Public Domain – it is still under copyright.

  • Michael Goolsby

    I think I’m starting to get a better “picture” here.

    Early, the husband wrote: “I told her is the pic isn’t watermarked she needs to write credit for the original or to delete it.”

    As professional photographers, we understand the accuracy — or perhaps inaccuracy — of his advise. The problem is, this guy doesn’t. His wife is an amateur not ready for prime-time business, and she’s getting advise from a man who, though well-intentioned, is no more knowledgeable himself. Now that the crap has hit the fan, he’s trying to function as her “jailhouse lawyer”… that is, an inmate with just enough knowledge to be dangerous to himself. And he’s obviously so passionate to defend her (and, by proxy, himself), that he’s finding veracity in his own arguments where no veracity lies.

    It is doubtful that anything productive will come from any more exchanges with this person.

    • captain-confuzzled

      Michael, I am certain that you are correct in your assessment. The concept is just so simple in terms of misrepresenting work that it is really hard to understand that someone just doesn’t get it. Somehow it seems so worth it, to try and help them understand this simple idea. And to understand how much damage is really done by this type of fraud. Misrepresenting work with images not taken by the photographer is not a victimless crime. But if they still don’t get it after reading all the comments, I guess they are not showing interest in understanding the truth and there is not much we can do about that.

      • Michael Goolsby

        Simple, indeed!

        I once had the misfortune of having to settle a matter through litigation. The attitude of the defendant was similar; a simple matter, but nothing could get through the bubble. They refused to negotiate, they refused to arbitrate, and the refused to settle. We got into court, and the arguments were presented. The judge spent a lot of time with the defendant trying to get them to understand that they were not making a convincing argument. At one point, he actually tried to educate them on the true intent of the law. Finally, he just asked if they had anything else to contribute before he made his decision. The defendant just said “I still maintain that… ” and repeated their argument. Finally just fed up with the obstinance, he rolled his eyes, shook his head, and said “You can ‘maintain’ all you want, but your argument didn’t have merit five minutes ago and it doesn’t have any more now, either.” Needless to say, the ruling was favorable and quick.

        This man is not a professional AND he is not listening to the professionals. That means that he has put himself in a “bubble” in order to protect himself, and he will let nothing in that bubble. No facts. No understanding. No perspective. The wife is doing the same thing, opengly declaring that she has done nothing wrong, and that she will delete any comments stating the contrary. These are people who will LEARN NOTHING. They are too concerned being “victims” to understand anything further. To them, right and wrong is based upon ideology rather than fact. Accordingly, we are “bullies” to say that they have committed wrong.

        This site is a wall of shame for the unrepentant. If there is the chance of repentance here, I don’t see it. Any additional arguing will be pointless. Nonetheless, this site has largely accomplished its goal.

  • Dana is too busy with their sick child to come to this site and defend herself but she is not too busy to post on her blog about all this:

    http://dananichole.com/blog/?load/blog_detail/page/101225/item/1746

    • Justin Case

      or facebook. It’s a start, I hope.

      • Joseph Philbert

        1% stock? I guess in the public eye they want to save face.
        Jesus.

        • CrackerJacker

          Apparently math is not her strong suit, either.

      • Michael Goolsby

        It went from being inspiration to a “mixup”.

        Whatever you need to tell yourself in order to sleep in god’s good graces, I suppose.

      • BullShite

        It sickens me that they keep using a ill child to redirect their theft. I can’t think of anything more disgusting as a parent. What a way to devalue the seriousness of it by using it as a cop-out to deflect on copyright infringement

    • captain-confuzzled

      From Dana’s blog “My intentions may have been innocent, but I have
      apparently harmed others to the point of their desire to harm me and my
      family. I’m sorry for that and for them” Why, why, why, why can’t
      someone just plain apologize???? “my intentions MAY have been
      innocent” (or they may not have been). “I apparently harmed others”
      (actually you DID harm others). Apologizing for something you “may”
      have done is not an apology. I also see no evidence of anyone trying to harm you or your family here.

      • CrackerJacker

        No one apologizes for their actions anymore. They apologize for you being upset BY their actions. Because, lord knows, if no-one caught them and called them out on it, they would not be apologizing!

      • Joseph Philbert

        “So if you desire to do so, comment here, comment on facebook…fill every area you can with nastiness and cruel remarks…I will not respond and if anything I will simply delete. ” smh

        • Justin Case

          yup. true to her word. she has already deleted the one mild comment posted. So I guess the apology means…?

      • Andy

        It amazes me that some adults think that ‘I’m sorry you feel that way’ will actually pass muster as an apology.

  • Michael Goolsby

    Just for trivial interest, I’ll be passing right through Kansas City, MO on a drive to Colorado in a couple of weeks. City Hall is just three blocks off I-70. I might just pop in and see if Dana Nichole Photography of Kansas City, Missouri is even a legitimate business. I’m betting it isn’t. Which means that these “honest” people probably don’t report the revenue or pay taxes on the income. Any takers on my bet?

    • captain-confuzzled

      won’t take that bet 😉 , but sure would be interesting to know.

    • C Sab

      You should show them this link and see what they think about it. 😛

  • captain-confuzzled

    not too bad, except for the “mix up” part. Probably the best we’ll get with this one. I’m okay with it, as long as there is follow through and amends made to wronged photographers, people in the photos and any clients that were misled.

  • On a side note … you want to avoid those coupon/group on sites.

    http://www.crowdsavings.com/kansas-city/23486-dana-nichole-photography

    $64 for 1-Hour Photo-Shoot Package for up to 6 People with 2 Digital Images, 1 Print & More ($170 Value)

    64$ … the site USUALLY takes 50%. so 32$.
    A 1 hour session is about 3 hours of work.
    An 8X10 will set you back about 5$ to print. A labeled disk will set you back another 3$

    32$ – 8$ in hard costs = 24$
    Let’s say you are putting aside 50% to help pay business costs. 12$
    24$-12$=12$ / 3 hours = 6$ an hour …

    You also have very limited control in how many you actually sell so this can really harm your business.

  • C Sab

    Who wants to bet this ZenInsight clown is the thief/her husband/or one of their friends trying to justify the thief’s sleazy, pathetic actions and her cowardice (using the excuse of a sick child to justify herself not stepping up and dealing with this herself.)

    • Helena

      It’s the husband. Making things much much worse.

      • C Sab

        Yup, for both of them.

  • Photo Stealers

    I blocked and banned Dan Brady (aka ZenInsight) from commenting. He stated his case and it was turning into a mess so I decided to disable his commenting. If you have any questions regarding this please feel free to contact me.

    • Joseph Philbert

      Well it was a good rant when it lasted … Unfortunately it’s was like talking to a rock so I do understand why he is blocked.

    • He just kept repeating the same thing. “This site that steals pictures told me I was allowed to use them!”. Ok so I might be paraphrasing there a bit.

      That and continually ignoring the ethics and legality of false advertising created by using OTHER PEOPLES WORK TO REPRESENT THEIR OWN.

      • Andy

        Someone needs to explain to him that if he buys what would be commonly understood as stolen goods, he might also expect the judge to the the book at him.

    • Considering Chris jones is still allowed to post here … this came as a slight surprise.

      • Joel A

        He must have been real bad. I was only away for a day. And this thing already has almost 300 comments!

        • Justin Case

          it really was a bit crazy. He was replying to four people at once and was absolutely determined to find every little flaw in every piece of evidence while never actually looking at the big picture.

          Corey Ann can correct me if I’ve got the numbers wrong, but it was less than a dozen fairly general comments before hubby showed up, then it rocketed up to over 200 in a few hours.

          Why, when people have sick kids, serious diseases, mental health issues, etc. do they insist on coming here and picking a fight?

          In a totally weird, backwards way I actually respect the ego-maniacal method of Brett and Jizelle – just let your wild and varied past social media presence do your fighting for you.

          • C Sab

            Except there really weren’t any flaws in the evidence. It proved indisputably that Dana is a thief, and she needs to make things right. That’s all.

      • Photo Stealers

        Chris admits he fucked up and has apologized. I shut down the comments there though because it was getting ridiculous.

        • C Sab

          Yeah it was. It would probably be nearing 10,000 comments by now. But I bet we haven’t heard the last of him.

          • Photo Stealers

            I don’t care what he does in his personal life, the issues (stolen images and the contest debacle) were resolved so I felt it was best to shut the comments down.

          • C Sab

            I mean knowing what kind of person he is, he’ll probably pull the same crap again one day.

          • C Sab

            I mean that he might try to pull some kind of crap in the future. With him, it’s definitely possible.

          • Joseph Philbert

            he did already as ” unsureaboutthelegality” 😛

          • C Sab

            I mean stealing. 😛

  • Wes Jones

    I believe that any photographer (even those just starting out) who knowingly uses a photograph that is not their own, knows perfectly well that it is unethical (putting aside the legal argument). Any apology offered after being caught is worthless in my eyes.

    • Justin Case

      100%

    • Joseph Philbert

      I agree … It’s just common sense.

    • BullShite

      I’m still mind-boggled at the level of denial. I mean no matter what you said, and how many times you put basic logic up in front of him, he was never wrong. It’s just insane.

    • Michael Goolsby

      absolutely. And if they do not, it is way too early for them to be getting into business.

    • Joel A

      Definitly. I still remember finding the PS site and reading about a few of these thieves and wondering to myself: “But why would someone take another’s picture to show as theirs. They are only lieing to them selves, because they can’t replicate it. So they are just going to get a angry non repeat customer, why not study the photo and try to learn from it instead of steal?”

      Ever since back before when I was a amateur, I never thought of using anyone else’s photos except my own on my website. It’s YOUR portfolio. Don’t lie to yourself people!

      Oh and learn how to use the share button on Facebook.

    • susan

      I don’t know. There are so many that have absoutely no business opening a “business.” They get a camera and think all they have to do is throw up a FB page and maybe a free website. Both of those would be ok if they only did some amount of due diligenence on business basics. I honestly think there are quite a few that post other photographers pictures believing they are just “inspiration” as in, isnt this gorgeous or we could do this (nevrrmind that often their results fall well below the original “idea.”)These folks have the Pinterest and FB mentality meaning that they think no farther than they fact that they can share, that sharing is the purpose. They do not, or cannot, make the connection of the difference between social versus business. While many forgive these kinds of “mistakes” one also expects the infringer to have that lightbulb moment, realize what their misconception/mistake was, make the proper corrections and move on to becoming a better “professional.” I feel this really could have been the case with Dana. Alas, she appears ti be digging in her heels refusing to admit she was (without malice) just uninformed. I cant tell you how many times ive had to do the same in different careers over these last 30-some years. An honest “i made a mistake and I appreciate your help” has earned me respect and many opportunities i might not have otherwise had.

  • doncalifornia

    All I know is, “Zen Insight” is absolutely the least applicable name on earth for that clown.

    • C Sab

      Pretty much.

  • Justin Case

    For those of you who are coming here for the first time and feel like the comments here are somehow unfair, insensitive or ‘bullying’ I would like to point out a few things (purely from my own perspective):

    1. as the header above quite clearly points out, this site is meant to be a ‘wall of shame.’ If you have been caught doing something wrong and it had to be pointed out to you, shame is a natural reaction. Those individuals and companies featured here have broken one of the fundamental rules of being a professional photographer: you display ONLY your own work to represent yourself

    2. it is not the mission of this site to educate those who have been proven (NOT just accused, but with proof ALWAYS presented) to have broken the rule above. If you are a professional, advertising your services and taking money, it is YOUR responsibility to educate yourself on professional conduct. There are plenty or internet resources, schools and professional societies (not to mention lawyers, teachers and mentoring photographers) to learn from.

    3. the sites main mission is to expose photographers so that people (potential clients, photographers who have had their intellectual property stolen, other interested parties) know about the offenders’ fraudulent or deceptive activity. Its biggest asset in this is its high profile and ability to list highly in search engines. If you feel this is unfair, well sorry, and welcome to the internet.

    4. this site is not a court of law. It has no legal authority and can not punish or sanction anyone. No one is forcing you to visit this site. If you don’t like it, ignore it. Duhh.

    Lastly, if you feel you have been wrongly accused, look closely at the post. Then look again. If you STILL feel like everything you have done is fine and legitimate, then there is little we will be able to do to convince you otherwise. If you see even A LITTLE problem, do what most legitimate businesses should do: correct the problem, don’t just hide it. Then acknowledge the error, apologize properly and truthfully to those you may have deceived, and get on with your life.

    If you come here looking to pick a fight, or try any of the tired, bullshit excuses or rationalizations, please don’t expect to find much sympathy.

    FULL DISCLOSURE: I am an interested individual who comes here to educate myself, to try to help when I can, and sometimes just for the giggles. I in NO WAY am trying to represent anyone else or the owner of this site. If you want the official policy, do your homework and read the FAQs.

  • Bingo Little
  • Justin Case

    we’re getting there.

    • captain-confuzzled

      love the bingo card! gee, I think you can mark the “let’s move on” square with her “there is nothing else to say” and maybe even the “intern, ex-employee…) for the “my husband ..put up the Craigslist ad… so I do not know where he got
      the images”. Heck even the “I’m sorry you feel that way” with her “I am sad for those that are distressed”.

      • Justin Case

        and just ’cause this is so much fun, I have adapted my own card (we can all play!)

        all due respect to the original uncredited creator and sorry for the infringement (don’t sue me!)

  • I wrote a reply to her BS blog post, which of course was not allowed to be shown. But surprisingly, she replied!
    I’ll just let oyu guys read it yourselves, I don’t need to say anything:
    “I do not think you
    understand. I have never stolen a photo. And just because my husband
    confused Aubrey’s name with my friend Amber who is an amazing baby
    photographer and he was trying to defend me…doesn’t change the facts.
    I have a photographer friend I went to grade school with named Aubrey
    who works in Lincoln, NE. He was confused by the name. But often when
    there is misunderstanding its human to not want to believe in other
    people. It’s the state of our society. Guilty until proven innocent.

    It is fine. If you want to harass me, put up unkind comments or send
    messages you are more than welcome to and several have chosen this
    route. There is nothing I can do to stop it nor will I attempt to. I
    have been honest, so there is nothing else to say.

    In my opinion this is silly and I am sad for those that are distressed but
    it’s surely not my place to call someone else a liar any more than it
    is for someone to assume I am. After all, you do not know me or could
    even begin to guess at who I am.

    Any photograph that I have ever put up I put up because I liked it and found
    them on stock sites. My husband on the other hand put up the
    Craigslist ad for me while I was pregnant so I do not know where he got
    the images but only that he is trying to help me branch into a different
    part of the industry.

    I am not an angry person, so I don’t get worked up about things.

    I will not put unkind comments on my blog especially when they are character attacks that are untrue.

    I wish all of you luck, and if you’d like you can share my email with
    your group but I have not even gone to your page to see the accusations
    or the comments.

    Take care,
    Dana
    Dana Nichole Photography
    Kansas City Metropolitan Area
    816-517-4169”
    I’m still laughing. To STILL be so clueless about how things work. And yeah, I totally believe you’ve not been reading here Dana.

    • “those that are distressed”… how flippant to put those she f’ing stole from under such a weak label! Fuck, I really starting to hate these guys.

      • Justin Case

        while I have no hate in my heart for either Dana or her husband, this:
        “I have apparently harmed others to the point of their desire to harm me and my family. I’m sorry for that and for them” shit does really piss me off.
        It really, truly is insulting. Implying the high-road while taking a sucker-punch to the groin.

    • Joseph Philbert

      Yet she still thinks what was done right …. and in that lies the problem

      • Justin Case

        Bingo. It was like when I kept advising ‘take it all down’ and his response was ‘take WHAT down?’ Even if he didn’t understand that I meant shut down the facebook/craigslist/whatever-else-was-in-question, he was still asking US to tell him which images weren’t his wife’s!

        Oh, and just a small PS: the image I pointed out way down below, which linked from her twitter account – with NO credit/watermark/link, of course – was STILL on her facebook account last time I checked.

        • Justin Case

          original image from all over the place

          • BullShite

            Yeah, but her baby is sick, so it’s ok.

          • Joseph Philbert

            I hate when people use something like that as an excuse.

    • Just a Girl

      She encourages comments and then moderates them. LOL Hypocrite!

      • Joseph Philbert

        She makes sure to leave the encouraging ones only #gofigure.

    • Me

      >Any photograph that I have ever put up I put up because I liked it and foundthem on stock sites.

      Christ. How clueless do you have to be? Just because you found it on-line doesn’t mean you get to do with it what you want AND the other issue, strongly imply that this is your work.

      • I know, right? Until the bubble of that thought process is burst, they will never be able to see what they did in the proper light. Fucking idiots.

  • Melinda Potter

    Just thought I’d throw in that her “logo” for her blog/website seems to have been taken from here https://www.etsy.com/listing/122466800/black-and-white-bird-silhouette-flower It’s being sold as an art print. I highly doubt after reading the description of the finished item, that this artist sells her images as graphics used for commercial use. Given the fact that this photographer has shopped for images to use in her portfolio and ads/marketing by using google and just taking what she likes. It’s most likely up for grabs as far as Dana is concerned and improperly and illegally acquired.

    • Melinda Potter

      I contacted the artist and directed her here. Catherine, I also took screen shots should she take it down and you need proof of her infringment (if this is in fact the case) to follow up with a bill and/or any legal action you may take.

      • Joseph Philbert

        Did not even think of the logo

        • Melinda Potter

          It stuck out to me. If it had been purchased it would have worked properly. Add that to her own lack of creativity and the fact that she was listed here… Well it was screaming “I was stolen!”

  • Catherine Jeltes

    Thank you, Melinda, for letting me know! Yes, the image she is using for her blog is mine and being used without my permission. I have notified her via her recent blog post and have asked her to remove it. We shall see.

    • Melinda Potter

      I’m really sorry she did this. Glad I could help

    • Catherine Jeltes

      This morning I posted the same polite request on her facebook page, which may facilitate a quicker response.

      • Melinda Potter

        I think maybe an invoice is in order. I only say this because she doesn’t seem to grasp that taking creative work from others is even wrong. I don’t believe any images were taken down promptly, but instead were left until she/her husband couldn’t justify their use. Or… Until they decided to try to turn the tables and try to make all of us the bad guys who were in the wrong. I know you normally don’t invoice for this type of use, because you don’t allow it, but It just might be the best course of action.

        • Melinda Potter

          Keep in mind you can still send a bill for your image’s use even if she obliges and takes your image down.

        • BullShite

          I hope someone can do something. These are the kind of people that are going to reoffend, “reopen” etc, because they are either to stupid to get “google image search” is not “free to use” or “stock” or the denial and entitlement goes so deep the only way to hit them hard and get them to stop will be in the wallet.

        • Catherine Jeltes

          I am thinking a DMCA takedown notice.

      • Melinda Potter

        Well… She was quick to delete your request :/

        • Catherine Jeltes

          I still see it (the request) on both the blog and fb. If I don’t receive a response in a reasonable manner, it may just go up on both my fan page, and my personal facebook page…perhaps some extra encouragement. 🙂

          • Justin Case

            Catherine, I certainly understand your concern and wouldn’t dare think of telling you how to handle your response, but I think her sick child issue is likely very real.
            I would assume as long as you don’t see her start deleting comments, she likely hasn’t even noticed.

          • Catherine Jeltes

            That may very well be the case, Justin, but this is not personal. Unfortunately it is simply business–my professional business, my reputation, and livelihood for my family that I have to protect. My child could be sick, my husband could be dying…but that is not an excuse for me not to be held accountable to the law. If a DMCA takedown notice results in her ISP removing my copyrighted material from her site, then perhaps, just perhaps, it will cause her to re-evaluate using other artist’s images in the future.

  • Joseph Philbert

    From Yelp:

    Dana is a pretty solid photographer but gets most of her business from deal saver and groupon. Because most of her work does come from discount sites, and she doesn’t make much on each session, she doesn’t seem to be in much of a hurry to get your photos to you after your shoot. She was great as far as rescheduling due to rain but it literally took two months to get back about 15 photos. The session was also for an hour and we got about 20 minutes. We are still waiting on the larger pic that was included in the package 6 months later but pretty have pretty much given up at this point I suspect she is probably better with full paying customers, but we used groupon to try her and its just not worth the risk to pay full price and get the same service we previously had. Getting your childs 1 year pics two months later was pretty discouraging.

  • Justin Case

    Dana is hardly the worst photostealer we have seen. In fact, she’s a complete lightweight and the QUANTITY of infractions is quite small. I believe her and her husband’s excuses are genuine, and that they are simply WAY too naïve to be in this business.

    However, that actually makes things worse. She HAS NOT removed the images from her blog or even the one I have pointed out several times on her facebook, and rather than credit the original photographers, she has posted this insulting comment:

    ” *due to some recent FREAK OUTS by some mistaken and unhappy individuals who are more interested in trying to harm others than ask questions…I will be clear. THIS is not my photo. It is a photograph that I think is pretty. Hence the reason I didn’t claim it was mine. (small heart)”

    I bear Dana and her husband no malice. Her business is not a direct threat to my livelihood and we would never be competing for the same work. But this kind of behavior cheapens ALL creative output and harms the dignity of ALL artists. If someone sending her an invoice for unauthorized usage helps her to understand, great, so be it. But I really doubt it will. And that saddens me. If the ‘moms with cameras’ really don’t get it, even when it is pointed out to them, we ARE lost.

    • Joseph Philbert

      At this point only a letter from a lawyer may shock them into reality.

    • captain-confuzzled

      This is ultimately what makes it all sooo frustrating! Probably good people overall, that they can be so blind is incredibly amazing. If someone stole their car, used it as a cab and they found out, and the thief said, well I just really liked your car and thought it would make a good cab, so sorry its all dirty and destroyed by my use of it as a cab. Would that logic fly? I don’t know, maybe with them it would. sigh. Given the religious bent with this couple, the thief might be “forgiven”, that doesn’t change that the act was wrong in the first place. Religious generally equals some morals, but when it doesn’t the hypocrisy just blows my mind, and infuriates me more than say, a Brett or similar just plain con artist.

    • captain-confuzzled

      Well said!

    • Bingo Little

      I’ll vote this up.

    • welcometothedarkside

      Looks, like all aspects of this have been cleaned by her and her husband. But, that is no reason to stop hammering her sites with posts and links and any attack we can possibly think of!

      “This wall of shame is dedicated to photographers that feel that it’s okay to steal others work and post it as their own.”

      Clearly they feel it’s ok to steal work. Right? No way did they make ANY rookie mistakes. Also, the way they people are attacking their religion…..that’s so classic! What a bunch of Jesus loving losers these idiots must be.

      Bravo stopstealingphotos.com. What a class act this site is. Show them who owns this internet.

      RIGHT! Right? ummm…right?

      • semi

        Stealing other photographers’ photos and using them to promote your own business is not a “rookie mistake.” Dishonesty is not a “rookie mistake.”

        • welcometothedarkside

          Oh. I know that. These people are total liars. Everything they do is a lie. You know they are lying because, they exist. Ha!!

      • BullShite

        If you are a “rookie” and have to use other people’s images to sell your photographic attempts, you are NOT READY to call yourself a “PROFESSIONAL,” let alone take the money of honest customers who think you are better than you are, based on the photos you “used”.

        One day this will sink in with the two of you.

      • Justin Case

        *ahem*

        Can you read? Did you understand a single word in the post above? Or do you just randomly decide, “I think I’ll put my sarcasm here”

        1.Read. 2.Think. 3.Write. 4.Reread. 5.Post. Works a lot better that way.

  • Joseph Philbert

    You know if she listened this would never become a public issue.

  • captain-confuzzled

    The most important lesson I have learned from this photo stealer case….never, ever, ever, ever, use a cursive font on a blog! geeez!

  • Bingo Little
    • Justin Case

      HAHA! Brilliant! This should prove VERY useful around here!

  • Catherine Jeltes

    FYI…all the facebook posts some of you added to her facebook page this am (including a duplicate of the screensaver shot below) have been deleted from said page. Unfortunately my image on her website and blog remain.

    • Guest

      She is deleting posts as soon as we post one, so I gave her a little hint how that will do no good as we can still share on FB along with a link to this site. Nix that first image, my mistake, though I removed it from the post before posting, sorry

    • MPR1776

      I let her know we can still share with a link to this site, so she knows she’s not going to get away with stuff that easily,

      • Joseph Philbert

        She responded … no lets see what happens.

        • Catherine Jeltes

          My image has been removed from her website home page as well as her blog page.

    • Catherine Jeltes

      In place of my comment on her fan page, Dana tagged me and wrote that she private messaged me on fb. Here is what she stated:

      “I would be happy to. I won’t be able to remove it until I can work on my blog on Monday.

      Thank you.”

      I did thank her and stated that I would follow up. In the meantime, I did file a DMCA takedown notice with her websites ISP provider. This whole process is an interesting experience for me and I thank all of you for continuing to bring issues like this to light to artists who might not otherwise discover the illegal use of their art.

      • Joseph Philbert

        hmm she cant remove it till Monday … yet she is able to remove posts and comments at will … dies
        Good Luck.

        • captain-confuzzled

          But Joseph, you have to understand that as a Seventh Day Adventist, today is the Sabbath, and as the church clearly states in their page on observing the Sabbath “Thus His people will engage only in those activities that are directed
          toward God and their fellowmen and not in those that lean toward self-gratification or self-interest.” It seems that Facebook work on her business page does not count as self-interest, but blogs do. That is a clear line to me…smh

          • Joseph Philbert

            Ohhhhhh makes perfect sense now … “sarcasm” 🙂

      • amazed

        You might send her an invoice for the image usage. That might get her attention, along with a lawyers letter. She’s basically giving you the finger by refusing to remove these with her excuses.

      • BullShite

        This is why I love this page. Years ago I had some of my art work stolen and used on Deviant Art by some faker. It was a pain in the ass and I didn’t even know what a DMCA was. At least for the frauds that get busted on photo stealers, there is a little karma.

      • Catherine Jeltes

        As of 8:54 pm central time, my image has been removed from both her blog and her website home page.

        • Joseph Philbert

          GREAT!!

        • Joel A

          Nice.

      • Photo Stealers

        So she was able to update her blog about this, remove Garry’s tree image from her blog but not yours!? I’m sorry.

  • captain-confuzzled

    Not photography, but the music on her website is from a quite well known group. I doubt (although don’t know for certain) that it was licensed for use on her website.

    • BullShite

      If you can figure out who the label owner is, contacting them would be the way to go.

  • unsureaboutthelegality

    They said they were using example pics at Craigs that they found free. Then upon notice that some were copyrighted, they fixed the
    Ad and put a statement on that they didn’t own the pic but they were
    licensed as free to use, with a link to the original site.

    I can see the some of these pics in the above
    post. The cake and bunch of others. At that site site (free-pics
    something?) it lists the photographer (original one) and says they are
    free to use. If they were not free to use, how could they still be
    there…with the photographers name and everything?

    Why are free
    to use pics, on this posting? Especially when they said they stated on
    their second Craigs Ad. … that they were free to use and examples of
    shots they liked? Which part of that is the infringement part? I get the Facebook image, or a header image that was not theirs (apprently taken down upon notification).

    Sorry…I am unfamiliar with the way internet pics are allowed to be used.

    • Joseph Philbert

      1. not all the images on that free site are Free to use nor does the site give you permission. Its very misleading.
      2. If false advertising to use images you never created to get more photography business… is called FRAUD.
      3. Now if you doing something other than photography that is a non issue since the images shown cannot be mistaken as your work.

      • Joel A

        Pretty much this ^

      • unsureaboutthelegality

        Ok. So let me make sure I understand.

        If the site has photos listed and given permission for use commercially, and then an ad states that the photos are examples, not owned by the business, then it is ok to use them as they are not being misrepresented in any way?

        • Joseph Philbert

          Let me see if I can spell it out… if a someone has the permission to use the image commercially providing its from a verified source.
          If they are using the images as an example of their work it is WRONG.
          If they use images as ideas and a client hires them based on that they should be equal to the task of actually recreating the same quality of work (usually not true).

          As photographers its look down upon because we are usually supposed to use our OWN work for advertising not some other random online image that happens to be better than anything we ever created (99% of the time). Never seen an outed photo thief use a bad/terrible image for their advertising why is that??? smh

        • Michael Goolsby

          Why is this a friggin debate? Photographers dont use other photographers’ pictures. End of the friggin story. Are you a friggin moron??

          • Joseph Philbert

            The man is trying to fight for his wife honor … its admirable but failed from conception unfortunately .

          • Just a Girl

            Would that be Honor amongst Thieves?

          • BullShite

            If he can find some non-existent loophole to excuse his fraudulent behavior, and hers, he can relive the guilt of being a part of this mess.

            Personally if I was one of these religious types, I would see this as God himself telling me that stealing was wrong, and that part of redemption was admittance, and asking for forgiveness from those who you have wronged…. not snarkly suggesting that I was the victim…. but then again, God only punishes everyone else I guess. Funny how you can be indoctrinated into this idea that God can see and tally every one of your sins, yet you continue to do the things against his word, knowing he KNOWS. Why be religious if you are only going to break the rules and play lip service in Church?

            Happy Easter!

        • Just a Girl

          What about Catherine’s photo…. Did you get that off of a free site? Nope….Stolen!

          • Just a Girl

            And on top of that she was insulted further by being told the photo would be taken down in a few days NOT immediately! Ya’ ll are a real piece of work!

        • Helena

          You can’t say a photo that she didn’t take is an example. That is misrepresentation. You would have to clearly state it is not your work, provide a link back to the copyright owner’s page, and get the copyright owners permission to use the photo still. That website states it does not own the copyright to these pictures and to check with the owner.

          Here’s a comparison. If my mother (an oil painter) takes a photo of a friend’s watercolour painting, she owns the copyright to that picture of a picture, but would it be acceptable to display that picture on a website as an example of her work? No it would not. Even stating that the photo was not hers, but an example of what she could do, it would still not be right.

          That is what Dana has done. She misrepresented herself as a photographer. She’s never shot a wedding yet advertised her services using a photo she didn’t create. She created blog posts about subjects with photos she didn’t create. She posted photos to Facebook that she didn’t create. Even if the image is public domain, it is still wrong. I understand that wedding advertisement was changed but putting a disclaimer on the rest doesn’t negate the fact they are being used as examples of what she can do.

    • BullShite

      Here is another example: Let’s say I have a blue 2000 Honda I want to sell you right? It runs great, but it’s an old car. There are a few dingers, scratches, a little rust spot by the tyre, and a few faded political bumper stickers, and an after market windshield that I had to replace once… oh and a rip in the fabric of one of the car seats.

      Now lets say I don’t have any pictures of the car. So I go online and I look up blue 2000 Honda, and there are some photos of the SAME car I have SAME CAR…. but of a newer one. Doesn’t have the dingers, or the rust spots, or anything, so I decide to post that, and I don’t write that this is only a REPRESENTATION (or as a fauxtog would call it “inspiration”) of the car.

      YOU the potential buyer comes along and sees my listing. HOW are YOU supposed to KNOW that isn’t the car? I mean it’s a blue 2000 Honda, right?

      SO here you are ALL excited, because it’s in such good shape, so you get your money together, and you travel all the way down…. and you are presented with a blue 2000 Honda that is NOTHING like the photo in the advertisement.

      Now that you see that I’ve decieved you, you point that out, and I start making excuses:

      “It’s the same car I was selling!! Same year and color and everything! Why are you complaining!?”
      “It was just a REPRESENTATION! How was I supposed to know you would think it was anything else?”

      Oh, and I found Jesus and have Cancer, too, so that should make you feel to bad for me to get angry.

      A “PHOTOGRAPHER” THAT STEALS IS JUST AS BAD (if not worse) THAN THIS!

      • unsureaboutthelegality

        Yep. I do understand this. This first case listing of the ad, with images that were copyrighted, and no defined statement of non-ownership is not ok. Even if they did not intend it, it’s sloppy. The second set is the one I was referring to. You never answered the question.

        IF a picture is available for commercial use, AND the business owner states it is not their…how can this be illegal? The cake pic as an example.

        http://all-free-download.com/free-photos/wedding_cake_192520.html

        “Author: wedding cake by amy quinn. The top of a wedding cake wedding, cake, macro. Camera: Canon EOS 40D, shutter speed: 1/60, aperture: f 5.6, ISO : ISO 640, focal length: 85 mm.License: Public Domain Dedication (You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.) ”

        Their second ad states:
        *pics in this ad are used only to show examples of books or location based ideas, and are licensed and commercially available to use from all-free-download dot com – License: Public Domain Dedication (You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.) They are concepts we like. If you want to see our original work, visit our dot com*

        Yet, the images are at the top here. How does that make sense? Just trying to understand, if this is an opinion of how to run a business, or illegal. It seems to be very opinionated to me.

        • Darren

          This was only added after the fact. They did not have any such disclaimer on their photos before being called out here.

          Using someone else’s photos, even with a disclaimer, is highly amateurish and not something a serious professional photographer would ever do.

          • unsureaboutthelegality

            AH. But not illegal. And, the ad where the cake and all the other pics were, definitely had the disclaimer.

            The cake and all others from the free site, WHICH states the owner of the image, AND has a legal usage offering for commercial biz, site were not part of the first add…at all. Just the second ad. Which has the disclaimer.

            So really, the false accusations are coming from this site as well. But..I guess they leave those images up..because it makes the complaint look more legit.

            So, in the future, anyone that ever uses a pic with permission, and states it isn’t theirs but one they like as an example, this site will put their business on display here? Right? And if they do not…then that means this site is discrimination against artists, not for their content, but for when they have done anything not approved by this site…that they can go to anything they ever do in the future, no matter how legal it is, and accuse them of continual fraud.

            Thanks for the reply. I just wanted to understand the process here.

          • Joseph Philbert

            Their are no false accusations the “FREE” site does not have the permission to tell others to use the images commercially. If you look you will not find the documentation that they have.

            Sites that actually allow others to use the image FREE .. WILL NEVER HAVE A DMCA disclaimer on the bottom of that image …want to know WHY…because the actually have the rights to distribute the images.

            They may be naive of the law and about image copyrights does not get them off the hook …. its called education.

          • Justin Case

            Bingo. And even a cursory, objective inspection of that website would set off alarm bells.

          • Joseph Philbert

            BTW you were transparent from the first post we know you are her husband.

          • Michael Goolsby

            Yes, but we were not suppose to KNOW that. (I know, expecting us not to is pretty damn lame. But that’s part of the irony of her husband, who thinks he is both original and convincing, when actually we’ve already seen it all before.

          • Darren

            Your wife used photos that weren’t hers to publicize her photography business. You can try to rationalize this any way you like. But that is not acceptable behavior for any photography who is accepting money for their services. Period.

            If she another photographer’s photos without permission (as she did), then it’s illegal. And unethical.

            If she used stock photography, it violated the terms of service. And unethical.

            If she used free, rights free photographs, it’s just unethical.

          • Guest

            I’m sure you think you are presenting a well-reasoned, logical argument. But you’re not. You just sound ridiculous. Not quite as ridiculous as a “professional photographer” who uses someone else’s photos to represent their work. But close.

          • Justin Case

            ‘I just wanted to understand the process here.’ No, you really, didn’t. What you wanted was to justify Dana’s behavior. Please don’t insult our intelligence.

            It has been very well spelled out for you how this site works. If that is unclear, read through the postings again.

            You wanted to mitigate the damage of the images posted above? Here are your mistakes:

            1. Take down everything off of Dana’s website, blog, business facebook account that she did not take. Don’t post insulting, childish rationalizations or excuses blaming others. If she needs a picture of raindrops because she wants to illustrate a post about rain, PICK UP THE FUCKING CAMERA. That’s what a photographer does.

            2. Come up with a real, honest apology and post it. Not a hedging ‘explanation’ blaming others for the error in judgement or ethical lapse, or obvious misunderstanding of professional conduct for a photographer running a business.

            3. Stop insulting other photographers and artists by trying to justify Dana’s behavior. If you really don’t understand why it was wrong (and parts of it perhaps illegal – this is a website, not a court of law, DUH) go and educate yourself. Seriously.

          • CrackerJacker

            Also, please stop lying about the disclaimer. There are screen shots in the comments here that show what the disclaimer said before you, sorry, Dana’s husband tried to alter reality and changed them.

          • MPR1776

            Disclaimer does not matter, if you do not have permission from the original owner to use the image it is copyright infringement, period, and the company posting those images is equally liable for damages. Plus the site’s disclaimer is here:
            All-free-download.com is a meta search engine. We gather all other free resource into one. Make it easy to find and download.

            All of the resources are gathered by users and public sources on the internet.

            Not all of the resources are allowed for commercial use please contact the author for detail

            If resources have violated your copyright, please through feedback to us so that we can delete a timely manner to protect you!

            Copyright © 2012 http://www.all-free-download.com. All Rights Reserved

            First part says they are a meta search engine so like google images, just because it is there does not make it free to use or modify.

        • Joseph Philbert

          First they actually have to say those words the first time … not after the fact. Point is the original poster never intended to let their viewers know that so by default the viewer would see it as their work and skill level.
          What most of use do is if we post images as an example or inspiration we actually spell it out when we post it.
          Like “I saw this image and would love to do this on my next shoot”

        • Just a Girl

          A free website told you you could use someone else’s photos…. The actual owner of the photos didn’t. If the website lists the owner of the photo I am curious to know why you didn’t seek the actual photographer out and ask! You said in an earlier post that you understand the legalities… Apparently not…. The photographer owns those photos not the website.

        • doncalifornia

          Here is the problem, and it’s a big one: The “free” site does not have the authority to say those photos are free. And they know it, which is why they have a DMCA notice takedown form on every single page. If and when they hear from the copyright owner, they’ll take it down. In the meantime they are lying when they say the photos are free to use, even commercially. I went on that site and picked a photo and then did a reverse search on the internet. I eventually tracked down the original source, a stock photo site. At a stock photo site the owner has an agreement with the site, which is acting as an agent, and it licenses commercial use of the photo, and pays the photographer part of the license fee. The photographer should be getting paid every time the photo is used somewhere. However, the internet being what it is, people steal it. Some use it on blogs, others post it on their sites because they like it and they see it being used all over the place, and SOME upload the photo to free-downloads.com which pretends to give permission to use the photo for free. This is where someone like Dana or Dan download it because, hey, the site says its free to use. But it’s not. The people who use these photos unfortunately can not go back and blame the free-download site. It is each person’s responsibility to get EXPLICIT permission from the actual copyright holder of a photo, or their obviously assigned agent like a stock photo agency which charges fees.

          • Justin Case

            Don, that is as fine and accurate an explanation as anyone can make about these fly-by-night operations. Sadly, it will fall on deaf ears. unsureaboutthelegality is looking for loopholes, and is totally unconcerned about understanding the real issues here.

            But that’s cool, it just gives us more opportunity to beat up on him and his wife and infant child, ’cause that’s why we’re here, right?

          • Joseph Philbert

            Well now we know thats what they are saying about PS behind our backs … that we now beat-up defenseless women and children …smh

  • Joseph Philbert

    False Advertising

  • Darren

    I remember once seeing an ad campaign for the Bahamas or someplace, but it turns out they used a photo of a beach in Hawaii in the ad. I don’t remember whether they posted a disclaimer in the ad or not… It really doesn’t matter. It made them a laughingstock either way.

  • susan

    Wow, i just checked out that free photo site and it is very misleading. While they are a little more clear about what they do and copyright at the bottom of the page, the text with each images tells you its yours to download and do what you want with. That said, as a business owner i would never use images to represent my product unless they were in fact, images of my product. There are pretty few exceptions to that. Dana seems to have pretty decent work and I am baffled as to why she didnt just stick with that.

    • Joseph Philbert

      Yea this is same problem I said previously … she has lots of work.. and majority of it pretty decent (better than the average snapshot shooter) … there is no need for her to use images of others to advertise.

      • Helena

        Yeah I don’t understand this either. She has a lot of work and has no need to use other people’s images whether they are copyright free or not! Unfortunately, carrying on like this is just making her and her husband look completely morally bankrupt, not to mention rude and condescending. If they really don’t understand why using other people’s photos is a problem, then add moronic into the mix as well.

  • CrackerJacker

    Hey everyone — here’s a challenge! This iconic wedding cake photo has theoretically been released to the public domain by Amy Quinn. Can she be found? The image seems to originate at http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=9889&picture=wedding-cake, where she is listed as a member, but there’s no contact information. A quick Google search finds no photographer by that name, but one floral and event decorator: https://www.facebook.com/amyquinnflowers. Could that be her?

    • MPR1776

      Well, here is another image (black and white cake) showing up on publicdomainpictures under Amy Quinn (pic #1), and then I clicked on the link at the top that says professional photos (pic #2), finally I clicked on the image and got pic #3, which says the copyright actually belongs to Loukia Photography (pic #4), ergo it can’t be public domain, correct?

      • CrackerJacker

        Good catch!

      • Justin Case

        Yes, nice research Mary. This is EXACTLY why these ‘wholesale’ sites are so misleading.

      • doncalifornia

        Yep, see, it works back to a stock agency charging fees and giving a royalty to a real photographer who owns copyright. And then someone takes the photo and sends it around the world without attribution and these fake “free” sites say Sam Smith or Amy Quinn or George Castanza dedicated the image to public domain so it’s free to use any way you want! And so unfortunately for everyone involved that is how Dana gets an image that she and her husband are positive is free, and they have long debates with this site over the legality or illegality of using a photo which is “free to use” or “dedicated public domain” – all the while just not understanding that the free-download.com and sites like it are all complete scams. The best rule of thumb on using an image is, “Did I take that picture?” If the answer is no, don’t use that picture. Don’t use it in any way on anything at all.

      • Justin Case

        Again, that site is actually EXTREMELY deceptive. Amy Quinn seems to only have THREE photos linked to her name, only one of which is a cake. Those other ones labeled ‘Professional Stock Photos from $1’ are shown because they are like the one selected: i.e. wedding cakes.
        To download and full-res versions, you need to subscribe/register and pay a minimum fee off $5.99 for 24 hours.
        Most likely Amy Quinn has absolutely nothing to do with the other images, but who knows, maybe somewhere she is getting a byline/credit!

    • Justin Case

      No, but I think I FOUND HER. Just waiting to get a reply to my message asking for more info on the photo.

      Interesting part: while searching, turned up ANOTHER photo stealer. He was not just using the image I was searching for, but also this one (look familiar?)

      • Joseph Philbert

        Report it to PS 🙂

        • Justin Case

          first thing I did after confirming my suspicions.

      • Lindsay11

        Hey Justin, did this one get posted to PS? Just out of curiosity I reverse image searched and you’re right this image is all over the place. I think it leads to a few stealers.

        Also, such great work finding these photos and contacting the owner!

        • Justin Case

          The photographer I reported was using all stock images, so they weren’t ‘stealing’ directly from any photographers. Still unethical, and pretty shitty business practice.
          http://www.kennedyphotography.co.uk/portraits/
          ALL the portraits are stock, as are several photos in the ‘celebrations’ section. (And his banner/company logo image – of course.)

    • Justin Case

      OK, it’s been 48 hours since I started this search, and I haven’t received a response, so I thought an update was in order.

      I am very confident that I have found the photographer of the original image. According to the Exif metadata on the wedding cake picture, the image was taken in Spet 2010 with a Canon 40D with an 85mm lens. This is a 10.1mp camera, and the largest size image to be found on the net is 3888 x 2592 pixels, the camera’s native resolution. This agrees with the info on publicdomainpictures.net

      The photographer that I found has had a Canon 40D since at least Aug 2008 according to metadata on images I’ve found on her account on another photo hosting site. The other images listed on publicdomainpictures are of one of her children, so there is some cross-confirmation.

      I am actually a bit disturbed by how much I could find out about someone in so short a time with nothing more than my Facebook and ebay accounts. She has her Facebook, Twitter and blog accounts set to private, so I want to respect her privacy and not get into too many specifics.

      Please note, I am not a hacker and I did no ‘social engineering’ or contact any of her friends or followers. I did not sign up for any of the forums or subscribe to any of her blogs, and yet I could still find out the following:

      • her husbands name
      • their wedding date
      • her childrens’ names, approximate dates of birth and ages
      • what kind of pets she has, their names and breeds, and the cause of death of at least one
      • her home city, with a detailed map and arrow pointing to her street location
      • her occupation
      • her ebay items for sale and feedback
      • her brother’s name and age
      • a detailed family tree for her father’s side of the family
      • her personal YouTube videos
      • her Pinterest account
      • her ‘photo dump’ hosting site
      • her comments on at least six different forums and blogs

      …But what interests me more is what I COULDN’T find: is this photo actually in the Public Domain? And why did she make these 3 images freely available for commercial use, while she has the majority of her images safely made private in her other accounts?

      Since doing this little exercise I am more troubled than ever by sites like publicdomainpictures.net and their ilk. Someone, at some point, labeled this image ‘CC0’ meaning that there is a creative commons license which forfeits all rights for the original photographer. Did ‘Amy Quinn’ actually give away these rights? If so, I can find no proof.

      If she contacts me, I will be sure to update this comment.

      • Joseph Philbert

        Having too much time over the holidays is a bitch … good work … wonder what she will say.

        • Justin Case

          haha, too true. Still managed to get some skiing in, but one can only handle so much family holiday time!

      • Justin Case

        some documentation:

      • Justin Case

        OK, I have now heard from the original photographer. The cake in the photograph was made by her mother and she did upload it to publicdomainpictures 4 years ago. She had no idea that it had been used so many time (data from just two sites show close to 16,000 downloads).

        Although we only only chatted briefly on facebook, she was very generous in her responses and gave me some real insight into how these free ‘image bank’ websites work.

        She told me she used publicdomainpictures at a time when she wanted to make her pictures public and get feedback. She DID NOT add the CC0 label and when I mentioned that this image came up because other photographers had been using it in their advertising, she responded:

        “I uploaded that photo to a public domain website knowing that it would be used, and that’s fine with me. … (As the author, though, I do find it somewhat irritating to have the authorship randomly claimed by others; it’s only polite to cite where the image has come from, after all, even if you’re not paying for the use of it).”

        “Equally interesting, re: wedding photographers (but annoyingly interesting, because any wedding photographer worth their salt should be able to take their own cake images, yes? I hope their clients know it’s not one of theirs! Kind of false advertising just a bit…)”

        so, I guess that answers some of the questions surrounding your original post, CrackerJacker.

        (FULL DISCLOSURE: I am mostly interested in this issue for myself as
        an educator and because I am interested in how the Creative Commons
        licensing actually works in the real world. I did not bring up this
        particular use – or this website – for lack of time and because I don’t
        know how involved she wants to become in the circus surrounding this
        particular post. I may contact her again, so If anyone has any specific questions, I would be happy to pass them along).

        • Joseph Philbert

          Naa I am good … yea still nasty claiming you created the image if you did not… cite the source. Again all weddings have a cake… so is it possible you dont have your own SMH

  • Chris Jones

    Well I have read all of the comments on this deal and I have some advice for the dude playing the dude. Take my advice…. shut your mouth…clean up your theft…. pay the photographers who’s work you used… and just admit you were wrong…. that’s all you have to do. There is no such thing as a mistake… just ignorance…I thought I made a mistake too, but looking back I was just being an idiot. This site changed me and who I am because I accepted it and dissected everything on how I can be a better person all around. Also… don’t use the God card in here. I am a believer and it is very important to me, but be respectful of others if they don’t have the same beliefs. Lastly…… The more you argue… The dumber you look…. trust me…been there done that. This site isn’t here to smear you… it’s here to protect photographers and if you downright took an image that you didn’t take and gave no credit etc…. man up and admit it….

    CJ

    • captain-confuzzled

      good advice for sure…but I have now fully entered the twilight zone..lol

      • Joseph Philbert

        Me too and “The Outer Limits”

    • Michael Goolsby

      Now that my head has stopped exploding…

      Very wise words. If you can’t trust Nixon in China, who CAN you trust?

    • BullShite

      ^ Awesome. 🙂

    • Lindsay11

      What a terrible terrible terrible font to pick for a blog. I can’t even read that.

  • FYI you have the wrong photo for the first image but I do know who did it – https://plus.google.com/u/0/+PatriciaDavidsonPhotography/photos/photo/5986429153191564258 – Patricia Davidson. Same tree at Japanese gardens in Portland but you can see hers is more saturated. It’s her shot.