Flickers Photography AKA Time Through a Lens Photography in Phoenix, Arizona

Website: http://www.flickersphotography.com/

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

Craigslist Ad #1:  http://phoenix.craigslist.org/cph/crs/4400876384.html

Craigslist Ad #2:  http://phoenix.craigslist.org/wvl/evs/4389960126.html

Craigslist Ad #3:  http://phoenix.craigslist.org/cph/evs/4371358593.html

Craigslist Ad #4: http://mohave.craigslist.org/crs/4351368847.html

Yelp:  http://www.yelp.com/biz/flickers-photography-llc-tolleson

Time Through a Lens Website: http://www.timethroughalens.com/home.html

Time Through a Lens Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/pages/Time-Through-A-Lens-Photography/1480650565534506

There are hundreds of images between all of these sites.  I posted what I had after 4 hours of working and will add to it as I have time.  I do this with my spare time and for the few donations and bit of ad money I get so sometimes I’m just not going to have the time to source everything, sorry!

Update 04/05/2013 @ 12:30PM

Added more images from baby, maternity, engagement and seniors albums, additional Craigslist (with interesting slant to her advertising, must read!) and Yelp listing.

Update 04/06/2013 @ 10:00AM

Added more images from the website and Facebook.

Update 3/2/2015

Added links to the rebranded company, “Time Through a Lens Photography”  by the same photographer whose galleries are predominantly stock imagery.

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0001

Original photographer

FlickersPhotography_0003

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0002

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0004

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0005

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0006

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0007

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0008

Original photographer

FlickersPhotography_0009

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0010

Orignal source

FlickersPhotography_0011

Original photographer

FlickersPhotography_0012

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0013

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0014

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0015

Original photographer

FlickersPhotography_0016

Original photographer

FlickersPhotography_0017

Original photographer

FlickersPhotography_0019

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0018

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0020 

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0021

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0022

Original photographer

FlickersPhotography_0023

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0024

Original photographer

FlickersPhotography_0025

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0026

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0027

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0028

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0029

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0030

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0031

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0034

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0033

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0032

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0035

Original photographer

FlickersPhotography_0036

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0037

Original photographer

FlickersPhotography_0038

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0039

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0040

Original photographer

FlickersPhotography_0041

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0042

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0043

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0044

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0045

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0046

Original photographer

FlickersPhotography_0047

Original photographer

FlickersPhotography_0048

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0049

Original photographer

FlickersPhotography_0050 

Original photographer

FlickersPhotography_0054

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0055

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0056

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0057

Original photographer

FlickersPhotography_0058

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0059

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0060

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0061

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0063

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0064

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0065

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0066

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0067

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0068

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0069

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0070

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0071

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0072

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0073

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0074

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0075

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0078

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0079

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0080

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0081

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0082

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0083

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0084

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0085

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0086

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0087

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0088

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0092

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0093

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0094

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0095

Original photographer

FlickersPhotography_0096

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0097

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0099

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0098

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0100

Original source 

FlickersPhotography_0101

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0102

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0103

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0104

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0105

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0106

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0107

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0108

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0109

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0110

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0111

Original photographer

FlickersPhotography_0112

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0113

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0114

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0115

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0116

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0117

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0118

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0119

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0120

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0121

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0123

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0122

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0124

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0125

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0126

Unknown original source

FlickersPhotography_0127

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0128

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0129

 Original source

FlickersPhotography_0130

 

 

FlickersPhotography_0051

Original source

FlickersPhotography_0076

Wedding Album

FlickersPhotography_0131

 

FlickersPhotography_0052

FlickersPhotography_0053

FlickersPhotography_0077

FlickersPhotography_0091

 

 

FlickersPhotography_0089

FlickersPhotography_0090

 

  • SoSayMe

    Her “about me” section on FB is hilarious! “If you are looking for great photos without the high pricetag that comes with some photographers you have found the right place! I have been shooting friends and family events for years and it turns out I get to do something I really love and have been told I am very good at and give others a chance to have great photos of their events. I do everything from family and birth photos, maternity shoots, events, parties, weddings, engagements, and location shoots. I do not retouch photos unless requested. Really good photographers do not need $5000 in equipment- you can’t buy a good eye or experience on how to use natural lighting, or capture natural beauty!” — Uh, really good photographers can also gain business without having to resort to stealing.

    • Suz

      Too bad you can’t buy a good eye or experience, because maybe she could take some of those 3 hour, all photos on flash drive, $150 sessions and buy the experience of someone who actually has a good eye.

      • The Bad Wolf

        Yeah but her FAMILY and her FRIENDS said she was goood!!

  • doncalifornia

    Well, here it comes. Another photographer who will spend the weekend denying or ignoring. Will be deleting comments and blocking facebook accounts. Will either lash out about jealous photographers trying to put her out of business, or whimper that those shots were all just inspiration, wasn’t in any way trying to claim them as hers. Oh, the suspense is killing me, I wonder which direction she will go? Popcorn in the microwave right now….

    • Joseph Philbert

      Cameo Cookies for me..

    • The Bad Wolf

      I hope they lash out, I wanna play Bingo!

    • Justin Case

      yeah, this will NOT be a good weekend for Miss Flickers.

    • Carol Ann Roskos

      i’m curious. i surprised she hasn’t responded already.

  • Joseph Philbert

    The force is strong in this one.

  • tara

    Oh dammit. This is really starting to piss me off.

  • SoSayMe

    I feel so bad for those two brides she might have actually photographed…

  • MPR1776

    Stole Route 66 Car show photos

  • MPR1776

    And the motorcycle pics too

  • MPR1776

    More of the first motorcycle

  • MPR1776

    Gun Show too (These are all on her FB Page)

    • The Bad Wolf

      Something tells me this chick has never even been to a gun show. People don’t just lay their guns out in photogenic “poses” especially with LIVE AMMO anywhere near it. What a FARCE.

      • Joel A

        My thoughts exactly.

  • Carol Ann Roskos

    I love that she recommends Costco for printing. Quoted from her webpage under Senior packages:

    Package 1

    $150

    This package is designed for those that just
    want their photos and will do all of their own printing. This package
    includes 3 hours of shoot time at one or more locations with or without
    outfit changes. You will receive all the photos that are shot on a USB
    flash drive with a copyright release so that you can order your own
    photos. (I recommend Costco for the best printing finishes and pricing)

    • Joseph Philbert

      LOL! she flushing money and quality down the drain

  • Justin Case

    Facebook cover photo still has ‘TS Terry Smith Images’ watermark in lower right hand corner if you click on it

    • Carol Ann Roskos

      wow. crazy!

    • captain-confuzzled

      oh good lord!

    • Joel A

      Amazing!

  • Carol Ann Roskos

    Thank you for the time you put into researching the original sources of these stolen images and in your site.

  • captain-confuzzled
  • SoSayMe

    And the deleting has begun!

    • SoSayMe

      Oh nvm.. For some reason the images in her album were temporarily disabled on my comp. they’re still all there though. I wonder how long it’s going to take her to address this and I’m dying to hear her excuse!

      • doncalifornia

        yeah it appears she hasn’t even seen any of this. she hasn’t deleted my facebook comment on her page yet. maybe she’s travelling or something.

        • Joel A

          Yup, everything is still up…She must be completely oblivious to everything. Not only is she one of the worst thieves, she is also one of the slowest to react.

      • Carol Ann Roskos

        she is very slow to react, but it’s all going down now. she has me blocked now and my comments and others have disappeared!

    • Joseph Philbert

      Fun time

  • ShayLove

    LOL in one of her CL adds she actually wrote “I already have an excellant (and yes she spelled it wrong) portfolio so I don’t need to build a new one”. This woman is a total con artist.

    • Joseph Philbert

      Well she does not need to build one …she has stolen it 🙂

  • Piemonade

    Oh my goodness… the ones she didn’t steal are HILARIOUS! Did you see this one? It belongs on awkward family photos! Laughing so hard! https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=368553769954276&id=349149418561378&set=a.368553749954278.1073741842.349149418561378&source=49

    • Piemonade

      Oh as if the faces weren’t enough… look at his pants!!! I feel so sorry for this couple! I hope they didn’t pay her for these!

    • Carol Ann Roskos

      she took that down!

  • Wow

    Arizona Corporation Commission does not list the company.

    • The Bad Wolf

      I’m sure if one of the photographers she’s stolen from decides to sue her, she’s going to regret not taking the time and effort (and extra expense) to become a legitimate LLC.

  • Lisa
  • Joel A

    Well shit on a stick…This has the be the most stolen work I have ever seen. Pretty much her entire website has stolen work on it. And her facebook site too…and the pics that aren’t stolen…all I will say is chill on the Photoshopped light flares….

    • Wow

      Her site was built in February, yet the (c) is 2013…
      The WhoIs is an interesting read as well.

      • captain-confuzzled

        thought the email address in whois was interesting. haven’t had a chance to follow that trail though.

  • doncalifornia

    I like her facebook ad which says she only photographs 50 seniors a season so, you know, hurry and book her, cuz she’s super busy. stealing photos.

    • Carol Ann Roskos

      i missed that! darn! lol

  • Wes Jones

    FB page full of photos that are not hers.

  • Eric Dye

    “Capture the seasonal vegetation. Garden session last approximately 45 minutes. Photos will be high quality HD shots suitable for print or competition in any gardening club competitions.” Omg O.o We can shoot in HD?!

    • The Bad Wolf

      …..and you don’t even need $5,000 worth of camera equipment, or charge more than $150 a session like those other people!

      • Eric Dye

        I’m going to have to add this to my site. I shoot HD now people! Or should I be even more savvy, I take photos in 4K!

        • Holy … you want to shoot at a whole 8MP!!! Calm down now pal … REAL photographers don;t need all that!

          • Justin Case

            woah, this is all getting awfully technical for me guys. I only just found the ‘shoot’ button on my camera

      • Carol Ann Roskos

        lol

    • MPR1776

      Sure, take video and yank a pic here and there out of the vid, you shot in HD!

      • Eric Dye

        This feels like a super lazy way to take photos. Just let your model dance in front of you and take the good screens. Don’t even have to move…

        wait…

        I think your on to something MPR1776

        • MPR1776

          Well, it fits, if one is too lazy to take pics of their own to post as their work, we can believe they might just try that video technique, right?

          • Eric Dye

            Agreed

      • Or just shoot at 2MP.

  • MPR1776

    The Blown Glass album not all hers either That image belongs here, I think –> https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanenglish/4788703181/

  • Bradley L Carrott

    I see she has started deleting comments from her fb page

  • Bradley L Carrott

    ah – and she has blocked me from posting – ho-hum 🙂

    • Carol Ann Roskos

      me too!

  • Karen Morgan

    Strangely enough my helpful hints and comments seem to have vanished too – as has my ability to post/comment on her wall…

    • Justin Case

      GOOD Morning, Phoenix!

    • Carol Ann Roskos

      mine too! LOL

  • Justin Case

    It’s starting…images on Facebook are going down.
    Oh, will they never learn.

    • Carol Ann Roskos

      yes, i noticed that. and, after i posted the original sources on some of her photos, she deleted the comments and blocked me!

  • Justin Case

    she has this posted on her business page… should be a warning sign to potential clients:
    ‘Do you understand now?’ No, I really don’t think Lisa Marie does.

  • Guest

    These two images one is on her website the other is on her Facebook … guess which one is really hers? Hard to tell right? The style and quality is SOOOO similar!

  • These two images one is on her website the other is on her Facebook … guess which one is really hers? Hard to tell right? The style and quality is SOOOO similar!

    • Carol Ann Roskos

      good point!

    • Justin Case

      I mean, who needs expensive equipment to match the lighting, depth-of-field, composition, color balance of the photos you steal?

    • Joseph Philbert

      The sarcasm is killing me..

  • She also has a LinkedIn page here: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/lisa-marie-lucas/4a/165/a17 maybe her employer would like to know about her unethical practices…

    • Justin Case

      well, she has a Master’s degree in disaster management… should come in handy today.
      But seriously, if this is a part-time, side business and you have shown up on here Lisa Marie Lucas aka Flickers Photography Phoenix, SHUT IT DOWN – all of it. You have no business taking other people’s money when your business is based on fraud.

      • Joseph Philbert

        Lol I don’t think so.. She will do what they all have

    • captain-confuzzled

      not to mention using her WORK email address to register her side business name *smh*

    • Profile on LinkedIn is gone!

  • SoSayMe

    She renewed her CL adds this morning!? Really after they’d all been flagged. Pathetic! Has there been any mention at all of remorse or even acknowledgement that she’s a total con artist yet?

  • TimW

    I know of at least 3 of the gun photos on her FB page that were likely stolen, and I let the photographer I’m pretty sure did them know about it. I got blocked from her page, even though I can see it. FYI, she changed the page name of her FB page, removing the LLC …I guess to ‘hide’ a bit better or maybe because she’s not really an LLC…but that is still in the URL. LOL

    Maybe the Az Corporation Commission will get wind of this.

    I just looked at the “Real Estate Works” on her website. OMG…gorgeous shots…and she’s getting only $40 per home? HAHAHAHAHAAHHAHA….I can’t wait until the commercial photographer who took those shots finds out about this. Her disaster management degree may come in handy…unless she stole that, too.

    • Joseph Philbert

      She is in the “block everyone and hope it goes away stage”

      • MPR1776

        Well as I said before, they can prevent us from commenting but not from sharing and adding a link to this site explaining how she steals other photograpers works and palms them off as her own. Only way to prevent that is to remove all the content from her FB page

    • Justin Case

      guns are gone from Facebook, still up on website…
      time for some more screen shots!

      • TimW

        Guns are still in the album. I took screen shots and emailed them to the photographer I know, so there IS a record, even if they disappear.

    • Just a Girl

      She stole the log home photos from
      http://www.beavermtn.com/photo-gallery/showcase.html

    • Just a Girl

      She stole the log home photo from
      http://www.beavermtn.com/photo-gallery/showcase.html

  • OtterMatt

    Okay, honestly: why are the copyright holders of these photos not suing people for this? How else is it ever going to stop? I know photographers aren’t lazy, but letting people off with a takedown notice isn’t going to fix anything. We have to get these people into the mainstream news by taking them to court.

    • Justin Case

      It’s a fine question which goes to the heart of why this site is so important.
      Legal options are costly, time consuming and are not always reliable. Most likely, a fly-by-night operation like this would simply go bankrupt, which could leave the photographer liable for their own legal fees. And who ever got into the field of photography to spend their time dealing with lawyers?
      I’m sure it does happen, but according to ‘the copyright guys’ http://thecopyrightzone.com/ settlements often require both parties to keep quiet about things, so we don’t always hear about the cases that might set valuable precedents to stop this from happening.
      Sadly, we need to police this kind of activity mostly by ourselves, and that’s what makes Corey Ann’s and photostealers efforts so invaluable.

    • Photo Stealers

      While there have been cases of this being done, it’s not an easy or cheap undertaking. You have to front all of the fees for the lawyer and court costs (you also need to hire a lawyer in the state they are from). While you can recoup these costs in the winnings most lawyers want their fees up front.

    • doncalifornia

      Apparenly photographers are winning infringement cases with http://www.photoattorney.com Hopefully this is a growing trend. There has to be a way to efficiently file against copyright infringers and process these cases in a way that does not break the photographer on the way in.

  • Just a Girl

    looks like one of the Craigslist ads is gone. I just flagged the one left. That’s about all you can do there.

    • SoSayMe

      She renewed 3 more today. They’re still all there.

  • Not again!
  • Justin Case
  • Justin Case

    here’s someone who might sue her:

    (from her Yelp account)

    • TimW

      just searching that photo with TinEye resulted in 5 pages…so you KNOW it’s not her image. Imagine how many hits if using Google Images

    • doncalifornia

      Color Run probably will take this seriously as they have to deal with licensing issues all the time. They had the opposite problem this past year dealing with a photographer whose photo they used and who sued them for damages. This will probably not amuse them. By the way I don’t think one single shot on that yelp page is actually hers.

      • Justin Case

        yep. Just what I thought when I noticed this one. Hope they sue, since Lisa Marie Lucas is in total denial about all this.

  • captain-confuzzled

    oh, the usual irony…copyright notice on website along with stock photo, sigh

    • Joel A

      Wow, she really thinks that saying that will make everything ok?

      • captain-confuzzled

        yeah, looks like she’ll be going for the “inspiration” defense sigh

        • The Bad Wolf

          Where’s that Bingo card?

        • doncalifornia

          part of her defense was the “I was using stock photos in a class and editing them and playing with them, I am allowed to post them,” AND the “These are all over Pinterest and sharing is what we’re expected to do” nonsense that we keep hearing over and over. Will post the short conversation above, along with the response I was unable to send her because she blocked me as soon as she was able to call us all names and threaten us.

      • You may not RECREATE? Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself.

        • The Bad Wolf

          I love how she has the balls to tell other people they may not “recreate” her stolen images.

    • doncalifornia

      By the way, in our private discussion she says, OF COURSE, that she not once claimed any of these photos were hers. I wonder if she gets the point that everyone has taken screenshots of photos like this one where her name, phone number, location, email address, etc. are plastered ON and AROUND the photo in question, and below everything she has a copyright notice. Good lord. Not to mention that if you are a photographer and on your facebook and web page you have nice photos posted to your page, that IS claiming they are yours.

      • Joseph Philbert

        Of Course she does not claim it LOL

      • KM

        I booked her for my upcoming wedding because I loved this picture – she told me it was her sister. She definitely claimed those pictures to be hers.

        • Joseph Philbert

          Yep and this is where the problem begins

  • Justin Case

    HAHAHAHA! She’s watching! Yelp photos mysteriously disappearing… guess she didn’t notice the screen grabs above.

    Lisa Marie Lucas, a bit of advice: google yourself. The first result is to THIS page. This is NOT going to just go away.

    Man-up. Take ALL of it down.

    • doncalifornia

      I gave her that advice and then she blocked me. Why don’t people believe us when we tell them the best possible response would be to clean it up and throw themselves on the mercy of the court? Instead she threatens me with cop/husband. Beautiful. Well she apparently loves being a star member of the Wall of Shame. Whatever.

      • Not again!

        Really? I wonder if his chief knows.

      • doncalifornia

        Yeah I was thinking, if she really is married to a cop, I am sure the cop knows a lot more than she does about the limits of idly threatening official action against people. He just would not be stupid enough to actually harass or intimidate someone on the basis of his angry wife’s claims. And I’ll bet that there are enough idiot spouses running around threatening action like she is, that really the police department probably can’t punish their employee for idle threats of their spouses. Cops would be fired daily if that was the case.

      • LisaMarie

        I am SO sorry- I had no idea that this group of fanatics was a actual COURT?? And mercy?? Is there like…a firing squad? You all make me sick- I have read through PAGES of the people you have attacked- spammed them all over the web…and I have made it my personal mission to ask the FCC for help to get rid of you! You have no right to attack people from behind your pathetic little computer screens. CLEARLY while we are out working..you are NOT?? is that really the issue?
        I would suggest that you do your homework- then perhaps all these “photographers ” that claim their copyright laws have been violated much actually learn they have to PAY for that right- and are required to MARK their photos? Seriously? You post photos to the web- no copyright insignia- no watermark- they end up pinned all over the internet and you think that you have the right to attack people for not knowing who you were in the first place? How do you think we should be figuring that out?? Osmosis?? Unless someone actually states that it is their work- sells the work- or otherwise intentionally denies you access to your claimed work no one broke any laws- you are not the picture police over stock photos either…what a sad thing to say?Clearly you have no idea how freelancing work- and the mud run? Do you know they pay freelancers to shoot those events locally- but also let us use them? You are nothing more than a bunch of scum whining about your poor credits lost- credit you never got because you didn’t bother to watermark your “professional” shots-and threatening people. Cyber bullying is illegal and prosecutable. I am confident that when I get enough people together I will find an attorney who will take you all on… The FCC is going to take you apart. I have personally contacted every person on this page that you have attacked this morning and asked them to provide information on what you did to them. Thanks to the extent of your cyber bullying and stalking I have all thier most recent information so thank you ! I have also been checking the copyright website- in case you did not know this is a PUBLIC government page- and so far I can’t find a copyright license for ANY of you jerks…not a single one. You are pathetic and sad…and I am over you. I’m not afraid of you- and I want you to come after me- PLEASE…threaten away- call my company- it’s Mine- I would LOVE to answer the phone to take your complaint and record it- slander lawsuits are amazing! Threaten me some more… some “court”…I wouldn’t spit on you much less throw myself at you and beg for a damn thing! Please please please!! Do me the favor of continuing to post your threats all over the internet…you are DONE attacking people!

        Screen shots work TWO ways…guess who ELSE is taking screen shots!

        • “I would suggest that you do your homework- then perhaps all these “photographers ” that claim their copyright laws have been violated much actually learn they have to PAY for that right- and are required to MARK their photos? Seriously? You post photos to the web- no copyright insignia- no watermark- they end up pinned all over the internet and you think that you have the right to attack people for not knowing who you were in the first place? How do you think we should be figuring that out??”

          “actually learn they have to PAY for that right” …

          Copyright is an inherent right. Registering your works with the copyright office only insures you are entitled to STATUTORY damages instead of just actual damages.

          Registering your work with the copyright office means potential of up to 150000$ in STATUTORY damages compared to a couple of thousand dollars if you manage to prove actual damages somehow but the matter of the fact is that the work was STILL PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW, EVEN IF IT’S NOT REGISTERED WITH THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE!

          ” and are required to MARK their photos? ”

          For crying out loud … that hasn’t been a requirement since 1988-89 with the adoption of the Berne Convention Implementation Act

          “How do you think we should be figuring that out??”

          It’s simple … did you make this? Do YOU own the copyright to it? No? Then don’t fucking use it!

          ” you are not the picture police over stock photos either”

          You are correct, we are not … good luck with that defence when someone sues you for fraud and false advertising. Also, double check your stock site agreement … you are violating the terms of conditions most sites have in place.

          “Cyber bullying is illegal and prosecutable. I am confident that when I get enough people together I will find an attorney who will take you all on…”

          BRING IT!

          “slander lawsuits are amazing!”

          Actually, if we say it to you it’s not slander. If we write it it’s libel … if you can prove what we are claiming isn’t true. Good luck with that.

        • susan

          No. Copyright is granted the moment an individuals creates a piece. You can read that any and everywhere on the web. Its not like calling “shotgun.” Just because someone didnt mark their creation doesn’t mean it isn’t theirs. And it sure as shit doesn’t mean its yours. Doesn’t matter if you don’t know who it belongs to, you DO know that it isn’t yours. And social media is just that. Social. Not COMMERCIAL. All of those images are being used for the purpose of you getting business. That, and the fact that you are disparing real professionals for earning not just what they are worth, but for earning a living wage to take care of their families. That is a new level of slimeball Ibdon’t think I’ve seen on here. Not that I think you’ll listen or learn, but if you possessed the business acumen of a professional, you’d know that you are making less than minimum wage with your prices and business model. Honestly, your kiddos might get to Disney World faster if you worked ar WalMart instead. I’m just sayin… Oh and your cop husband has absolutely no jurisdiction outside his county, city, etc. That’d be another thing smart people know. Also, teh googles can be used for education, not just crime.

        • Justin Case

          Glad you could join us finally, LisaMarie.

          Just imagine for one minute that you are the happy parent of one of those lovely babies that you have posted on your website (and your facebook, et al). You have given the photographer the right to use that image in their own portfolio, since they created it. You are proud and happy.
          Then you see the same image misappropriated and misrepresented and used as advertising on some OTHER photographers website. I wonder, how would you feel if it were your child or grandchild? Angry? Violated? Invaded?

          I can understand you are hurt and angry and lashing out. I can take the insults, so feel free.

          And then, grow up. Fix this. Move on.

        • captain-confuzzled

          Here’s some training that the government put out on copyright. It’s very basic and designed for any level of learning. You might be wise to start learning before you throw out statements regarding copyright that are false
          http://www.loc.gov/teachers/copyrightmystery/#/reading/

        • Joseph Philbert

          Tee hee thanks for joining the party lets see how long you last.

        • Fluff

          bwahahaha, hilarious. You must be a troll, this can’t be real.

        • captain-confuzzled

          hmm, it appears the “my partner is a cop” sentence has disappeared from your statement. Perhaps partner has begun to weigh in on getting you to your senses. I hope so!

        • Joseph Philbert

          Get ready to have your butt violated if you continue down this road.. Your are a dime a dozen … This is a fight you will lose …o and the FCC can’t do jack shit “figuratively speaking”

        • Smh

          My goodness… Honey, you have a serious disconnect between reality and whatever fantasy you’re living in. You honestly think you can justify using other people’s work to advertise for yourself and gain clients? You don’t see ANY problem with that?? If the images are in your adds with a list of your services and prices you don’t think that suggests the images are yours? How are unsuspecting clients supposed to know that what you’re displaying in your albums is nothing like what you’re actually capable of producing? People hire you based on the quality they see in your portfolio. When you don’t actually show them what they’re really paying for it’s called FRAUD.

          • susan

            And where I live , it is legally called “bait and switch” which is in fact, a criminal offense.

        • confused

          Oh you’re right. It’s us, we made you download the photos and use them as your own. It’s our fault because we didn’t watermark our photos. Please someone post the link to the copyright website so we can school this one.
          Also, you really should take @doncalifornia:disqus’s advice. Take something away from this, learn from it, own it, grow from it. It’s not about getting knocked down, it’s how you get up from that.

        • confused

          § 201 . Ownership of copyright1
          (a) Initial Ownership. — Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work
          *just the tip of the iceberg from your argument.*

        • Just a Girl

          Lisa Marie you should probably spend some time…. a whole bunch of time… reading through http://www.photoattorney.com. Specifically http://www.photoattorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Excuses-excuses.pdf
          You have NO excuse. You stole a PROFESSIONAL photographers work and used it without permission. Thats pretty cut and dry.

          We all aspire to be number 1 at something at some point in our lives. Your badge of honor for being # 1…. out of 3.380,000 hits on Google… you made it to not only #1 but you also made it to owning the top 3 spots! ALL in less then 24 hours!

        • Not again!

          You do understand that you could be facing prison time along with extensive legal fees and damages for your actions, right?
          Saying you are an LLC when you aren’t is not OK.
          Bait & Switch (Fraud) – not OK, you may want to check with your cop partner on how they feel about having to be the one to book you. Or even worse, knowing what you did, have to join you in prison.
          As for the copyright office… Yeh, it’s inherent, but you failed to read that part!
          Perhaps your and your partners employer would like to learn about your actions. I’m SURE both have ethics clauses.

          • Not again!

            Oops, screen cap…

          • Not again!
          • Not again!

            Her house is a rental. I wonder if the lease has an illegal activities clause? 10:1 it does…

          • Not again!

            Considering her landlord has at least 13 properties I’m sure it does.

        • Helena

          I’m not a professional photographer, but I know full well that you cannot represent someone else’s image on your site as your own work. Which is what you have done by posting the images in albums with a copyright disclaimer. Copyright was covered in our first class of beginners photography.

          Seriously though, threatening, and name calling etc will do nothing but enrage the people you really don’t want suing you for copyright infringement. You’ve had some honest and good advice, which you responded to with threats and insults instead of doing the honest thing and apologising and removing the pictures.

          I get that it’s intimidating having all these people breathing down your neck, so get it over with and do what you need to make amends instead of pouring fuel on the fire.

        • Not again!

          You may want to become familiar with this:

          Consumer fraud, as defined by Arizona law, is any deception, unfair act or practice, false statement, false pretense, false promise or misrepresentation made by a seller or advertiser of merchandise. In addition, concealment, suppression or failure to disclose a material fact may be consumer fraud if it is done with the intent that others rely on such concealment, suppression or nondisclosure. Merchandise may include any objects, wares, goods, commodities, intangibles, real estate or services.

          https://www.azag.gov/consumer/home

          • Justin Case

            that’s pretty specific. And also pretty obvious to most.

          • Not again!

            Apparently not or they wouldn’t have to actually post it! LOL
            I wonder if her partner likes being a cop behind bars. Typically they don’t do so good…

        • Not again!

          13-2310. Fraudulent schemes and artifices; classification; definition

          A. Any person who, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud, knowingly obtains any benefit by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises or material omissions is guilty of a class 2 felony.

          B. Reliance on the part of any person shall not be a necessary element of the offense described in subsection A of this section.

          C. A person who is convicted of a violation of this section that involved a benefit with a value of one hundred thousand dollars or more is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any basis except pursuant to section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed by the court has been served, the person is eligible for release pursuant to section 41-1604.07 or the sentence is commuted.

          D. The state shall apply the aggregation prescribed by section 13-1801, subsection B to violations of this section in determining the applicable punishment.

          E. As used in this section, “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive a person of the intangible right of honest services.

          http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02310.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

        • Not again!

          13-2311. Fraudulent schemes and practices; wilful concealment; classification

          A. Notwithstanding any provision of the law to the contrary, in any matter related to the business conducted by any department or agency of this state or any political subdivision thereof, any person who, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud or deceive, knowingly falsifies, conceals or covers up a material fact by any trick, scheme or device or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing such writing or document contains any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry is guilty of a class 5 felony.

          B. For the purposes of this section, “agency” includes a public agency as defined by section 38-502, paragraph 6.

          http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02311.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

        • Not again!

          13-702. First time felony offenders; sentencing; definition

          A. Unless a specific sentence is otherwise provided, the term of imprisonment for a first felony offense shall be the presumptive sentence determined pursuant to subsection D of this section. Except for those felonies involving a dangerous offense or if a specific sentence is otherwise provided, the court may increase or reduce the presumptive sentence within the ranges set by subsection D of this section. Any reduction or increase shall be based on the aggravating and mitigating circumstances listed in section 13-701, subsections D and E and shall be within the ranges prescribed in subsection D of this section.

          B. If a person is convicted of a felony without having previously been convicted of any felony and if at least two of the aggravating factors listed in section 13-701, subsection D apply, the court may increase the maximum term of imprisonment otherwise authorized for that offense to an aggravated term. If a person is convicted of a felony without having previously been convicted of any felony and if the court finds at least two mitigating factors listed in section 13-701, subsection E apply, the court may decrease the minimum term of imprisonment otherwise authorized for that offense to a mitigated term.

          C. The aggravated or mitigated term imposed pursuant to subsection D of this section may be imposed only if at least two of the aggravating circumstances are found beyond a reasonable doubt to be true by the trier of fact or are admitted by the defendant, except that an aggravating circumstance under section 13-701, subsection D, paragraph 11 shall be found to be true by the court, or in mitigation of the crime are found to be true by the court, on any evidence or information introduced or submitted to the court or the trier of fact before sentencing or any evidence presented at trial, and factual findings and reasons in support of these findings are set forth on the record at the time of sentencing.

          D. The term of imprisonment for a presumptive, minimum, maximum, mitigated or aggravated sentence shall be within the range prescribed under this subsection. The terms are as follows:

          Felony Mitigated Minimum Presumptive Maximum Aggravated
          Class 2 3 years 4 years 5 years 10 years 12.5 years
          Class 3 2 years 2.5 years 3.5 years 7 years 8.75 years
          Class 4 1 year 1.5 years 2.5 years 3 years 3.75 years
          Class 5 .5 years .75 years 1.5 years 2 years 2.5 years
          Class 6 .33 years .5 years 1 year 1.5 years 2 years

          E. The court shall inform all of the parties before sentencing occurs of its intent to increase or decrease a sentence to the aggravated or mitigated sentence pursuant this section. If the court fails to inform the parties, a party waives its right to be informed unless the party timely objects at the time of sentencing.

          F. For the purposes of this section, “trier of fact” means a jury, unless the defendant and the state waive a jury in which case the trier of fact means the court.

          http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/00702.htm

        • Not again!

          Be advised a felony charge can be $150,000 per charge per person on TOP of the jail time as listed below.

        • MPR1776

          Nice try no cigar, and btw, you can stop us from commenting, but you can not stop us from sharing the images you posted along with a little note to others to come visit this website to see for themselves how you are attempting to dupe potential clients.

        • MPR1776

          Let me help you out with that ‘copyright license thing’ http://www.photoattorney.com/whats-an-infringement-worth/ and the answer to your excuses http://www.photoattorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Excuses-excuses.pdf

        • Joseph Philbert

          “I have personally contacted every person on this page that you have attacked this morning and asked them to provide information on what you did to them.”
          I mess this one… you took the time to contact all former photography thief’s reported on this site ? Good luck with that and tell CJ hello for me.

          • Not again!

            I’m sure he’ll be happy to hear that since I’m certain he misses you! 🙂

          • Justin Case

            I was trying to picture her threat about finding all the other photo thieves and hiring a lawyer… I mean what a reality TV show THAT would make! Can you imagine all those deceitful halfwits in the same room, trying to figure out a way to cheat each other out of some imaginary settlement?

            I’d pay to watch that!

          • Joseph Philbert

            So would I!

          • Just a Girl

            Speaking of imaginary settlements–maybe the premise of the show could be Tara finally getting her lens!

          • Joseph Philbert

            That alone can cover 2 seasons 24 episodes each

          • Just a Girl

            Haha! AT least!

        • MPR1776

          I am betting your screenshots don’t include all the images you stole, but that’s ok, we have them already. And just so you know, I don’t need a gov’t license to own the copyright to my image. I own it the minute I take it.

        • Rick Knew

          Why do we never hear from these lawyers these crooks always claim they are getting?

          • Joseph Philbert

            About that …. I think I’ve been threaten by lawyers 20+ times yet I never ever hear from them nor gotten a letter in the mail.

          • Justin Case

            (pssst; it’s because they don’t exist…

            don’t tell anyone, though…shhhh…)

        • MPR1776

          Hey if you own that company who is this?

          • MPR1776

            I still don’t see your name listed

          • MPR1776

            And last but not least ….

        • Just a Girl

          The more I think about this the more it reminds me of Angels manic moment! She makes no sense and is digging hard to come out on top.

        • Me

          http://uploads.im/?v=k6N72.png

          B….I….N….G…O! B….I….N….G…O! B….I….N….G…O!

          And Bingo was his name-o!

          • Not again!

            Post this as a JPG above!

        • Piemonade

          I’m working, thanks! 🙂 But if I were getting $250 for a wedding, I’d stay home and spend the day with my family.

          You don’t know anything about copyright OR photography, obviously. 🙂

        • Leigh

          You are a real peice of work LisaMarie. I don’t think there is anything anyone can say to make you see the error in your ways. You are completely blinded. In the end, it will take a hefty law suite to make you come to grips with reality. And I sincerely hope one is on the way. You need a good hard smack across the head. Do yourself a favour and stow that low end 8MP camera in a drawer and lock it. Your not cut out for this industry. Not only in terms of professionalism, conversing with others, education (Your grammer/punctuation/spelling are appalling), YOUR work is not up to quality. Not only do you not have a sense of buisness, You do not have an eye for photography. Im truly sorry if others have told you other wise. They most likely are the ones who love you the most and don’t want to tear you down. For the love of all things Holy please listen to the sound of many experienced PROFESSIONALS and just STOP!

        • Hey Lisamarie Hollis, you are at it again. You think just re-branding and changing your number was enough.
          I guess you did not learn the listen the first time “Thou shall not steal and use Stock photography as their work”http://www.timethroughalens.com/

          shame shame shame,,,

  • The Bad Wolf

    I noticed last night that on that “Happy Tortoise” page, someone had posted this link, and that this woman was a fraud under a comment on this page to check out Lisa’s work. That entire comment is now gone, not just the link to this site.

  • doncalifornia

    Here ya go. I contacted her last night to politely let her know the walls were about to cave in and that she could respond either positively or negatively, in a nutshell. I also offered to answer any questions about what she did wrong, and how to get straight and make amends. She responded to my message with excuses, insults and anger, and threats, and then blocked me. I tried to send a response before I realized she had cut me off, so that response is included below, IN CASE YOU ARE READING THIS LISAMARIE:

    1 – From Me last night:
    Hi LisaMarie. I am not sending this message to tear you apart. I am
    letting you know you are in for an interesting weekend. You will soon be inundated with lots of photographers blasting you for stealing photos and pretending they are yours, on your facebook, your web and craigslist ads, etc etc. They of course are understandably upset. I will say, you will probably do as most photographers do when they are exposed, meaning you’ll probably start blocking the people leaving comments, and probably deleting them as fast as you can. You’ll possible suspend your page with some comment or excuse that you’ve been hacked or spammed. But just so you know, it’s an old pattern. The very best response would be: 1. Admit it. Own it. 2. Apologize, not just to the photographers from whom you stole, but to your clients and prospective clients for advertising fraudulently and representing your work through photos that aren’t yours. 3. Remove all the photos which aren’t yours. 4. Contact every identifiable photographer whose
    images you have used, apologize again, plead for mercy, offer to pay something for your unauthorized use of their images. This might be the most important step, because they have the right to sue you into oblivion for copyright infringement. Anyway, if you have any questions and want to get on the right track, and stay on the right side of this situation, please feel free to message me back. If you go to Photo Stealers website to see how other photographers react when they are featured there, you will see that those who deny and obfuscate and make a bunch of excuses or lash out, only make things way way way worse. The problem doesn’t go away. The one or two I’ve seen who sincerely apologized and admitted what they did, were pretty much applauded for taking care of the problem pronto, and in fact their articles are GONE from the Photo Stealers site! That’s the best possible outcome! http://www.StopStealingPhotos.com

    2 – From LisaMarie at Flickers around 4 a.m. Pacific time:
    So let me make sure that I
    understand this all…so the photos that I post that we do in photography class- why as I understand it are STOCK photos and not owned by ANY of you- that we get to alter and change and play with- I can’t post…because you are the photo police passing around your verdict like you have the right to?? You jerks commented all over my FB page including MY work…that’s a really classy bunch of people there. Oh..and because you created your fancy little “wall of shame” that I am assuming is run by you and your geeky little friends of course…you think I should fall to my knees and beg for some kind of forgiveness of you? Do you even know the actually copyright laws? Do you know that copyrighted material published to the web is required to be marked with a copyright notice, symbol or watermark that indicates ownership> Do you even know that I got most of my pics for the photo boards that I am creating to learn new shots from PINTREST?? So are you
    planning to ask everyone on pintrest to bow to your little collection of groupies? What photographer worth their salt put work on the web without security or watermarks?? Do you know how many brides send me their pintrest boards with all their photo ideas? There is no law breaking in that- I doubt that pintrest has any issues at all- you however and your psycho group of friends are in for a little surprise though…see threatening and intimidating via social media is a criminal offense- and I just happen to be fortunate enough to be married to a police officer. I have filed a complaint against all your little friends with FB and will find each website and report them to their host. There is no broken law- I can post just about ANYTHING on the web to my FB page if I like as long as I do not ever state any of it is my work…that’s why they call it social media!

    3 – From me, but it didn’t go through because she blocked me:
    I’m messaging you without judgment or acrimony, I really want to help you understand the laws and the ethics of using or borrowing or taking photos from the internet to use on your own business sites. Actually I know copyright law really well. First Rule to understand is, Copyright belongs to the photographer as soon as he or she presses the shutter. There is never any requirement to watermark or security tag images in order to safeguard them or to protect copyright. I do not run or own Photo Stealers web site. I reached out because I see a lot of photographers blind-sided by a wave of protest when it is found they have a lot of photos on their sites which do not belong to them. And I’m not talking about Pinterest boards where it is generally clear that the images belong to other people and are being shared for ideas and for fun. I am talking about professional photographers’ web sites, facebook, yelp, weddingwire, wherever else, including groupon or craigslist. When you advertise your business, and use images for which you did not get permission granted, and/or for which you did not pay, you are violating copyright laws. Even if you’re not a photographer. If I own a bike shop, I can’t post photos of my bikes that other photographers shot in the park, without either paying those photographers or at least being granted permission. But as a photographer you have a higher standard because not only are you using other photographers’ photos without licensing them to promote your business, you presenting them as your work. And no, you don’t have to put your mark on them, because any reasonable adult who goes to your site or sees your ad will expect that those are your photos and represent your work. So listen, I reached out to you because in almost every instance the photographer who is notified that they are infringing dozens or hundreds of copyrights, denies it, lashes out, threatens the Photo Stealers site and everyone commenting on there, claims they were just “sharing” other work they admired, and so on. I do agree with you that photographers really should protect their images better by putting their watermarks all over them. Not because they have to, and not because if the image isn’t marked it makes it ok for you to take and use as your own. But they should do it because theft of photos online is becoming rampant. And just so you know, legally, and ethically, if you are a photographer and post photos on your facebook page of weddings and high school seniors and so on, professional photos, then you are claiming them to be your work. There is no getting around that reality. So listen, I just reached out to let you know I’ve seen this scenario play out a lot; I understand if you didn’t fully understand copyright. And I am sure the Photo Stealers community and the photographers will also understand. So if you let them all know, sincerely, that you really thought it was OK to post photos that didn’t SEEM to be copyrighted, but that now you know that photos have copyright protection, marked or not, and you are really sorry and you will remove them all right away, things will be a lot easier! Another bit of info about “stock” photos: I see that a lot of the photos on your sites are photos used on many many other websites and ads, because they are probably “stock” photos sold through stock agencies and sites. Those are still copyrighted photos. The copyright holder makes money on sales through the stock agencies. Not much, but it can add up. In any case, if you just lift it off pinterest or some other site and use it without licensing it you are still infringing copyright. Somebody owns that copyright and needs to be paid. Also, if you go to a stock site and pay for using a stock photo, they ALL specify that you can’t use those photos in a way that states or suggests they are your work. That rule really holds true for all photography. So understand you are angry because you feel you are being attacked. I haven’t been to your site today so maybe you are being attacked and yelled at, etc. Like I said, it’s understandable because photographers go nuts when other photographers steal images. I do hope you get through this ok, I do hope you have some good and productive discussions with the other photographers, I do hope you come to an understanding about what it is you are doing wrong with all those photos which are not yours. Again, if you want to message me any time, to ask more questions or discuss, I’m open.

    • Justin Case

      wow. Quite a read.
      On behalf of all the ‘geeks’ ‘psychos’ and ‘photo-police’ I would like to give you a big hug, Don. You certainly tried. Thanks.

      And thanks to you too, LisaMarie, for once again proving how unimaginative and unoriginal photo thieves tend to be.

      • victim √
      • stock √
      • not watermarked = free √
      • my partner the cop (usually it’s lawyer, but close enough) is going to get you √
      • pinterest √
      • ‘cyber-bullying’
      • ‘never claimed them to be my own’ √

      Nope. Nothing new here. And please, blame us: see how far that gets you.

      • Me

        Time for bingo!

    • Joseph Philbert

      Good job but most times trying to help is a waste of time..
      Here remarks will let the dogs loose.

    • Don,

      Thanks for taking the time to show her the right path; unfortunately she’s chosen to go down the wrong one.

      Now that she has a Yelp page up, I’ll be leaving a review there..

    • Joel A

      Don is like the resident heart of gold here at PS, except some people have ego’s that blind them so much, even when Don’s hand reaches for them…all they see is darkness…

  • One more note – She’s claiming to be an LLC, and according to the Ariz. Corporation search, there is no such entity. Feel free to do a search for her.

    http://starpas.azcc.gov/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=wsbroker1/connect.p?app=names-report.p

    • Joseph Philbert

      Yea this is why she attempted to remove the “LLC” ending on her Facebook page thinking we would not notice.

      • Ahh. its up on her Yelp page still..

      • Review posted on her Yelp! page…

      • Guest

        and check out her 1 review on Yelp – and…. she gets 1 star our of 5 – impressive for sure!

    • Anyone else notice she is only open on Mondays? (based off her Yelp page).

      • Since she appears to have a day job (according to linkedIn) that’s probably her day off.

        • I have a day job (communications officer fro a Federal Secretariat) and trust me … a client wants to meet with me? I don’t care if it’s at 11pm, I’m there. I do most of my photography work on evenings and week ends and if I have enough notice I book a day off work if needed (like this year, I have a few Friday weddings).

  • Justin Case

    Aww. I think we scared her off. And just when things were getting fun again…

    • Not again!

      Or she got blocked.

    • Joseph Philbert

      She is busy on the phone with the FCC..and a big time entertainment lawyer

  • Not again!

    Confirmed her partner based on the pictures: https://www.facebook.com/cynthia.lucas.585

    • Not again!

      Unable to find out if she really is a cop. If they lived in Vegas then she was a neighborhood inspector.

    • Joseph Philbert

      Partner?

      • captain-confuzzled

        yes there are pictures of their wedding posted

        • Joseph Philbert

          O I see them now… Hope her “partner” has more sense than she does

  • Just a Girl
  • Not again!

    IF it’s the same person then they have a criminal record already.
    IF it is, then the fraud charge is no longer a first offense and she will get more jail time and higher fines.
    http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/caselookup.aspx

    • Not again!
      • MPR1776

        I dunno, can’t tell from this photo

        • Not again!

          This is the case detail that the other one didn’t include. Same case.

          • MPR1776

            Yes, but can’t tell from her profile photo and this if they are the same person is what I was trying to get across.

          • Just a Girl

            PS has previously said that photo stealers usually have a less then stellar past. Shady as all get out!

          • Joseph Philbert

            Yea its usually a pattern …. a few photo thieves have had been arrested for fraud … so it fits with their broken moral code of ethics.

          • Not again!

            There are plenty of other pics in her profile that all match.

        • Joseph Philbert

          Trust me that’s the same person..

        • Joseph Philbert

          Look at her face its the same person.

          • captain-confuzzled

            close up, beauty marks look pretty matched up

    • Joseph Philbert

      Yea it’s no mistake it’s her I am sure….I see a trend .

    • Not again!

      With this she is looking at 3-7.5 with no chance of probation.

    • confused

      Wow, and some of those include multiple counts of child/vulnerable adult abuse….wonder what that’s all about.

      • Just a Girl

        Aint much to wonder…. There was a problem otherwise someone would not have thought there was. She not only has an ethical issue with stealing someone elses photos but apparently someone thought she had a parenting issue.

  • Justin Case

    her copyright notice seems to have changed:
    “Photos and sample poses included. Copyright policies apply to applicable work and requirements. You may not recreate or sell without permissions.”

    OH. I guess that makes all the stealing legal now.

    And why change the cover photo on her facebook page – which most definitely had a watermark on it – if she hasn’t done anything wrong?

    • Again … re-create … copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself … the whole industry would be in trouble otherwise.

      Sorry, you can take a picture of a woman slipping a ring on a mans finger in front of an altar … I did that first!

    • Joseph Philbert

      Guilty as charge after the fact

  • Just a Girl

    Oh GOOD! One of the REAL photographers has spoken up!

  • Just a Girl

    From her Facebook (sorry didnt attach the first time)

    • MPR1776

      You mean this one?

      • Jenny Cruger

        well, she deleted my comment and I can’t make anymore now. I’ve sent her an email – Jenny

    • The comment has been deleted.

      • Carol Ann Roskos

        WHAT??? Seriously? I wonder if she took down the photo?

        • Smh

          Nope! Not as of just now (4/6/14 8:31AM) But Jenny’s comment was removed!

          • Justin Case

            Smh & Eric L – glad you still have access… I’ve been cut off from viewing any comments… please keep us updated

          • Some of us have to stay behind and facebook creep.

          • Marc W.

            Her new website is just as clumsy and annoying.

            http://www.timethroughalens.com/

        • Smh

          Oh sorry- Eric Lefebvre already noted the deleted comment lol.

  • TimW

    According to my gun photographer friend (one of the top gun still-life and competition photographers in the country), the image of the Wilson Sentinel came from the Wilson Combat webpage. AFAIK, they don’t license their images. There is also no watermark, which means to me it was a marketing image they made. There are a couple others…all of which I’ve screen captured…that are pro-level or manufacturer images. And these were hers from the AZ Wild West gun show? Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

    • Not again!

      I certainly hope they will go after her. Especially knowing her criminal past.
      That said, I’m guessing she’s restricted from holding a gun. So did she have someone else stage everything for her?

      • TimW

        No, I meant she was claiming they were hers. No way there’d be live ammo and a gun next to each other at a gun show.

  • Glenn Angel

    Lol epic. I just replied to all her craiglist 😛 What a complete psycho

  • Cherrie

    I’ve actually seen a lot of these images before on Pinterest.

    • Just a Girl

      Doesn’t matter ( and doesn’t make it OK that they are there) IF YOU DID NOT PHYSICALLY SHOOT THE PICTURE DO NOT USE IT!!! Caps used for emphasis cause this shit is getting real old on trying to explain! 🙂

      • Joel A

        A lot of people seem to come from Pinterest. And think that using it there makes everything ok. Call me crazy, I don’t get the whole Pinterest thing, its all sketchy to me, sorry.

        • Just a Girl

          It IS sketchy. Wouldn’t a lick of common sense tell you that if it FEELS wrong it is wrong?

    • Justin Case

      Cherrie, I have no problem with Pinterest per se. I think of it kind of like being in everyone’s kitchen and seeing what they’ve got posted on the refrigerator door.

      My problem is that they allow people to strip metadata, watermarks, copyright and contact info and to post the images from shady sites all over the internet that do NOT link back to the original photographer or in any way try to make people correctly attribute the work that they post.

      It’s like someone clips an image from a magazine, cuts off the photographers credit, puts together ANOTHER magazine with that image and lots of other photographs from different sources and then tries to claim that they have created something original.

      THEN someone like LisaMarie of Flickers Photo of Phoenix cuts those photos out and puts them in her portfolio and puts it on the samples table in her photo studio.

      Pretty much anyone would find that at least deceptive, no?

  • Justin Case

    I guess she’ll have some money to pay for all the photos she stole now:
    EDIT: 4 weddings at minimum $450/wedding means at least $1800 before expenses. I guess she’ll have some of her own images to put up on her website now… unless this is just more delusional bullshit…

    • Justin Case

      …and here is the person who ‘absolutely love(d) our photos’ (note she is posting photos from ‘husband’ over one-year ago)

      • Just a Girl

        AWESOME… someone can take pictures of a toaster and flowers and make them look purty! LOL

        • Justin Case

          my guess is that hubby’s work is the kitchen remodeling. But you’re right, the pictures are awful… perhaps she should hire Flickers Photography of Phoenix (the photo frauds): they do interiors and real estate, according to their website!

          PS: say ‘FLICKERS PHOTO of PHOENIX the PHOTO FRAUD’ ten times fast, I dare you!

          • Just a Girl

            HAHAHA!
            Im up for a good challenge!
            FLICKERS PHOTO of PHOENIX the PHOTO FRAUD
            FLICKERS PHOTO of PHOENIX the PHOTO FRAUD
            FLICKERS PHOTO of PHOENIX the PHOTO FRAUD
            FLICKERS PHOTO of PHOENIX the PHOTO FRAUD
            FLICKERS PHOTO of PHOENIX the PHOTO FRAUD
            FLICKERS PHOTO of PHOENIX the PHOTO FRAUD
            FLICKERS PHOTO of PHOENIX the PHOTO FRAUD
            FLICKERS PHOTO of PHOENIX the PHOTO FRAUD
            FLICKERS PHOTO of PHOENIX the PHOTO FRAUD
            FLICKERS PHOTO of PHOENIX the PHOTO FRAUD
            FLICKERS PHOTO of PHOENIX the PHOTO FRAUD
            FLICKERS PHOTO of PHOENIX the PHOTO FRAUD
            FLICKERS PHOTO of PHOENIX the PHOTO FRAUD
            Sorry– over achiever! 🙂

          • Justin Case

            you have now been transported into an alternate reality where copyright is free and everything you create is just wonderful…

          • Just a Girl

            Oh NO THANKS Beam me up Scotty I just wanna go home!

          • Just a Girl

            Being in North Pole has to be freezing your brain cells…. no one other then those lower 48’ers gonna fall for that! 🙂

          • Justin Case

            I blame global warming.

          • Just a Girl

            Yeah? So did Gore.

          • Just a Girl

            Im sure Sarah did to… secretly! LOL

          • Joseph Philbert

            Tongue tied 🙂

      • Smh

        I don’t understand why this woman continues to blow smoke up Lisa’s ass!? She must be a friend or relative. Certainly she’s not a genuine customer who paid for the horrible photos she received and still supports this “business” even after being made aware of the fraud.

    • Just a Girl

      Yeah… and ya have to wonder….. its the same people that like and comment on her updates. I’m glad that I don’t have delusional people LIKE THAT in my life.

      Flickers Photography in Phoenix, Arizona IS A PHOTO STEALER and FRAUD….

      Lisa Marie Lucas / LisaMarie Lucas / Lisa Marie Hollis is a thief!

    • Michael Goolsby

      Wow, $450! Times four!! She should be able to buy plenty of meth with that amount of cold, hard cash!

  • Justin Case

    more calling out of your bullshit excuses. from your Craig’s List add:
    “602-430-5881~ LisaMarie see my work @ http://www.flickersphotography.com

    the longer you keep this up, the deeper we will dig. And you really are a complete fraud: “Retired professional photographer with excellant portfolio” (sic)

    • doncalifornia

      Yes, I LOVE that she described herself as “Retired professional photographer with excellant portfolio” (sic). If anyone is still assuming that she is delusional or living in a fantasy world, you can stop lending her that excuse. The fact is she is plainly a liar. She is purposely defrauding the public. You can’t simply imagine that you once has a successful photography career and that now you are “retired” and giving back. It’s the kind of thing you strategically create to deceive.

      • susan

        Yep, she’s flat out liar and fraud. Some of those photos above did have watermark until she cropped/cloned them out.

  • Michael Goolsby

    Photo stealers come and go. But this one stands out to me not only for the sheer volume of her deception, but also the ferocity with which she attacked those who revealed her. Naturally, because she is indeed a total fraud as both a business and a photographer, she utterly fails to grasp that the contempt she exhibits towards other photographers simply demonstrates that she is not, in fact, a genuine one herself. Even that pathetic douche bag known as Christopher Ryan had the good sense to at least say “I respect how you try to protect the industry”, first because that is the way psychopaths behave, and second because he actually does, I believe, enjoy photography. But this total waste of breathable air hates real photographers because she at least understands that she is not one herself. Her own photographs are so woefully inadequate that she must resort to stealing the work of others. But where most other fauxtographers steal in order to live in a fantasy world, this criminal steals solely to defraud others. Her rants about copyrights and so forth are not only the most totally ignorant I’ve ever seen, but also stunningly pathetic in their obviousness.

    Lisa Marie aka Flickers Photography in Phoenix Arizona is the whole package: photo stealing criminal, liar, ignoramus, fraudster, horrendously bad fauxtographer (photo stealers are exclusively and appropriately exempt from any restraint of judgment about their actual work… when you steal, you waive any such otherwise professional courtesies), and all round pathetic nut job.

    I understand from her messages that she is reporting and filing and contacting other stealers and her husband is a cop and blah blah (insert vomit) blah… And so, with that in mind, let there be no confusion: Lisa Maria aka Flickers Photography, you are a pathetic fraud whom I would not trust to shoot a dead cat. If you ever have taken money in the name of photography (which I find doubtful), you should be charged with fraud. Among photo stealers, you are probably the most outright stupid. PLEASE, include me on your list of lawsuits, complaints and whatever else you’re talking about pulling out of your ass. I am commenting here under my real name (as I always do). I am easy to find. Again, please do it. I’m begging you to, you ignorant piece of white trash filth.

    • susan

      That was probably the most awesome takedown I have ever read. Bravo, Sir, bravo!

      • Michael Goolsby

        Much appreciated, Susan. I guess the contempt that this particular fauxtographer has for real photographers just angers me all the more. Any idiot can simply deny-deny-deny and play the role of a victim, but it takes an especially malicious sociopathic personality to spew such hatred towards the very community from which she steals. And clearly, that sociopathy is evident in the way she considers herself apart FROM the photo community, rather than a part OF the community, making up her own rules as she goes and spouting such factually incorrect things either with both total ignorance on her part, and the belief that we are so equally ignorant ourselves. In return, I have nothing but total disdain and contempt for this worthless pile of crap.

    • Justin Case

      here, here. I would also like to add her obvious and outright contempt for professionals who have to charge real prices in order to have the proper equipment, licensing, insurance, etc. You know, all those things a ‘retired professional photographer’ would know about.

      Thanks for chipping in, Michael. And one good thing about this one: she’s NOT from Georgia!

      • Michael Goolsby

        Thank god! For a change, right? 🙂

        On a similar note, just as I am particularly incensed, as a photographer living and working in Georgia, to see so many Georgians turn up on this site as photo stealers, I’d like to suggest that maybe the true women photographers should be even more upset than us men. Why? For many years, wedding and portrait photography was dominated by men, comprising the vast majority. Today, women make up a signification portion of the profession. At the same time, however, it seems that women also seem to be the most prolific offenders in photo stealing. Indeed, the number on this board seem to suggest at least 3 out of 4, if not more. This lopsided decidedly number might be suggestive of a phenomenon that may have yet to be fully explained. Whatever the case, however, I applaud those women who have made incredible progress in just a short time into a business once dominated by their male counterparts, and I accordingly expect their derision towards those women who try steal and lie their way upward — as is the case with Lisa Marie aka Flickers Photography of Arizona, among others) — to resonate all the more loudly.

  • Not again!

    I’m curious when she went to Cambodia.
    I’d also be interested if the balloon festivals, news media, and the like want credit for their images.

    • Joseph Philbert

      Man this woman is living the fantasy … Next up is cancer..

      • Not again!

        WHAT? She has cancer? OMG! We HAVE to stop all of this immediately and start throwing money at her!

      • Not again!

        Do you think her daughter knows?
        I wonder how she would feel knowing her mom, and grandmother to her kid(s), could be looking at 3+ years behind bars.
        Because that’s the next card! “I did it to give my daughter a better life!”

    • Justin Case

      good catch, missed the Angkor Wat image. She took her balloon there. Or was it her motorcycle? Or her ’68 mustang?

  • Michael Goolsby

    Lisa Maris aka Flickers Photography of Arizona 1.6024305881 is a FRAUD. Avoid hiring. If you have hired her, contact your attorney immediately.

  • susan

    There are several images above on which the original photographer’s watermark was cropped out or cloned out. That makes all of Lisa Marie’s explanation void. It shows intent, which will certainly bolster a case, should any of the photographers seek remuneration. It also shows that she took a good while (wasnt it from 2013 until her site went up in Feb?) to find images to use that werent watermarked. I guess she couldn’t resist the ones she had to take the mark off of (and those weren’t stock images that she “worked on” in class). This may very well be an unstable person, possibly with anger management issues, which fits with her criminal history. I saw a pic on her fb page that looked like it may have been taken at her job? Had a radar screen so I wonder if she’s an air traffic controller? Yikes…..

    • Smh

      Someone uncovered her LinkedIn page and it says she’s a Project Manager for Disaster Relief o_0

      • susan

        Ahhh…maybe she has “hero” syndrome and her ego is heavily invested in being this “great” photographer? I’m a former paramedic/firefighter so I’m familiar with the folks who just want to look like a big deal…

      • Justin Case

        gotta keep up, SMH 😉 … that thread has been pretty well pulled further down… I think her resume is quite well-padded…

  • Carol Ann Roskos

    Craigslist Ad #2 has been taken down.

  • susan

    Anyone have any thoughts on the name “Flickers?” I could see “Shooters” or whatever. It took me awhile to figure out that GNHB name too (Girl n Her Boots).

    • Joseph Philbert

      Who knows why they think those names are cute.. Like “monkey around photography”

    • doncalifornia

      “Snapz”

  • Jenny C

    And here is where she found it either through pinterest or my blog – in which she definitely REMOVED my watermark (which is moot in whether she was allowed to use it or not, but shows intent) http://www.pinterest.com/pin/321655598358764417/

    • Jenny Cruger

      I’ve also just filed a DMCA claim with her host, GoDaddy.

      • Justin Case

        Good for you Jenny! And while you’re at it, send her a bill for the usage. the only way clowns like this seem to take notice is when someone shows them that there is a real-world cost.
        some great sample letters here: http://petapixel.com/2013/12/13/sample-letters-copyright-infringers-credit-requests-payment-demands/#more-126963

        • Joseph Philbert

          Good show .. Sometimes I love the photography community 🙂

      • Kensie Malmfeldt

        Jenny, I also filed a DMCA, so hopefully Go Daddy will take it seriously. Had she just taken it down after I sent a cease and desist, I would have left it there, but instead I got a nasty e-mail calling me names back. Real winner.

        • Joseph Philbert

          Godaddy usually does … Send them this link they have closed down domains in the past.

        • Shayla

          She had the balls to call you names after you sent a cease and desist?? And then still kept your images up? WTH?

        • Joseph Philbert

          Please post a copy of the message if possible … they just don’t get it … Just be respectful it’s so much easier that way.

    • doncalifornia

      By the way Jenny C those are *beautiful* photos

      • jenny cruger

        Thank you!

    • Jenny keep in mind thay removing your watermark is a violation of the DMCAs proviosions on circumventing rights management info and you can hit hrr for 2500$ – 25000$ in statutory damages.

      • jenny cruger

        True, but it would cost me money to go after her and judging by her work, her business skills, her morals, and her ignorance about simple things such as copyright, I highly doubt she has that money to give me. I had a baby 5 days ago, not worth it to me 😉

        • Not again!

          Congratulations!
          Hopefully you’re able to find a good newborn photographer on Craigslist for cheep! 🙂

          • Jenny Cruger

            haha! Thank you all 🙂

        • Joseph Philbert

          I don’t think neither her or her partner have any property you can go after.
          If they had a house I would so go after it and have it liquidated 🙂

        • Congrats on the baby!
          As for her not having a dime to her name … she obvisouly has camera gear and a computer! 🙂

          • Rick New

            I’d be willing to bet its a consumer grade camera not worth the postage to ship it and computers, like cars, values drop the minute you take them out the door.

          • Consumer grade DSLRs nake ok emergency, third backups and most of them have decent video capabilities if you are looking at doing a bit of video either for clients or for your own self promotion but yeah … probably not worth the hassle unless you are a vindictive ahole like me. 😉

    • Helena

      These pictures really are beautiful.

      • jenny cruger

        Thank you very much!

  • Just a Girl

    Looks like its time ti write up my own Craigslist post warning people that
    Flickers Photography in Phoenix, Arizona IS A PHOTO STEALER and FRAUD.

    • Smh

      Lol Please do! I posted two already!

  • Not again!

    Oops… Pissing off more than just photographers.

    • Awesome!!!

    • Helena

      Haha, I took the same screenshot.

    • Joseph Philbert

      SMH she does not get it..

    • Justin Case

      Excellent. I am hesitant to involve totally innocent clients in these kind of messes, but I think many of the photo thieves totally ignore the harm they cause. I mean, who wants pictures from their wedding or of their newborn used in a fraudulent enterprise?

    • Joseph Philbert

      She finally did the right thing and shut her fan page down…

  • susan

    Lisa Marie should have done her homework by now but since I kinda doubt it, she should read about others getting sued for copyright infringement:
    http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/How_using_Google_Images_can_cost_you_8000_47071.aspx

    http://www.roniloren.com/blog/2012/7/20/bloggers-beware-you-can-get-sued-for-using-pics-on-your-blog.html

    http://debmcalister.com/2012/02/02/5-easy-ways-to-get-sued-for-social-media-or-blogging/

    And these are to do with bloggers, even those with no commercial interest! Maybe Lisa Marie has looked this stuff up already as well she should. She might just be sitting in a corner crying right now…

    • Shayla

      Here’s a case where a photographer sued over images that were stolen from his twitter postings: http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/1-2-million-lawsuit-shouldnt-steal-photos-twitter/#!CYTGl

      • Justin Case

        that was quite a big case, widely covered in the photo industry. And what that article doesn’t mention, “The jury awarded the maximum statutory damages that the Court allowed
        for copyright infringement for 8 photographs — $1.2 million — and one
        thousand times what the defendants told the jury it should award as
        actual damages for their wrongful acts — $275,000 as opposed to $275.” http://photomorel.com/?page_id=2030

        • Rixk New

          The problem with suing these fly by night wannabe crook photographers is they normally don’t have a pot to piss in. Kind of a waste of time. That is the beauty with websites like these. Stop the theft while its going on.

          • Justin Case

            I agree, and have said as much earlier in this post even.

            And to be fair, the use in the AFP/Getty/Morel case posted above was for commercial use – i.e. they were redistributing the images for profit.

    • Justin Case

      interesting: “The automatic “remedy” for the winner is triple damages: you pay three
      times the value of the material on which you infringed. Who sets the
      value? The guy who is suing you. So just remove it and apologize.” (from your bottom link)

  • Smh

    OOO! And the facebook page has FINALLY been taken down!

    • Helena

      And the website. Maybe it took a bride calling her out over her theft?

    • Carol Ann Roskos

      Finally!

  • Rick New

    Looks as if her FB is down. Only 34 were following anyways.

    • C Sab

      That’s less of teh likes my page on FB has, and I’m just a hobbyist. lol Sure says alot.

  • Rick New

    Website down as well. Doing a Google search on flickers photography in phoenix resulted in links to this website for the first 4 entries.

    • Joseph Philbert

      Looks like godaddy took it down …or she may have done it..

    • Justin Case

      and all 4 Craigslist listings are now dead as well.

  • Justin Case

    288 comments, 2 days of stress and elevated blood pressure, facebook madness – it’s a hell of a way to learn a lesson.

    Stupid, stupid, stupid.

    She should have taken Don’s advice. Hope the next person learns something from all this. (Trust me, I’m not holding my breath).

    • Joseph Philbert

      They never do .. Even with the 100% success of this site..

  • Michael Goolsby

    Great job Photostealers.com!

  • Justin Case

    and I really can’t help myself: one more before bed. (this was from the former Flichers Photography Phoenix facebook account – I hereby re-title it “Your Reputation”)

  • Just a Girl

    Yay!!! Way to go P.S.!

  • Just a Girl

    While I’m glad that shes all gone, I ALMOST wish that her website had stayed up just one more day. I emailed the company that owns the log house on the Real Estate portion. A corporation would have chewed her up slowly and savored each bite!

    • Joseph Philbert

      Well FCC ain’t calling yet

      • Just a Girl

        I’m not sure about the website but the Facebook isn’t permanently deleted… she’ll be back! And we’ll be waiting…same ole Photo Stealer behavior just a different name.

        • Joseph Philbert

          I bet Money she will rebrand…

  • The Bad Wolf

    FYI guys, we can say “Wife” in reference to two women being married. We aren’t a part of the media’s black list on words we can use. That said I HOPE the Wife IS a cop… because a law enforcement officer is going to have a HARD TIME explaining her Wife’s theft.

    • Joseph Philbert

      Hell I still say partner ;p

      • They are technically both wives.

        wife[ wahyf ]
        noun [plural wives]
        1. a married woman, especially when considered in relation to her partner in marriage.

        source: http://www.dictionary.com

        • The Bad Wolf

          Yes they are. The term “Partner” is popular due to the fact that there is a list of how to say certain things in media, and to say that two women married are “Wives” and two men married are “Husbands” is some how considered wrong. So technically to say such is to go against the media’s version of political correctness, something I am more than happy to do.

          • Joseph Philbert

            I have a married gay male friend I call him the wife lol
            Then again we are close “not that close”

    • Cyndi

      I am not a cop. And I had no idea it was like this. But, hey, thanks for plastering my personal information all over this blog and making cutesy comments about my impending prison time and questioning my sense and sensibilities. Truly, it’s been an inspirational read. I understand that you folks are upset, and I will not make excuses for what she has done. I am not a professional photographer, but I do like to take pictures and I understand what it means to own those visions. I had no idea it was this bad. For my part, I apologize to all of you and to the ones whose shots were used. If I have anything to say about it…it ends here.

      • Joseph Philbert

        That is unfortunate but instead of blaming us blame your wife/partner for the lying and shenanigans that cause this.
        BUT I do appreciate you coming clean and making amends. We wish she did the same thing when this first started….it would never have gone this far.

      • Rick New

        So Cyndi is the wife? Thanks for the apology for your part.

      • captain-confuzzled

        Thank you for your apology. I hope that you can get through to Lisa Marie and help her understand the harm that she has done, also the harm done to you with her lies to us. The idea that her spouse was in law enforcement (said by her) certainly added another dimension to the whole issue. If I recall correctly there were many posts hoping that the “law enforcement” spouse helped Lisa Marie understand. And in the end that is what is hoped for, along with any amends that need to be made to the people who’s photos were stolen.

      • Just a Girl

        I dont know that anyone mentioned YOUR impending prison time. I went back and looked at the comments and that’s not there – if it is I missed it! Anyways, Its nice that one you can show some sense. 🙂 Nice apology! Good luck on your end.

        • Justin Case

          Actually, someone did at some point say something about how cops get treated in prison. This whole discussion understandably bought out a lot of anger in a lot of people, and I am glad at least someone from the other side of this mess seems to be taking the high road now. Kudos to you, Cyndi, I hope that time helps teach the lesson that all these words have failed to.

      • BullShite

        Honestly I’m just sorry that she involved you in this by proxy, and it should not be you apologizing, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that you did anything wrong. I think part of looking into you was her claim that she was married to a cop, in fact most people thought you were a male for awhile.

        You have to understand, people take this as seriously as they do someone walking into a proverbial store that they owned and pocketing something off of the shelf. However it’s not just the “shopkeeper” getting burned. It’s the customers she defrauds by claiming to be as good and as professional as those that she has stolen from, some with DECADES and hundreds of thousands of dollars behind them, and it disintegrates the integrity of the industry as a whole, by being a thief, and by charging bottom basement prices that no true professional could hope to live off of.

        So again, I’m sorry YOU got pulled into this, I can empathize with how much this must suck, and what kind of a unplanned strain it might have on your marriage. I don’t blame you one bit.

        Best of luck.

      • Melinda Potter

        Oh my! I just read her comment/reply/statement to us, and… Wow! I’m so sorry she chose not to listen to the sage advice that was given to her privately about how to properly handle herself. I feel for you, and in no way think you should have been involved in this at all. It’s a shame

      • I don’t think anyone mentioned that YOU were going to jail, I think they were referring to your partner.As for claiming you are a police officer, your partner made that claim and then later removed that sentence from her comment.

        Thanks for the apology (even though you didn’t really have anything to apologize for … that’s your partners job). Good luck.

      • Michael Goolsby

        It is unfortunate that someone else dragged you into this. Having said that, any without intending any offense to you whatsoever, I am absolutely perplexed why YOU are apologizing for anything here. And I am equally perplexed why Lisa Marie has NOT apologized. In addition to her stealing, she has harmed the photo community at large, and slung a lot of nastiness around as she tried to wriggle free of the snare she found herself caught inside. Why has she not come forward to admit her behavior and apologize? If you are a cop as she claimed (and who the hell really knows THAT for sure), then you should understand that the apology of one person cannot in any way mitigate the behavior of another. This may sound harsh, especially since you have, yourself, been a victim here, but your own apology has no place here. And it does not — nor cannot — mitigate the behavior of the real person in question.

      • doncalifornia

        I think I speak for a lot of us when I say it is indeed too bad you were dragged into this. That was pretty thoughtless of LisaMarie, and from my point of view she owes you a huge apology. And I am sorry if it sounds like I am making light of this, but I am not. I am very serious. She wrote to me in a private message that she was married to a police officer and that we were committing some sort of criminal offense by contacting her about all this and that we were “in for a surprise.” That kind of threat is skirting the edges of criminal behavior itself. I posted our whole exchange was back in the early couple days of this thread if you’ll like to check it out. But that behavior is all on her. You should not have to apologize here on her behalf because, as someone else mentioned, you are a victim here too. I do feel very badly for you and hopefully you two will have some long talks that will be productive and growth-oriented. In the meantime, LisaMarie has not apologized to anyone. She’s still kind of being a shit about this, and thus is not going to get any sympathy from anyone here until she does. I’m not holding my breath.

      • She is doing it again .. Lesson not learned. Rebrand to “Time through a lens”

  • Michael Goolsby

    It looks like this one is finished, and so I just wanted to thank photostealers.com again for a great job done. I also want to observe how both tragic and predictable the behavior of these fauxtographers consistently is. This one was particularly ferocious, too, to which I am almost embarrassed to admit being slightly amused when, after the angry “lawyer” and “married to a cop” and “cyberbullying” threats, she eventually just whimpered away in the face of reality. I have always said that forgiveness is good, but only after genuine repentance. It seems that with fauxtographers who steal, there is seldom any. Which should say something more about the character of these fraudsters.

    Anyway, thanks again to photostealers.com and all the people who contribute to it. And to Flickers Photography aka Lisa Marie… up yours.

  • Mary

    omg. I hired Lisa Marie and had her at my house for my 6 year old daughter’s party on March 30, 2014. I found her on Craigs List. I just emailed her earlier today to ask when I would receive a cd with the photos on it. She said she just put it in the mail this morning. I don’t feel so good ….

    • My answer to that would be “Great, mind just flipping a few to me by email? The mother in law can;t wait to see them.” and see what happens. 🙂

      • Joseph Philbert

        Good idea….

  • KM

    I had booked her for my September wedding. Fortunately, I had only given her a small booking fee which I have asked to have refunded. (Yeah right). More than losing the money is going back to the drawing board to find a photographer that I don’t have to mortgage my house to pay for. Just sickening!

    • Remeber that:

      1- You get what you paid for. Anyone offering to do a full day wedding for less than 800$ can’t have been in business for very long or else they would understand by now that they are losing money on every contract they sign. My cheapest package is 1100$ and I’m considered in-expensive.

      2- We also have expenses, it;s not pure profit, not by a long shot.

      3- Wedding shows are your friend and even after you do find a photographer you like, keep collecting info. There’s a bridal show in you area in June here: http://www.arizonabridalshow.com/

      Good luck.

      • KM

        Thanks Eric – just have a hard time paying someone $200 an hour unless they are operating on me or representing me in court.

        • doncalifornia

          Just remember when you are figuring $200 per hour you are only thinking of wedding day shooting. That will come out to about 1/3 or 1/4 of all the time the photographers spend on your wedding, from setting it up with you to editing and delivering final product. That does not count any of the time or money they spent making sure they have properly formatted cards, all the right cameras and lenses for the job, BACKUP cameras and lenses, all the same for lights, stands, etc. Then on to proper duplication and backup, editing software, calibrated monitors, etc. Honestly the list goes on and on. A real photographer will have licenses and insurance and will have provided endorsements or indemnity vouchers…

          • doncalifornia

            Oh, and SKILLS developed over years of learning and practice, and EXPERIENCE with brides and grooms from working on weddings before. NONE of this can be faked.

        • A typical 10 hour wedding comes out to 32 hours of work for me … then add in my costs … you aren;t paying me 200$ an hour. 🙂

    • Joseph Philbert

      Good job..

    • Gen

      You did the right thing. It’s better to cancel than have someone shoot your wedding who doesn’t feel confident enough to post her own pictures.

      I would love to talk to you about wedding photography. I start at $800 for a 4 hr wedding and am on the inexpensive end for photographers with any kind of experience. Here’s my site: http://www.freebirdphotographic.com.

      If you’re not interested in using me, I’m part of a facebook group where I would be happy to post and help you get a list of people in your price range. Good luck!

    • Shayla

      I’m in the Phoenix area. I have wonderful package options for weddings if you’re interested including an hourly rate for smaller,intimate weddings. http://www.shaylalettmanphotography.net

      • KM

        Shayla – your work is beautiful. Only I’m in Tucson, not Phoenix. Do you ever venture down this way?

        • Shayla

          I’m originally from Tucson and venture down there from time to time yes 🙂

  • Their actions are disgusting!

    • MPR1776

      And stealing other people’s work, claiming you took the images is not disgusting, right? Nice try, no cigar…you are reaping what you sowed.

    • C Sab

      Keep talking, you’re just digging the hole you’re in even deeper. 😉

    • BullShite

      OMG, does “Brett’s” photo totally not look like G.O.B. from Arrested Development?
      I can literally almost hear “Final Countdown” playing every time I look at that profile pic.

  • Mary

    Hi Guys, Just an update: LisaMarie mailed me a thumb-drive with the photos she took at my 6-year old daughter’s party, and they are great. They are just what I was looking for, and I am very pleased with them.

    • captain-confuzzled

      Happy to hear that you are pleased!

    • Melinda Potter

      Great news 🙂

    • Joseph Philbert

      At least you are happy and got what you paid for..

    • Glad to hear it!

  • KM

    Just want to give you all an update that LisaMarie did reach out to me and offer to refund my booking fee and cancel my date. I have tried to respond to her but her emails are all undeliverable. I appreciate what she was trying to say to me and I wish she would have been more accessible so that we could have had a discussion about this. Based on what Mary posted she did a good job – if she could have given her customers a chance to see her real work – I’m sure that she would have been just as successful. All customers want is someone that can do a good job, at a fair price and that we can trust – its that simple.

    • LisaMarie

      I find it interesting that you state her emails are undelivered. You were emailed through my work email and for all other purposes it has been working fine and had mail coming in without issue. In addition to that you paid through paypal yet as of last night when we looked there was no dispute opened for the $25.00 deposit paid which was also an option for you since your payment transaction was secured. At minimal end you were provided with my phone number and I have no missed calls or voicemails from you at all. Not ALL of the work they posted was stolen or stock photos, and as I understand this sites purpose, purchasing stock photos is no better and the photographer still has no business being a photographer, but much of that work was mine and very representative of the type of photos you could have had. I paid good money for that site to be created and stock photos are not free either. I may not have known about the rule for Pintrest, but then again these people did and while they are claiming here that their photo was stolen- the three photos that actually had a photographer contact me have NOT gone to Pintrest and asked to have their pins removed. You did not call, did not ask any questions and did not email me. I find it amazing that after we have gone through all this and I have seen all the emails and comments and blogging about this issue 1. that this group calls themselves professionals. While they have no qualms at all with exposing other peoples confidential information, they hide behind bogus emails, fake screen names and hidden site ownership so you can’t find out who they are. You do not represent yourself s a professional by attacking in mass, and by mass I mean that I have seen more than 280 messages and comments, the names of our children and family messaged or commented on and our address to our home made public here. A professional would have found an business like manner to initiate contact for this kind of issue, not send their “page friends” to attack on their behalf in a coordinated cyber attack against not only the person tehy are targeting, but everyone close to them regardless of age. Grown ups just do not behave like this. Now that I have seen the information involved in this I would have to say this group has set a very unrealistic expectation to expect anyone to come to them and apologize for anything after they finish one of their attacks- especially given the fact they went after our children through FB and created a safety risk to them by posting our home address. Only lunatics do something like that.This was never an awareness issue, it was vengeance and I do hope that once all the information has been reviewed by the FCC for cyber terrorism and bullying and this blog is thoroughly reviewed someone will put a stop to them.They are not protecting a greater cause, they are thoroughly enjoying terrorizing peoples family, friends and children and then openly posting their attacks in the forum for all to see where they feed off each other, berate others work and demean their pricing claiming they are destroying the photography field…for them that is because now everyone is not dependent on people like them to have photos and they hate it. They are not defending a cause- they are using it to justify their fun. I would bet that their primary goal is to reduce accessibility to low cost photography and corner the market. If they run down those charging less than them you will be left with no alternative BUT to find a way to come up with the money if you want a photographer. What you have here is a group of people who have named themselves the photography police, without any actual right to do so. I wish you luck Kama in locating a new photographer. You deserve no less than the best- and the price tag that comes with that.

      • Photo Stealers

        “Not ALL of the work they posted was stolen or stock photos, and as I understand this sites purpose, purchasing stock photos is no better and the photographer still has no business being a photographer, but much of that work was mine and very representative of the type of photos you could have had.”

        At most 1-2 images in each “portfolio” were yours. Often entire portfolios were not yours.

        “I paid good money for that site to be created and stock photos are not free either.”

        Perhaps you shouldn’t have filled it with stolen and stock images then so it wouldn’t have to be removed. Again, it’s very dishonest to use stock images to represent your photography portfolio and most likely against the TOS from the site you purchased them through.

        “I may not have known about the rule for Pintrest, but then again these people did and while they are claiming here that their photo was stolen- the three photos that actually had a photographer contact me have NOT gone to Pintrest and asked to have their pins removed.”

        Pinterest is not a free stock site.

        “You did not call, did not ask any questions and did not email me.”

        You do realize this is a client of YOURS you are replying to, right?

        Also, your information was sent to me when you refused to take down images when contacted. You had a chance to make this right but chose not to.

        “…A professional would have found an business like manner to initiate contact for this kind of issue…”

        Again, you were contacted about the images being on your site. A professional wouldn’t have to use someone else’s copyrighted works to represent their own portfolio.

        “…especially given the fact they went after our children through FB and created a safety risk to them by posting our home address…”

        YOU created that safety risk by putting your home address online in connection with your business. It’s on your Yelp page and who knows how many other websites online.

        “This was never an awareness issue, it was vengeance and I do hope that once all the information has been reviewed by the FCC for cyber terrorism and bullying and this blog is thoroughly reviewed someone will put a stop to them.”

        Asking for images to be removed and posting a link to this website ≠ cyber bullying.

        “I would bet that their primary goal is to reduce accessibility to low cost photography and corner the market. If they run down those charging less than them you will be left with no alternative BUT to find a way to come up with the money if you want a photographer.”

        No, the primary goal is protect consumers and photographers from fauxtographers like you that degrade the industry. It just happens that generally the fauxtographers featured here are often low cost photographers but it isn’t always the case.

        “I wish you luck Kama in locating a new photographer. You deserve no less than the best- and the price tag that comes with that.”

        What she – and any client – deserves is to know that when they invest their hard earned dollars in a photographer they are investing in someone that isn’t a fraud.

      • Joseph Philbert

        cyber terrorism???? Hahahhahahajaahah

      • Joseph Philbert

        You deserve it … You still fail to see and understand what you did was wrong. We told you to come clean from the start and you refused. That your medicine and learn from it. I wish you and the fake FCC threats luck because what we are doing is completely legal …what you did is not.

      • Michael Goolsby

        “While they have no qualms at all with exposing other peoples confidential information, they hide behind bogus emails, fake screen names and hidden site ownership so you can’t find out who they are. ”

        Not true at all. Myself included, some of them most active members of this site not only use their real names but also have included links to their own websites. I certainly was not contacted, and I havn’t heard about others with open access being contacted by you, either.

        Maybe you were too busy spewing out bogus excuses and making empty threats to notice.

        We’ve had photostealers before here who were truly naive about what they did, immediately rectified the matter, and then promptly had their pages here removed. You had that very same opportunity. Instead of taking advantage of it as an honest and innocent person would have, you got angry, made blanket denials, passed the responsibility onto others, and blamed us. And you are STILL blaming us. The lunatic is the person who does not learn from their mistakes. You will not learn from your own until you come to understand the seriousness of what you have done and stop blaming others.

      • CrackerJacker

        A photographer who charges $1 per wedding would never end up on this page if they did not steal photos from other photographers and post them as their own. Don’t let your high and mighty attitude let you overlook that one fact. The reason you ended up here was because you did just that. Because you know your work isn’t good enough to get you work on its own merit.

        • Helena

          I was going to say the same thing. I charged nothing for the last two weddings I did (as I’m not ready to charge) but the photos were all taken by me & seeing people have their work stolen makes me cross too.

      • KM

        LisaMarie – please check your personal Facebook “others” inbox. I did not have your phone number or your email. I didn’t save it because I knew it would be on your web-site. Your website and Facebook are both GONE. I was trying to reach out to you and I did respond to your email this morning and it is undeliverable. I did prefer to talk to you in private – because I do think many of the people on this site have taken this way too far. No ones family should be brought into their business practices, However, I also don’t think you are being honest with yourself or anyone. You know full well I thought that all of the pictures on your site were yours. I complimented you and you took full credit. We even discussed certain pictures and you told me how you took the shot. Those same pictures are on another photographers web-site. That is not something a web designer did to you. You never indicated these were stock images and that is not something that a customer should have to ask. I never opened a dispute with Paypal because they DO NOT guarantee services – just products. I do want a refund – but I am at your mercy to do the right thing and give it to me. And I have found another photographer that I think I will be working with. Her pictures are very nice and she is giving me the same price you were giving me. I don’t know if she would be as good as you or not because I have no idea what your work looks like.

        I do think a lot of these photographers charge crazy prices. I guess they get someone to pay that because otherwise they wouldn’t be in business. They also have very nice photographs. You cant use their work as your sample and then say you charge less. We don’t know if the work is apples to apples. I don’t fault anyone for what they charge – I will simply seek out a less expensive photographer and there many people out there that do charge what you were charging. I just want to know what their true talent is so I know if I am going to be happy with what I paid for.

        That is all I wanted from you and if you would have been upfront with me – we wouldn’t be doing this right now. I did not cancel my date because you violated someones copyright – I cancelled because you misrepresented yourself.

        • Michael Goolsby

          KM

          I am sorry that you have to use this forum as a means of communicating with your hired “professional”. I know that when you hired this woman, you did not anticipate her website (and with it, her contact information) coming down due to photo theft, or other emails being undelivered because she would not want to face up to her actions. And I agree that I have seen some things taken too far at times on this board.

          That said, please allow me to address a few of your concerns:

          First, when hiring a photographer in the future, make sure you get a contract whenever a deposit or retainer is paid. The contract should have all of that person’s contact information on it, including a phone number. Also, a contract should have a failure to deliver clause and a cancellation clause.

          Second, when you hire a professional photographer, one of the things you pay for is LEGITIMACY. Photographers who are cheap are often not legitimate businesses to begin with; they are not licensed, insured, pay taxes, have appropriate backup gear, etc. Obviously, a pretender who only owns a single entry-level camera has far less of an investment than the genuine pro who owns multiple professional level cameras, lenses, flashes, etc. A single pro quality lens (which is often the only way to achieve some of the beautiful optical effects displayed in some of this and other photostealers’ stolen examples) may alone cost several times more than an entire entry-level kit. In addition, a legitimate professional may have years of education, practice, and apprenticeship behind him, as well as a substantial reference library, professional software, and access to professional quality finishing services. Prices are only “crazy” if they are not warranted in the first place. So, you may pay more, but you’re paying for legitimacy, professionalism, and reliability, as well as the capability to do the work in the first place. You just have to decide how much you value those things.

          Third, I would just like to point out that Lisa Marie was the first person to bring family into these discussions. While that does not alone mitigate any inappropriate behavior on the part of others, As has been argued before, there have been other “photostealers” in the past who immediately admitted their behavior, made the appropriate restitutions and were removed from this site. This fauxtographer was afforded the identical opportunities. But, as you pointed out, she has refused to be honest with herself, much less others, and instead lashed out and threatened.

          Finally, though it is regrettable for you to have communicate with LisaMarie in this way, I would like to say that it is at least insightful for those whom may have an interest to see how she deals with her clients. It is a rare insight that sheds even more valuable light upon the conduct of some of these photostealers. It is one thing for us to expose photo stealing, and to receive the usual denials. It is another entirely to hear an actual client say “I complimented you and you took full credit. We even discussed certain pictures and you told me how you took the shot.” You were correct to hire another photographer entirely if for no other reason than, as you said, you have no idea what her real work actually looks like.

          It may not always be pretty here, but THAT is exactly why this site exists.

          Best of luck

      • Justin Case

        Jesus, I really wanted this one to be over. I had really hoped that a little down time and the civilized and generous reception that Cyndi received after posting here would give you the space you needed to understand how your behavior has effected other people and figure out how to begin to repair your reputation. Obviously, it has done nothing.

        You continue to blame others, misrepresent what has taken place and play the victim of what you now absurdly want to call ‘cyber terrorism.’ You have lied to everyone, threatened people here and defrauded your customers.

        This was not a mistake, an accident or your ridiculous conspiracy to ‘corner the market.’ Even long after you had been called out here, you had these images up for DAYS. People posted DIRECTLY under the images that were not yours and you STILL did not take them down from your Facebook account.

        I personally try to stay away from personal attacks and judge people by what I can see, their on-line behavior. I am making an exception here since you continue to hurl your pathetic explanations and accusations. You, Lisa Marie, are a thief, a rude, vulgar, nasty piece of work and I hope you never work another day in the world of photography.

        • Michael Goolsby

          What he said. Verbatim.

  • guest

    She’s back. Working under a new name!

    • Wes Jones

      I’m not sure why she included the picture of the strippers in this ad as a wedding photographer. Plus, that picture is all over the internet advertising strippers.

  • captain-confuzzled

    Are we sure this is same person? I see a couple of photos that were on Flickers site before, but seeing different names (not that that tells us anything for sure), just wondering what the connection is. We had “LisaMarie” and “Cyndi” before, now I’m seeing “Morgan” and “Elle”

  • The flickr account I found that list the “timethroughalens.com” site ..if its the same person I just dont understand why she would do this. Can be a mix up.

    Morgan Bingson
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/97615337@N06/

    • Guest

      Not sure about the Flicker site. I’m positive the website is her. I ran into her today at a wedding. Long story short I found this post about her and thought I’d update it.

  • Morgan Bingson … looking for connections.
    https://www.facebook.com/morgan.bingson?fref=ts

  • OK I figured it out Morgan Bingson USED to own “timethroughalens.com” and this thief got it after so yes not relation to the fraud.

    • captain-confuzzled

      aha! great investigoogling!

  • Marc W.

    Has anyone contact her wife about this? It seems she was here to talk to us before.

    http://stopstealingphotos.com/flickers-photography-phoenix-arizona/#comment-1323160259

  • Just a Girl

    Haven’t spent much time on this site lately cause with being buried with immature adults at work and planning a short vacay in a few weeks I haven’t wanted the additional ” ARE YOU FREEKING KIDDING ME frustration these people seem to create… Buuuuuuuuuuuuut I did grab this….Using the ABOUT page at http://www.timethroughalens.com/about.html

  • Lindsay11

    I’m a tad confused about who is our stealer. Is it for sure Time Through a Lens is our LisaMarie?

    At any rate, whoever is running Time Through a Lens has up a craigslist ad with stolen images so I’m just gonna go ahead and post it. http://prescott.craigslist.org/evs/4561056689.html

    Also, it seems she lifted most of those words from here http://www.justin-adamsphotography.com/

    Here’s another craigslist, most of the same stolen photos, few new ones. http://tucson.craigslist.org/evs/4570437833.html

    She’s also posted here (it’s expired) http://www.freeadgo.com/usa/great-wedding-photographer-with-budget-friendly-pricing-phoenix-amp-surrounding-arizona_118203-113.html with that same cake photo.

    I’m going to ad the rest in a reply because I’m not sure how many images Disqus can handle at a time!

  • susan

    Ive not been commenting, just lurking lately due to a big change in my personal life. However, OMG!, not Lisa Marie again! She was the rudest, most unprofessional ass with a good part of her schtick being to insult others photographers and the industry. I saw the Flickers name and am amazed that she is the same trick as before, especially given the last outcome and involvement of her spouse.

    I am convinced without a doubt there is a pathology at work here, with Lisa Marie and others like her (Aries.,.wtf!). They seem to be people who desperately need to be someone they are not, some grander version of themselves that they simply either aren’t willing to put the real work in to achieving or on a deeper level don’t believe they can achieve. Is it low self esteem or narcisism? Or both? It’s fascinating and infuriating at the same time.

  • Anna May

    I’m a lurker… Just went to her website and there is no way that those are all her photos. Do you guys just have to continuously shut these people down? Or at some point do you have to let it go? I find it so infuriating that these people can’t get it through their thick skulls that this is wrong!!

    • We keep going after them … As much as it takes…. Their are several repeat offenders that we keep an eye on.

    • Just a Girl

      What is the website link that you went to? When I go to the one listed above it only gives me a blue background.

    • Wall-E

      I think she’s rebranded AGAIN!
      Check the phone number.
      http://www.pandahi.com/1026558497.html

      • Christopher C.

        Still going by Fickers Photography, so there’s no rebranding. Plus, that ad was posted a month before this PhotoStealers profile was posted.

  • Photo Stealers

    Updated links & title to add in new business name “Time Through a Lens” whom is using stock images in portfolios still.

    • Just a Girl

      Seriously!?!?!!! Why do these people think it’s ok to do this? It just gives people the idea that they can pull off this whole look!

    • JustHere

      She is also claiming to be the Best of 2015 Photographer from weddings.com and at least one of her photos on that website is not one she took.

  • GlennMcQuaig

    Lots of Shutterstock stuff on her FB page. Once a thief, always a thief.

    • captain-confuzzled

      even her damn profile photo.

    • Pretty much.

      Sent from a iPhone, please excuse the brevity and typos.

  • Kimo

    Some of the Facebook pictures are either hers or edited by her. The crappy spot coloring and spot monochrome without consideration to context or quality just make one want to heave. It’s like a kindergarten child trying to color for the first time.

    What’s amazing it that folks can’t tell the difference between her crap and the work of real photographers.

  • John Q. Public

    I screen capped these at the end of January… I’m pretty sure just about ALL of these photos are either stock images, or pilfered from the original photographer.

  • RedRaiderBlitz

    I have been using this website to help improve my amateur photography skills. I do not charge, and am not a professional but I hope to move myself towards that over time. That being said I would not appreciate my hard work being stolen and used to promote a profit for someone else. Using Stock photos to mislead and bait and switch people is equally dastardly. As such I decided it was time I try to contribute to the Ethics of this profession, I went to this persons page and grabbed three photos at random. None of them are original, sad.

  • TinkerShell32

    I’m concerned because I didn’t come across this website until after I hired Lisa. She showed me a few pictures she took during our event and I was impressed with them. However, she’s not returning my calls or emails and I’m worried I won’t get our pictures. Any advice? How long does it generally take to get photos back from an event? Thanks for any assistance.

    • Melinda Potter

      Yikes! I’m not an event photographer, so I can’t help too much with the time frame.
      What does it say in the contract?