JGLittleMoments_0001

JG Little Moments in Bath, England

Website:  http://www.jglittlemoments.com/
Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/Jglittlemoments

No rest for the wicked!  I have quite a few on deck but a busy weekend ahead now that spring is here so I’ll try to get to what I can as I can.

I’ve now got a Twitter account to go along with the Facebook Page.  Make sure to follow both for more up-to-date goings on.  Sometimes old pages get updated and you won’t know unless you are following Photo Stealers.

Website

Original photographer

JGLittleMoments_0001

Original photographer

JGLittleMoments_0002

Original photographer 

JGLittleMoments_0003

Original photographer 

JGLittleMoments_0004

Original source

JGLittleMoments_0005

 

Facebook

JGLittleMoments_0006

Original source

JGLittleMoments_0007

  • peaceetc

    She cropped out or removed watermarks and put her own watermark on at least part of the images. There is no mistaking whether she intended for people to believe those are her photos. She can’t say she posted them as “inspiration” or that she had permission to post them, as a recent stealer claimed. She appears to have intentionally mislead clients and potential clients by misrepresenting her work by using others’ work as her own.

    *sigh* When are people going to learn?

  • Shay

    Wow her newborn shoots are an hour and a half with up to 15 images! But she allows for up to two hours with a 10 min consultation and so the new mama can ‘relax with her little one’? She clearly has NO professional experience shooting newborns. I’d like to see her get a variety of beautiful shots on different set ups in under 2 hours with a brand new baby. Lol

  • Joseph Philbert

    Any bets on what direction she will take?

    • captain-confuzzled

      ignore and then whine (victim)

      • BullShite

        My bet: It’s going to probably be something along the lines of “I haven’t had a shoot like this before I just needed “inspiration”, so it’s not stealing!”

    • Melinda Potter

      Ignore, take things down, and then change the name and start over. She doesn’t have a lot invested in her business to try to “save” it

  • Big Ron

    She has 34 likes on her FB page and a 1.7 rating (out of 6), thanks mostly to us. My money says she doesn’t even pay attention to her FB page. She claims to be completely booked for May, but I think her definition of being completely booked is either:
    1. She has one session for the month, or:
    2. She has no sessions for the month, but plans to spend the month looking for new pictures to claim as her own.
    In other words, I’m not expecting much of a response from her, at least very quickly.

    • captain-confuzzled

      thinking this may be why she’s booked – smh check out the price!

      • Holy shit snacks batman!
        So 15$ Can (+/-) for a one hour session (1.5 to 2 hour of work) and about 3$ of hard costs.

        Let’s say she is putting half of that away to pay her business costs (like the costs of setting up her studio, marketing, web hosting, domain names …).

        6$ / 2 hours = 3$ an hour.

        Now, let’s assume her business costs all come up to about 3000$ a year (really low I know).

        To cover her business costs at those prices she’s need to shoot …
        3000$ / 3$ per session = 1000 session.

        1000 session at 2 hours per session = 2000 hours worked per year.

        2000 hours / 52 = 38.5 hours a week.

        So she would have to be working full time all year to be able to cover her costs (if that) and in the end would make about 3000$ in profit?

        Yup … well thought out.

        • Ooops … forgot something else here …
          1000 session / 52 weeks means = 19 to 20 sessions a week.
          20 / 7 days = 3 sessions a day.

      • Helena

        £3 per subsequent digital file too. It’s not even worth doing the editing for that amount. :/

  • Oh boy … website has been up for … 53 days and runs off WiX.

    Domain Name: JGLITTLEMOMENTS.COM
    Registry Domain ID: 1848937573_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
    Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
    Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com
    Update Date: 2014-03-03 12:54:30
    Creation Date: 2014-03-03 12:54:30
    Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2015-03-03 12:54:30

    Name Server: NS1.WIX.COM
    Name Server: NS2.WIX.COM

    She also offer arts and crafts session for children
    http://www.netmums.com/southwilts/local/view/after-school-activities/art-and-craft/art-craft-sessions-for-8-year-olds-16-year-olds

    She sells hand painted gifts.
    https://www.facebook.com/LittleWillowsInteriors

    Has a Daycare
    http://jessica-killpartrick.wix.com/childminding
    https://www.facebook.com/OctopusDayCareForChildren/info

    … seems like we have another Bret here.

  • Darren

    She is apparently just in the process of opening a studio. Seems like she’s just invented this persona for herself, to go along with her other identities. I don’t see her as a Brett, though. More like someone who’s taking their hobbies too seriously.

    • The Brett comparison was one man (or woman) 8 billion businesses.

  • Jenna

    Totally off topic, but I want to know how you’re posting from the future!

    • HAHAHAHA … good catch!
      Probably the server is in another timezone.

    • Photo Stealers

      Magic! LOL Honestly I have no idea!

      • Justin Case

        Precogs.

    • Justin Case

      Jenna, you must be new. PhotoStealers has powers WELL beyond the ordinary. Let this be a warning to all future fauxtographers…

  • Joseph Philbert

    Here is her personal profile.
    https://www.facebook.com/jessica.killpartrick

    • BullShite

      I hate how so many of these thieves have kids. Where the hell is the moral fiber of these people? But again, I can see why she steals…. just like all of the others, her “real” photos are mediocre at best.

      • C Sab

        Oh I wouldn’t go so far to say mediocre. I’d say just plain bad.

        • BullShite

          Especially if you are charging people for them. i’d friggin’ be embarrassed myself.

          • Felix

            Wow saucer of milk table 6

    • Guest

      She changed her pics, these look like alien babies, definitely a huge, huge difference in photography styles, IMHO

    • MPR1776

      She has a new cover image and there is definitely a huge, huge difference in the quality of images compared to the stolen ones, these look like alien babies!

      • Stephen

        That is completely out of order!! They are obviously her children and no matter what you think of the photography site no one should be rude about someone’s kids.

        • Joseph Philbert

          Hmmm interesting so it’s fine that she used images of other babies and used them without permission … Very interesting double standard 🙂

          • Stephen

            No Joseph, the link was to her PERSONAL FB account. So the images where obviously personal/private.
            I agree with the photography issues but why call someone’s child an “alien”?

          • Joseph Philbert

            Yea the images she stole were private also she then made fake stories about capturing those images. I wonder what the parents to those kids would say…. Go figure.

          • Her personal Facebook accounts where she advertises her photographic services …

          • Michael Goolsby

            Personal account? Was it hacked? FB provides the option of hiding accounts, making them visible only to friends. Did she do that? (Rhetorical question, of course. It was publicly visible.)

        • Joseph Philbert

          Looking alien babies has to do with photography and not the actual kids then again only a other photographer would understand that.

        • Wes Jones

          Stephen, take a deep breath… it seems you don’t get the humor here. Alien refers to the red-eyes in the photograph. Professional photographers wouldn’t take a photograph like this, or if they did (probably by accident), they surely wouldn’t post it for all the world to see.

        • Who’s rude about the kids? We said the picture is awful, has nothing to do with the kids.
          I’m sure they are cute kids … put that cover image is pure garbage. Why is that important? She is trying to sell her photographic services but can;t even prevent red eye or get proper white balance?

        • Photo Stealers

          Not sure if this is Jessica or a friend/spouse but you’ll get further by posting as Jessica. There are no attacks on your kids, it’s about the eyes that are red due to the image and the way it was taken. This is not a professional portrait

        • Michael Goolsby

          Take your meds, Stephen. They have red eyes, a phenomenon unique to and caused by poor photographic lighting. Thus, Tthe comment is entirely in regards to photographic quality. (Actually, I would have said that the poor photography made them appear to be “demon babies” rather than “alien babies”.) Additionally, these were publicly-posted by a “photographer” who was aware that he behavior had become the subject of media attention. Nothing out of line at all here.

  • BullShite

    Facebook is gone….. website still up, with stolen work. I noticed that she had a blog that wasn’t up yet… stories about her “shoots”… I ALMOST wish she got away with it long enough to impress us with her creativity…

  • Stephen

    I can understand calling her out on the photography stuff but what I don’t understand is listing the other things she does as well as personal stuff?? I thought this site was about the photos not anything else. Makes us look more like trolls than anything

    • Joseph Philbert

      We always list the other stuff a thief does … most times they use the same tactics in other business they have, then again no one would care if they did not steal images in the first place.
      Just like Brett hes a photographer and a Life Coach … his “Life Coach” business got added to the list.

      • Stephen

        Who is Brett and what does this have to do with this post. I totally agree that people should get called out on photo stealing but when it gets personal in other areas that’s a line that shouldn’t be crossed. There is a fine divide between calling people out on the truth and making assumptions on people’s life. That’s bordering on trolling in my opinion

        • BullShite

          These “assumptions” are not assumptions. They are predictable behaviors, because photo thieves typically follow the same patterns when they are BUSTED, and typically have the same loose “morals” when it comes to what they will do to get money. (Fly-by-night businesses included.) WE EVEN HAVE A FRIGGIN’ BINGO CARD. It’s THAT predictable. So no, there are no “assumptions”.

          • Stephen

            But it was an assumption or in the very best case a broad statement meant not 100% factual. People may be predictable however is having a closed account, no images of your self in your avatar and being rude online not the predictable behaviour of a troll?

          • BullShite

            NO, it is not a “broad assumption”. These people are almost all, without much variation, just like each other. It takes a certain type of person, to go online claim they are a photographer, and do so by using images THEY DID NOT TAKE AND DO NOT OWN.
            ZERO legitimate photographers use ANYONE ELSES photos. That is RIDICULOUS.

            If I was a painter, and posted paintings I did not paint, that I found on “google image” that were better than I could possibly do, and used them to advertise my services, is that OK?

            Is that not a lie?

            Also, THIS is a troll:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

            The people here go after thieves and liars, not innocent people.

          • Joseph Philbert

            I rather assume that everything they do is from the same poisonous fruit … 99% of the time its the correct thing in this situation.
            Same way I would not trust a known rapist to run a daycare service.

          • Stephen

            Wow that’s a big leap…

          • Joseph Philbert

            Why dont you look at the other posts… with other photo thieves we assumed the same thing and most of the time we were right … its a predictable trait .

          • Say the user with the un-registered account.

          • Photo Stealers

            …and the same IP as all the other naysayers.

          • Multiple Personality Disorder Perhaps?
            OOOH! Since we don;t have a category on the bingo card for multiple posts from the same IP can I name it? I’d like it called: “Photographer Puppet Pals”

          • Joseph Philbert

            I agree or IP puppets for short

        • Joseph Philbert

          You are new .. Brett is like many others that have other business besides photography. Photo Thieves who have other business usually display the same traits in all of them.
          Its very predictable.

          http://stopstealingphotos.com/brett-jizelle-photography-las-vegas-nevada/

    • captain-confuzzled

      You might be surprised to learn just how circumspect most posters are on this site. I know for a fact that information has been uncovered about some of the other outed stealers that was kept off the page out of general respect and no desire to cross the line. And even then, it was all available on the very public internet. The “personal stuff” that you refer to for this fauxtographer was easily found online within minutes. No secrets were shared that she did not share herself first by putting the information online about her businesses. She advertises her business on her personal FB page as well. If she wants to promote her daycare by talking about the names of her children, that is her choice. That we happen to see that she has a daycare is hardly trolling. And as others have said it often becomes relevant in terms of a pattern of fraudulent behavior, which if uncovered and brought to light may protect other potential victims of the photo stealer.

    • Photo Stealers

      You look like a troll when you come on here and post under multiple names, not us.

  • Angie

    I agree with the below comment. At the end of the day stealing the photos is wrong… but getting personal and making assumptions and about this person and naming her other businesses is just as wrong. At the end of the day her other businesses may be legit and she may just be a struggeling mum trying to make some money?

    • Eddie

      I agree the posts about her other businesses should be removed

      • BullShite

        FYI: The IP addresses are recorded on this site I believe, so posting a million times under different names doesn’t help. Thought I would point that out.
        AGAIN… it’s something we have seen here a MILLION TIMES.

        • Photo Stealers

          You are correct! They are all the same person. So they are agreeing with themselves.

    • Joseph Philbert

      I do not … everything she does comes into question.

      • Kyle

        Why does everything come into question? This site is about photos not wooden letters and childcare??

        • BullShite

          Because these people typically have a pathology that is repeated in every thief. Photostealing comes with setting up “fly-by-night” businesses, i.e. “businesses” that are easy to fake, cheap to set up, and can be shut down fast. LIKE faking that you are a photographer. It creates a picture of the person involved.

          She INTENTIONALLY removed the watermark of legitimate photos in order to make potential clients believe she is a talented photographer. It is a LIE, and typically more lies can be found throughout MANY of the persons other “businesses”.

          • Kyle

            I googled some of the images and you can find them online without watermarks or TM stamps

          • BullShite

            IT IS STILL A STEALING. IT IS STILL FALSE ADVERTISING!
            Perhaps “Stephen” you should look up copyright law. Go ahead I’ll wait.

          • Kyle

            I agree but your point of. “Cropping out watermarks” just shows how little research you do before going to town on somebody!

          • BullShite

            So it’s ok that she only removed SOME of the watermarks?? Seriously? That is your justification?

            No matter how you spin this, IT’S NOT LEGAL.
            PERIOD. It is FALSE ADVERTISING. PERIOD.

            Tell Jessica to read this would you? She could be looking at a SERIOUS lawsuit… it’s all documented HERE after all:

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

            and this:
            http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/How_using_Google_Images_can_cost_you_8000_14912.aspx

            and more:
            http://scalablesocialmedia.com/2013/05/images-social-media-legal/

          • Stephen

            Dude I’m not justifying anything , just expressing my opinion.

          • BullShite

            That’s fine. It’s a free country. However, you have no concrete argument. You are arguing a fallacy. Expressing an opinion without a reasonable defense to back up that opinion is pointless.

          • Joseph Philbert

            Yea anyone’s opinion is fine. Its nice to have an informed opinion based of facts and history, and with over almost 3 years of seeing thieves outed here its always ends the same way predictably with some variations.
            Its fine .. you have a narrow view and that’s fine… really.

          • Cinobite

            Your opinion doesn’t mean shit in a court when it’s fact that someone has broken the law

          • MPR1776

            Does not matter, she claimed she took the images knowing full well she did not do so, regardless of whether or not she found the images with a watermark or not

          • Kyle

            Agreed it was wrong but hitting out at her kids and personal stuff if low man

          • What personal stuff? Who mentioned her kids? This is all about her businesses.

          • Justin Case

            no one attacked her kids or their reputation. The statements were about the PHOTOS of her kids and since she is a photographer, and photos are her product… well, I will leave the last part of that equation to you to work out.

          • Michael Goolsby

            Ahem… what’s LOW is taking photos of other people’s children, created by other photographers, and passing them off as your own. Would you be defending this woman if she had stolen photographs of YOUR children?

          • Watermarks or TM stamps haven’t been a requirement for copyright protection since the 80’s. Google Images isn’t a free stock site and using images you didn’t create to sell you image creation services is FRAUDULENT BEHAVIOR.

          • Justin Case

            which just shows you how damaging this kind of behavior is, and in NO WAY justifies her behavior.

          • Michael Goolsby

            So it’s only the watermarking you would have problems with? The lying to clients part by claiming them as her own is acceptable to you?

          • Cinobite

            So? I can find unreleased Hollywood blockbusters and music online without watermarks, does that mean I can download them for free to watch?

        • Joseph Philbert

          Ever hear of the term “Fruit of a poisonous tree”?

        • Michael Goolsby

          Kyle

          You’re trying to separate a person’s actions from that person. It doesn’t work that way. There is the person AND there is the act, and the two are inseparable. No one is saying that the other businesses are fraudulent. But knowing about the other businesses provides an opportunity to see a full picture, so to speak, of the the photo thief in question. And investigation does often reveal problems elsewhere, establishing a pattern. This would be impossible by ignoring only the photography-related aspects of a given thief.

    • Helena

      I’m in the UK and I wouldn’t trust a woman who steals photos to look after my son. Who knows what else she lies about? I’d rather err on the side of caution.

    • It’s not like I’m divulging secret information here … this took me all of 2 minutes to find and is out there in the public.

      “At the end of the day her other businesses may be legit and she may just be a struggeling mum trying to make some money?”

      Maybe she wouldn’t be struggling so badly if she didn’t spread her efforts over 5 or 6 different ventures and focused on one of them.

      Also, criminal behavior in one business usually leads us to find more in others. A lack of ethics isn’t something you turn on or off …

    • Michael Goolsby

      I disagree. There’s no question that the fauxtography business is a fraud. The other businesses may or may not be. But it behooves anyone who is doing business with an individual to at least have the opportunity to see how they have operated their other businesses. It’s not our job to investigate the legitimacy of the daycare, for instance, and frankly I doubt many of us would any insights into that sort of business to know whether or not it was legitimate itself. But by seeing that the operator commits fraud with one business, a potential client of the other will be warned to look into the other before entrusting their child with them.

      If this woman’s daycare is legit, then it’s a shame she endangered its reputation by acting in a fraudulent manner with her other business. She should have considered that.

      • Joseph Philbert

        Correct.

    • Piemonade

      Hi Jessica!

  • Helena

    Disappointed to see a thief from England. 🙁
    I’m also terrified by people advertising newborn photo shoots like this who likely have no clue how these images are created and could put babies in danger. I’m due in July and I’ve been watching videos and reading up on newborn safety and how to create images like those above, and even then I won’t even attempt half the poses with my own child!

  • Darren

    Is “spouse and/or close friend of the accused who comments here pretending to condemn the person’s actions but ends up defending them” on the bingo card?

    • Justin Case

      we need new cards: the most recent one is limited to excuses, now we need one for ‘signs that you may be a fauxtographer (before and after)’

    • Piemonade

      We definitely need a “Sock Puppet Show” square.

      • Justin Case

        …multiple personalities; close enough?

        • BullShite

          I wish that there was a sidebar on this site that we could play bingo against each other with! It would assign random cards, and we could see who wins. 😉

          • Hummm … let me see what I can do … might take me a bit to do (I have a 3 year old, a job and a business …)

            Did I ever mention I do web design and development for a Federal Department?

  • Justin Case

    facebook appears to be gone and there is now just a single image on the ‘Newborn’ page on her website.

  • Justin Case

    To Stephen, Angie, Kyle, Eddie and any others who feel that posts here in the comments bringing up her other businesses is beyond the pale:

    Now that she has removed all signs from her online persona proving that this event ever occurred, this site will remain the only proof of her deceptive behavior. If this is really ‘just about stealing photos’ as has been implied, why hasn’t she addressed this in an open and up-front way? Simple: because it is fraudulent behavior, she feels ashamed (I hope) and she is trying to hide it.

    Is this the kind of behavior of an honest person who you would trust to take care of your children? Is this really the kind of lesson you want them learning?

    If this was truly abnormal behavior for her and she doesn’t want it ruin her reputation, then deal with it head-on: admit the behavior was wrong, that it was done with full knowledge that it was poor business practice (to say the least) and then contact the photographers affected and make restitution.

    She doesn’t owe us an explanation and neither do you. She should be explaining herself to the clients she was trying to trick and the photographers she stole from.

    Until she does that, as far as I am concerned the veracity of her entire online presence is in question.

    • Michael Goolsby

      Total agreement.

      As a side note, you probably only need to address your message to “Jessica and/or her husband”. I find it highly unlikely that we were suddenly visited by such concerned strangers who are all coincidentally sympathetic to the consequences befalling a photo stealer.

  • Photo Stealers

    To those curious, Angie, Kyle, Eddie and Stephen are all the same person. Someone get Bingo?

    • Michael Goolsby

      “I had friends over at my house last night taking turns at my computer while comforting me from the pain I felt over the effects of all this cyberbullying. One of them is married to Joe Arpaio who said that criminal charges should definitely filed and that jail time is highly likely. And my mother, Judge Judy, has already begun contacting many of the posters here who may be in serious trouble for damages to my reputation, as well as pain and suffering. Lawsuits are pending. I have been advised that I can say that!”

      • Joseph Philbert

        Where is that posted?

        • Michael Goolsby

          It’s a parody compilation of some of the excuses we’ve heard before. Sorry, I thought the Joe Arpaio bit (“America’s Toughest Sheriff”) would make the sarcasm a bit obvious. Guess he’s not as well-known as I thought! 😉

          • Joseph Philbert

            NOPE hahhahahah

    • Joseph Philbert

      Why do they even bother to try smh … It might have been the photographer in question

    • Helena

      *sigh*

    • Piemonade

      I thought so. Thanks for the confirmation. 🙂 Four sock puppets! Most stop at two. Hi Jessica!

    • Michael Goolsby

      Do any of your ever find yourself longing from a truly ORIGINAL and CREATIVE approach to damage control?

      Posing as multiple people… yawn.

  • Enough is enough

    Wow you guys really like sticking the needle in. She was wrong to use the images, they have been taken down and the lesson for a 1st timer in this industry/business had been well and truely learnt. If you can all honestly say they you have lived a completly 100% whiter than white life then your points are welcomed and valid however if you can honestly not say you have never made a mistake then those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

    • Helena

      Has anyone actually apologised yet? No?

    • Joseph Philbert

      So do you have the same IP as Angie, Kyle and Eddie 😛
      Personally my crap is not all clean but I can openly admit my faults.

      • Photo Stealers

        Surprisingly no but that’s easy enough to change.

    • Piemonade

      Annnnnnd we add another character to the puppet show! It is like the song that never ends. 🙂 Hi Jessica!

    • Photo Stealers

      BINGO!

    • BullShite

      WHY DON’T YOU JUST SINCERELY APOLOGIZE UNDER YOUR OWN NAME??
      Don’t you believe in a world where people who do the wrong things are punished? Just because someone else does something wrong, does not mean they are not right to judge others who also did wrong. We are all guilty of being the bad guy at some point to someone, but you know what? Chances are we’ve also been punished for it….. but that is not the issue here. “Other people” are not the PROBLEM.

      If your child got caught doing something wrong, would YOU accept the excuse “oh well my friend _______ did it too, and he didn’t get in trouble?” It’s this philosophy you are using now, and if you cannot hold YOURSELF to the same standards you expect out of the children you take care of, you are in the WRONG business, and have no place being a caretaker. Put on your big girl panties and woman-up.

      Now you understand the embarrassment, shame, and anger that stealing causes… but imagine being STOLEN FROM. Imagine being the VICTIM in this… or seeing your child’s photo posted by some stranger, with a different name used for your child, and a different story. As a parent that would both freak me out and PISS ME OFF.

      YOU GOT OFF LIGHT.

      This public shaming is FAR, FAR better than the money, time and efforts that COPYRIGHT LAWSUITS would bring. It could have been worse.

    • Michael Goolsby

      Did I miss her personal acknowlegment somewhere?

      • Helena

        No, to my knowledge there hasn’t been one.

    • Cinobite

      heh she wasn’t just wrong, she’s now a criminal.
      I’m sure you can get off every crime with the “oh it was a mistake” claim

    • Cinobite

      Whenever anyone here has lead a less than 100% white life – they have been punished. Why is this different?

    • Wes Jones
  • Joseph Philbert

    All “Angie, Kyle, Eddie and Enough is enough” has to do is come clean and most of this will stop cold. My prediction is that they/he/she/it will not one a word or come clean in any shape or form publicly.

  • Darren

    “Yeah, I took that car… But I RETURNED it as soon as I got caught! But it was FREE because someone just left it parked on the street… And I’m pretty sure the keys were in it!

    “And besides, I said I was really sorry that you’re all such assholes! See? I apologized! Why should this matter at all if I happen to be a police officer? Let’s focus on just this stupid car you think I stole – which I OBVIOUSLY just borrowed!”

    “And stop bullying me! You’ve given me a migraine, which I’m sure is brain cancer! You’ll hear from my attorney (who told me to continue engaging in threatening, erratic, and self-incriminating behaviour online). “

    • Helena

      Hahahahaha! Excellent.

    • Joseph Philbert

      That’s forgivable behavior ……..NOT

    • Justin Case

      I would ask who you are quoting, but of course it could be nearly any one of those listed before…

      Sadly, and hilariously, spot on the mark.

    • BullShite

      You forgot that you and Jesus are BFF’s so nothing that anyone here says can hurt you.

  • Helena

    Wix template image?