Image Magic Photography & Videography

URL:  http://www.imagemagicphotography.com/

I found this thief because they stole the same image as the last one.  It’s funny how that works sometimes… it’s not the first time.  What I really like is how they are all on a smugmug gallery, so they are potentially selling these stolen photos.  Nice right?  Not quite as ballsy as Paul Sajnani who is printing the stolen works and taking them to bridal shows but still pretty ballsy.  

image

image

image

image

Here is the opening page for their site.  Note that their Facebook page has been taken down, I gather because someone caught onto them but can’t be certain.  

Also, I never knew one could be the champion at pole dancing.  Who knew.  

Most of the galleries seem legit, but some… not so much.

image

The Wilsons appear to have twin brides… and a whole story made up about their wedding that most definitely did NOT take place in the Poconos but rather in Colorado.  I don’t know why but when entire stories are made up about a wedding (a la Meagan Kunert) it creeps me out. 

image

image

image

Julie Harris is the original source for these images, the last being the same one stolen by Paul Sajnani Photogrpahy.  http://www.vailweddingphotographers.net/

image

Another gallery that caught my eye since there were a few different looks to this wedding, including different brides. 

image

Rodolfo Arpia Photography is the original source: http://www.projectwedding.com/vendor/show/rodolfo-arpia-photography

image

Julie Harris is the original source:  http://www.julieharrisphotography.com/blog/2008/09/05/ashley-and-dub%E2%80%94at-stonebrook-manor/

  • Christine Peacock

    The Facebook page may have been taken down because of an infringement issue with my company name of Image Magic, which I’ve had since 1977.

  • TrackCoach

    Please note the that the Facebook page was voluntarily
    taken down years ago to avoid confusion. Obviously, changing a company name is
    a lot more complicated. Also, I have spent over 20 years working for several photography
    companies as a W2 employee and as freelance second shooter. I currently shoot
    over 50 events a year through my own company. In total, I have probably shoot well
    over 500 events and with millions of photos to choose from, I certainly don’t
    need to steal any.

    • U Really That Dumb?

      So what you’re saying is you didn’t steal images?

    • U Really That Dumb?

      So what you’re saying is this is yours?

    • Blah blah blah blah… You still can’t explain the stolen images

      • U Really That Dumb?

        See my latest with attachment.

      • V323

        Correction, it’s ‘blah blah blah, fuckers’, Joe. 😉 Which pretty much defines his ‘explanation’.

    • peaceetc

      As was posted below, there is still at least one stolen image on your site. It even uses the same theme (“my story”) which is also found elsewhere. So… come again?

    • BullShite

      Changing a company name is simple. You put the money together, you print out your paper work and you go to your state office. Waiting in line is a pain in the ass, but hey, such is life. Once you get the paperwork you go to the bank and your insurance company with said paperwork, and: ALL DONE!

    • Cinobite

      ” changing a company name is a lot more complicated.”

      How do you mean? The paperwork is easy, takes about 3 minutes, I changed my company name the day after it was registered because my business partner registered the wrong name.

    • Cinobite

      So the photos that aren’t yours that appear/ed on your website – where did they come from?
      If you have so many photos to choose from – why didn’t you use them?

  • Lindsay11
    • Lindsay11

      I keep running into pages like this http://www.davidsonlands.org/run-for-green-2012-photos-online/

      It seems he is a legit photographer so once again we have to ask, why steal? Was he trying to move into weddings and needed to pad his portfolio? I image taking photos of runners is a lot different than taking photos during a wedding!

    • Lindsay11

      “Freezing your special moments in time”!

      http://www.homeadvisor.com/rated.ImageMagicPhotography.21317795.html

      • Just a Girl

        Didn’t another photo stealer use the “freezing your special moments in time”? I wanna say it was Tina.

    • TrackCoach

      Lindsey,

      You are correct, I shoot a lot of outdoor endurance events
      and several years ago I was attempting to beef up my wedding business. A check
      of my Google docs calendar will tell you that I currently shoot 2-3 weddings a month,
      which is about all I have time for.

      Several years ago, I hired a well-known media consulting
      company, they did my web development, branding and SEO; basically, they pretty
      much established my entire web presence. The structure of our ongoing agreement
      was that they would receive a fee for all the leads they generated. They
      created multiple methods to generate leads. I had a lot of problems with them; I
      have not dealt with them in over 2 years and have attempted to erase everything
      they created, but apparently there are still traces of things out there. I
      provided them with over 500 images to use. At the time, I wasn’t able to provide
      them with a lot digital wedding images because I had only shot a few weddings
      since the early 2000s. Most of what I had were prints, which they were supposed
      to scan and digitalize. I have been shooting semi-professionally since the mid-80s;
      however, most of my wedding work had been as an employee, contractor and/or
      one-off second shooter. Generally, I don’t hold onto images from events I don’t
      own. I spent of couple of months gathering up and getting an agreement to use
      some of images I shot while working for other photographers. Instead of waiting,
      my media consultants added images to my online presence that were not mind. I
      have deleted everything I know of and will continue to do so. With that said,
      it is possible that some images appeared on my old site that I did personally shoot;
      however, the rightful owner of that image is the photographer I was working
      for. There is one image on my current website you mentioned, that image was in
      that location as part of the temple, it is probably a stock photo, which I don’t
      claim to have shot. I have attempted to replace that image several times and it
      keeps coming back. (I don’t need to steal images.) There are very few
      photographers who have more images than me; in fact, I can point out a dozen
      sites which have my images on them without my permission. From time to time, I
      will contact a site, make them aware that they don’t have the rights to display
      my images and they usually take them down without a hassle. I don’t have time
      to pursue the issue beyond sending an email. I have companies and organizations
      where I have been their exclusive photographer for several years, my company is
      one of the largest in the South East in our area of specialty.
      Apparently there is no way to correct the errors this site is making or getting removed, but I don’t have anything else to say. I’ve found that you cannot win fighting with people online especially when they have a lot more free time than you, which is why I can’t get into the back and forth. I am extremely busy trying to make living from the profession I love and put some money in the pockets of the many photographers who support me. Take care.

      • U Really That Dumb?

        I call BINGO on “My web guy did it!”

        In other words, BULL! You have stolen images and have done nothing to remedy that situation. Get off you ass and delete everything that isn’t yours. The excuse that my web guy did it doesn’t fly. Neither does the excuse that others have stolen work, or that people steal from you. That alone should make you delete everything immediately.

        As for your claim that there are few photographers that have more images than you, also BULL, AND none of them have ANY stolen images on their site. If you want compare numbers and get in to a pissing contest, you better be damn sure you know what you’re doing because my second shooters press the shutter more than you do. Heck, I have one that probably snaps more in a month than you do all year. How many times do you send in your 7D to CPS or your D7000 & D90 to NPS per year? If it isn’t at least three times and at least once per year to replace the shutter due to end of life, then keep walking.

        • BullShite

          You notice how none of these people ever names the shitty “company” they hired that put up all of these stolen…. oh I mean “stock” images, and plagiarized text and put it up on the website? I mean this must be a SUPER popular service because I SWEAR nearly every photo thief out there pulls it.

          You would THINK that all of these legitimate photographers that just happen to have stolen… er “stock” images and despite being totally innocent, have their businesses and reputations destroyed, would come together to sue this company… or in the least tank their yelp reviews or something!

          I mean, it’s almost like this “company” doesn’t EXIST, and these people are actually just thieves that thought for whatever reason they would not get caught, or that it was no big deal to violate copyright law!

          Sheesh!

          • Cinobite

            Yeah, there’s no reason not to show us the “stock” image ON the stock site – right?

        • Cinobite

          I can shoot around 7,000 a month and I’ve never sent my cameras in 😛

      • Lindsay11

        It’s Lindsay, not Lindsey.

        If you’re so busy why did it take you 500 words to pull out the hoary ol “web designer did it”?

        Why are there still stolen images up on your advertising?

        Why is your about me still plagiarized?

        Why did you bump up a 6 month old post to call more attention to yourself when this had been basically ignored?

        If you don’t need to steal images, why do you?

        • peaceetc

          The post is actually from 2013, so it’s really strange he popped up now.

          • Lindsay11

            Oh gosh, you’re right. That’s even weirder? What a weirdo!

      • captain-confuzzled

        “I have attempted to replace that image several times and it keeps coming back” OMG a new Bingo square! The amazing photo that can’t be deleted. geez.

        • U Really That Dumb?

          It must be a part of the Watermark app for Android.

        • Website AI app keeps putting it back.

          • Marc W.

            “I can’t let you delete that, Dave.”

          • Hahaha, great reference!

        • Cinobite

          I could kind of happen if it got stuck in a cache, but that could be proved and is fairly easy to work around. There’s about a million ways to replace a file online, so blaming the client software is pretty weak

      • peaceetc

        Michael Murphy,

        We are not unreasonable people. If you were to provide solid evidence that could clear your name, we would listen to what you have to say. I would be willing to bet the person who runs this site would be willing to take it into consideration, as well. It’s happened before. Instead, you come in here with a story that doesn’t ring true, throw out a veiled insult about our free time, and then tell us how very busy you are.

        Most of us here are professional photographers. We take the matter of copyright infringement very seriously because we care about our industry, and we look out for each other. We aren’t here, farting around because we are bored or are looking for a fight. We want to see people held accountable for the misuse of others’ images.

        As for stock images, why on earth would a professional photographer use a stock image on their photography site? Do you specifically state that image is not yours? If you do not, then you are likely violating the stock image license (which I assume you purchased and didn’t just take it from somewhere), which tend to state you are not allowed to claim a stock image as your own. Since it appears on your photography site, that is heavily inferred. Even if it weren’t, I still don’t get why you’d do it. If nothing else, your photography site represents you as a photographer, so if you use others’ images — even stock images — it misleads a potential client, since they would naturally assume all the images are yours. That is not an unreasonable conclusion to make.

        As for your story — honestly, it doesn’t make sense. Even if it did, what evidence do you have to back up your claims? What do you mean you tried to replace an image but it keeps coming back? I am also a web designer, and I don’t get it. If you overwrite or delete a file, then it’s gone.

        Mr. Murphy, please treat this matter seriously, and refrain from insults. We’ve dealt with this issue many times, and we are quite familiar with the law and the many people who get outed on here, and the myriad of excuses they offer.

      • BullShite

        Liar. If a company I hired did something this stupid to me and my reputation, I would not only be shouting it from the hills using their name and contact info I WOULD SUE THEIR ASS, as would any professional.

        Plus, we have heard it before, try a new excuse.

      • Blah blah blah … We heard this lie before. Again why bring attention to yourself.

      • ALP

        Quantity over quality, dude.

        • Lindsay11

          No kidding! I learned this term from Missy MWAC: “spray and pray”. Sounds like that’s what Mike Murray is doing at Image Magic in Charlotte. I’m pretty sure that’s not something to brag about!

      • Even if your webdesign/comms team did it, you are responsible.

        1. I didn’t post the photo ˗ my website designer did.

        Ignorance isn’t an excuse to infringement, particularly when it’s your job to hire or otherwise supervise the infringer. If you hire a website builder who copies and displays a photo on your website without permission, then you’re “vicariously” liable for the infringement. The courts have held that “When a party has (1) the right and ability to supervise or control the infringing activity; and (2) a direct financial benefit from that activity, the party is vicariously liable for the infringement.” See Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 418, 104 S.Ct. 774, 777 (1984).

        For example, in Corbis Corp. v. Nick Starr, the court awarded the plaintiff more than $100,000 for the copyright infringement and attorneys’ fees. In that case, a small local business hired a web designer to build the business’ website. Because the web designer used Corbis’ photos without a license, the Court held that both the web designer and the business owner were jointly liable for the infringement.

        Source: http://www.photoattorney.com/

        • Cinobite

          In the UK we have professional indemnity insurance, this covers you if you fuck up. So, for example, if my accountant fucks up and incurs some kind of illegal action / tax avoidance etc, as long as I CAN PROVE that there was no way of me knowing etc, then I can sue him and his professional indemnity insurance pays out.

          • It doesn;t change liability … just who foots the bill at the end of the day. 🙂

          • Cinobite

            Yes and no, it doesn’t bypass negligence, but you can’t be held accountable in court when you had no reason to believe otherwise – that’s why we all go to professionals right? If your lawyer commits an offence unbeknownst to you, you don’t get charged and sent to prison right

    • TrackCoach

      Lindsay,
      I was done posting, but I can’t walk away when my education, personal contact information and threats to impact my business is being tossed around. Tell me what you want me to do? The images in question were only posted for 2-3 months and were removed as soon as I was made aware of the issue. In fact, the entire website in question was only up for about 6 months. White pages, Yellow Pages, Home
      Advisor, etc., any other web presences I didn’t personally create have or will
      be deleted.

      I can show you a dozen completely bogus photography websites, perhaps some are listed here; why aren’t you attacking those individuals instead of a full time working ‘real’ photographer over a website from 2 years ago that has been taken down? And, I am not hiding, I have taken the time to explain myself. I am certainly not going to post any information online about a company I am in litigation with. Btw, this is a company some of you might be familiar with because my issues with them are ones that a lot of small business had with them. Without giving the name of this company, as a start, I didn’t like the website they created, it wasn’t a customized site as
      they promised, they continued to bill me long after I cancelled and most
      important, I found out that most of their leads where bogus. Since you have my
      contact information, call me and I will answer any question you have, fax you a
      college transcript and anything else you want.

      To the guy who sends his camera’s out for shutter repair 3 times a year, you got me beat, but I still say I probably shot more than 99% of photographers. I am shooting 2-3 times a weeks and have several events where I take over 10,000 images.

      The question about the one stock image found on my current website, It was not an image I added, it was there as part of the template. When I delete the image, click save and preview the image is not there, but when I bring the website up on another computer it is still there. My hosting company was able to delete the image for me and acknowledged that there was a problem. Btw, I am a website novice.

      • You are a freaking idiot and a lair … So there!

        • peaceetc

          I love your spelling, Joseph. 😀

          • Ahhhh fiddle sticks the dam iphone.

          • captain-confuzzled

            I’m lovin the mental image of Joseph stomping his feet and hollering “So there!”

      • peaceetc

        Mr. Murphy, you do realize this page was posted in February of last year? Why on earth are you coming around here now, complaining about it being up? So whatever is referenced on the post would reflect that time period.

        As for what Lindsay posted, she simply posted links to publicly available information. There is nothing wrong with that.

        If you’d left this alone, all of these comments would have never have happened. Again, Mr. Murphy, if you’d be so kind as to provide evidence to your claims, it would help quite a bit.

      • captain-confuzzled

        well, that’s a step you removed the stock image. Now how about removing the stolen ones in your gallery.

      • captain-confuzzled

        you are a “website novice” but per your My Story page you “spent most of my career as a corporate technology professional” hmmmm.

      • Cinobite

        ” threats to impact my business”

        Not nice is it?

      • Cinobite

        In court – ignorance is not an acceptable excuse. As a business owner you have a duty of care to insure that you follow the rules and laws, pay the relevant tax etc etc.

        You see, for years professional photographers have berated the MWACS who start up as a business without knowing what they do. I don’t believe for a second some “web guy” did it, part of the brief would be “I’m a photographer, I want all of these images on my website”. But, on the off chance that it was, well you went cheap and paid for someone who didn’t know what they were doing. A “Mother with a Website” if you will.

        And if you shoot so much content, why don’t you use that? I shoot around 50,000+ photos a year and every image on my website is mine. (with the exception of icon packs which I buy)

      • U Really That Dumb?

        All of the things in question are being questioned because YOU lied and stole! Blame yourself.
        As for my comment on CPS and NPS, hello, what professional photographer shoots both Nikon and Canon? Wait, besides you because based on your EXIF you shoot 5+ different manufactures.
        So once again, delete every image you didn’t take. Yes, they are still there!

        Yes, this will impact your business! Why? Because once again, you did this to yourself, twice!

        As Joseph said, all you’re giving us is blah blah blah fuckers and hoping we will go away. Nope, you opened up the can of worms and now have to deal with it.

        • U Really That Dumb?

          What to do? About the only way this is totally going away is for you to change your legal name and move to a remote part of the world without Internet.

          Realistically? Delete everything, contact every single person you stole from, apologize, offer to pay them full commercial rights, and then issue a public apology that every photographer and client immemorial can see.

      • Lindsay11

        Blahblahblah. For being such a busy photographer you sure have time to write novels here! Instead of responding to anyone with more lies, why don’t you take that time to remove stolen images and words from any page associated with you?

        Here’s a page where you still have stolen images up. I could list a few more, but I’M BUSY!!!OMG!!! I’m busier than 99% of anyone who is awake at 5am!! http://www.homeadvisor.com/rated.ImageMagicPhotography.21317795.html
        Your website still has plagiarized content on your “my story” page. Surely a photographer who shoots 99% more than anyone else (*snort*) can manage to write about himself and post his own content.

        The only thing we want from you is to remove stolen content. An apology to the people you stole from would be nice too.

        PS you aren’t the only special snowflake listed at Photo Stealers. We actually do look at plenty of websites every day. The only reason we started looking into you again is because YOU bumped this thread and called our attention to it. I still don’t understand why you did that.

      • “The images in question were only posted for 2-3 months and were removed as soon as I was made aware of the issue.”

        The car was only stolen for 2-3 months and I returned it as soon as someone asked me to.

        “I can show you a dozen completely bogus photography websites, perhaps some are listed here; why aren’t you attacking those individuals instead of a full time working ‘real’ photographer over a website from 2 years ago that has been taken down?”

        Submit them and I’m sure they’ll get listed eventually. Also let me translate this for you.

        “Other people are doing it too. I did this ages ago so leave me alone and go after other people because this is inconveniencing me!”

        See what I mean?

        ” Without giving the name of this company, as a start, I didn’t like the website they created, it wasn’t a customized site as they promised, they continued to bill me long after I cancelled and most important, I found out that most of their leads where bogus.”

        I’m sorry to hear you had problems with them but why were there pictures on your site that were not yours? Did you not review and approve the site before it went live? If not, then you didn’t do your due diligence.

        Also, we were still finding images up until yesterday that were not yours (one stock and one stolen) so this isn’t a 2 year old issue anymore now is it?

        http://stopstealingphotos.com/image-magic-photography-videography/#comment-1550773279

      • ALP

        So your defense is that you’re incompetent and didn’t notice that photos that were not yours were all over your website for 2 to 3 MONTHS (not days or weeks)? I would notice in about 2 to 3 seconds if photos we hadn’t shot popped up on our website. And dude, honestly, you were the one that made this thread jump back into target range. We would have let sleeping fauxtogs lie if you hadn’t commented again — especially since our fearless (cult) leader found more stolen stuff on your site. Not bright.

  • Lindsay11

    Some of these photos look familar. It must be because they are the ones listed above as stolen. Mike, if you don’t need to steal, why are you stealing?

    http://www.mineeds.com/image-magic-photography-359204

    ETA This site has stolen images as well. http://www.onewed.com/reviews/wedding-photographers/north-carolina/nc/charlotte/image-magic/1492729/

  • U Really That Dumb?

    Michael Murray of IMAGE MAGIC PHOTOGRAPHY & VIDEOGRAPHY
    704.246.7617
    Charlotte North Carolina
    info@imagemagicphotography.com
    michael.murray@hotmail.com

    I call BS on your claims that your web guy did it. The bottom line is YOU HAVE STOLEN IMAGES on your page. You are not only looking at hundreds of thousands in fines, but you are also looking at possible fraud charges. If you didn’t have enough wedding photographs on your page, go find weddings to shoot. STOP LYING, we all know you are and now because of you coming back here, Google SEO is putting this site number one when people search for you!

  • U Really That Dumb?

    Oh look, this site IS number one now! Amazing what this site does to your SEO.
    Michael Murray of IMAGE MAGIC PHOTOGRAPHY & VIDEOGRAPHY
    704.246.7617
    Charlotte North Carolina
    info@imagemagicphotography.com
    michael.murray@hotmail.com
    973-780-1231
    5101 Belicourt Drive
    Charlotte, NC 28277

    More pages:
    http://www.backprint.com/storefront.asp?PID=bp%19%7DNw

    http://www.whitepages.com/business/image-magic-photography-charlotte-nc

    http://www.manta.com/c/mx27v0m/image-magic-photography

    I wonder how long it will take them to ban you or at least give you a poor rating now that you called attention to yourself.
    http://www.homeadvisor.com/rated.ImageMagicPhotography.21317795.html

  • U Really That Dumb?

    Oh look, Michael Murray has a BS/BA in Psychology and communications. He claims to teach as well. I wonder if he’s teaching image theft as well.

    Michael Murray of IMAGE MAGIC PHOTOGRAPHY & VIDEOGRAPHY
    704.246.7617
    Charlotte North Carolina
    info@imagemagicphotography.com
    michael.murray@hotmail.com
    973-780-1231
    5101 Belicourt Drive
    Charlotte, NC 28277
    http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagemagicphotography

    • captain-confuzzled

      not a BS in Communications, look closely, it’s a BS in “Comminications”. Well at least the BS part is right.

      • peaceetc

        How ironic.

      • U Really That Dumb?

        You sure it’s not a size reference?

  • Photo Stealers

    Are you a special kind of stupid? Did you really come on here a year and a half after being caught to defend yourself and bring attention BACK to you while having MORE stolen images on your site? REALLY?

    This week is cursed with crazy. My boss isn’t paying me near enough. LOL

    • Just a Girl

      Click those ads! She needs a drink!

  • Seriously? WTF dude? You were dead and forgotten (as far as PS is concerned) and now, the community is even more rabid about hunting down and outing photo thieves. You screwed up royally sir.
    Also, by noting how many paying jobs you’re getting, at least some of which are likely to have been due to your web presence, you’re setting yourself up for a legal anal thrashing because now you’ve admitted to making money off of stolen works/false representation. Good luck with that fool.

    And lastly. Your claim that another company is responsible for this and that you don’t want to name someone you’re litigating with is such a load of shit., Fine, don’t name them. Give us the lawyer through whom you’re “litigating” and allow us to confirm the fact. MAYBE, just maybe, that’ll calm down the witch hunt.

    PS You’re a liar. A cheat. And a thief. Be a man. Own it.

    • OOOOOH>. I just saw you were a former Army officer. As a former Army Ranger, I so badly want to heel-stomp your balls you douchebag! Grrrrrrrrr.

    • ” legal anal thrashing ” spits out drink!

    • BullShite

      Again LIAR: I have never heard of a court case where you are not allowed to name the person/s or company you were in litigation with. See I would buy “details of the case” but I do NOT buy “Oh can’t name them, sorry!”

      The level of “convenience” that you do not have to name them… and also the OMMISSION from your original statement that you were in “litigation” with this “company/person”, means you were LYING.

      You cannot omit what would be highly pertinent information, only mention it when called out, and then expect that we wouldn’t get you were a liar.

      You see I have a “BullShite” in Psychology, honed here and in multiple places… and this is a behavior that repeats itself over and over. For all of your pretense at intellectualism, and supposed degree in psychology, you did not have the foresight to recognize where this excuse would fall flat on it’s face.

      FAIL.

      Also “gag orders” are for not giving information to to the press in a way that would taint your jury pool….. not for what would be a simple case of small claims court, which chances are would NOT have a jury, and just a judge and your lawyers. Trust me, an friend of the family I knew sued Wal-Mart for copy right infringement. WAL-MART. There was no order of silence, and no jury….just a judge and lawyers, and an agreement.

      • Christopher C.

        “Again LIAR: I have never heard of a court case where you are not allowed
        to name the person/s or company you were in litigation with.”

        Everything else aside, this happens all the time as part of settlements. Discussing the case or even the litigants involved can violate the terms of a settlement if they’re written that way. So you’re wrong there.

        • ALP

          But that’s when litigation is done not in the middle of it unless the judge issues a gag order and even then the two parties would be listed in the public record.

          • Christopher C.

            “Listed in the public record” doesn’t mean you can freely talk about it if the terms of the settlement state you can’t. It just means anyone can do the research to find out about it.

            It’s also pretty common practice to not comment on pending or in-process litigation – including talking about involved parties – just because it can cause problems with the case.

          • ALP

            Of course but that doesn’t limit you from revealing the name of the company that you’re “litigating.” Not that there is any actual litigation in the case of Liar Liar Pants on Fire vs. Imaginary Web Designer.