C Johnston Photography in Leeds, UK

Website:  http://c.johnston.photographyleeds.sqwiz.co.uk/en-GB/40514/home

Have you read the New York Post or Daily Mail articles about the wedding photographer that showed up to a wedding late, spent some time in the photo booth and then only delivered 15 images from the reception?  Surprise!  She also has stolen images in her gallery.

Her new website and Facebook are currently down but her old website is still live.

Original source (website is offline)

C-Johnston-Photography_0001

Original source

C-Johnston-Photography_0002

Original source

C-Johnston-Photography_0003

Original source

C-Johnston-Photography_0004Leed

 

  • V323

    For some reason, this one tickles me.

    • Justin Case

      this one makes me want to sing like Morrissey:
      “I say Charles don’t you ever crave
      To appear on the front of the Daily Mail
      Dressed in your Mother’s bridal veil”

  • CrackerJacker

    Aspirational photographer. That should tell you everything right there.

    • SMH

      What in the world is Apirational???? Aspiring maybe, but Apirational?? Someone get this chick a thesaurus!

      • Kat Forsyth

        “aspirational
        ˌaspɪˈreɪʃən(ə)l/Submit
        adjective
        having or characterized by aspirations to achieve social prestige and material success.”

        So basically she has aspirations of being as good as the people whose photos she stole.

        • SMH

          LMAO!

        • Helena

          Hahaha! Nice!

  • Kat Forsyth

    Wow. I was feeling bad for this girl after the British media ripped her to shreds (I mean the couple paid peanuts, so they got what they paid for), but not anymore! And I find it particularly hilarious that she left the original photographer’s logo on one of the photos!

    Just to clarify one thing, though – she didn’t only deliver 15 photos in total. It was 15 photos *from the evening reception*. Still not enough, but better than 15 altogether!

    • Photo Stealers

      Thank you! Will update.

    • SMH

      I think one article says 15 total. Another says 15 total but in the bullet points it said 15 from reception. Confusing.

      • Helena

        15 from the reception which is pretty appalling. We only had a few at ours but we only asked our photographer (who is great) to cover the first dance.

    • Clark James

      peanuts? they paid £500 not 50!

      • Me, Myself and I

        500 is peanuts. A 10 hour wedding is 32 hours of work for me then add in hard costs and take a chunck to pay for codb and you are left with little to nothing.

        • Are you not taking into account the conversion rate?

          • Never mind, I just did the conversion, I thought it was way more than it was. Yeah, that should have been their first red flag.

            Someone needs to inform people to reverse image search any and every photo on a photographer (or model’s, seeing as I had someone steal my modeling photos and try to get jobs as me before) on google to make sure they aren’t on someone else’s portfolio, and if they are, contact both photographers to find the real one.

          • Kat Forsyth

            This is part of the reason why I like photographers to have blogs. When you see shots from a whole wedding in one big post it’s a lot more believable that they took them, than just to have a few random ones in a portfolio.

          • Photo Stealers

            Eh. So many times I’ve seen entire blogs copied and pasted however it is more rare.

          • Kat Forsyth

            Yeah I have seen it, but only very occasionally. I remember one fauxtographer who took whole posts and changed the couple’s names, and made up a whole new story about them! Creepy AF.

        • Helena

          We only paid £800 (although nearly 8 years ago) for a whole days coverage. However, with the included engagement shoot it is a ridiculous price. I don’t even think I’d do a wedding that cheap now.

          • Me, Myself and I

            Hey Helena, £800 8 years ago isn’t the same as now either. Cost of living has increased as has the cost of operating a business.

        • Kat Forsyth

          ^ That.

        • Clark James

          I’m more of a commercial photographer rather than weddings, but a 500 day in the commercial world is de rigur, with maybe 1/2 day editing time on top.

          unless they want it and pay for it, no one’s asking her to spend 32 hours on a 10 hour wedding, that’s just excessive if they’re only paying 500, the last wedding I did I charged £1500 for, dress/ring shots, ceremony, reception, edited to the max, high quality album supplied in a hand-made custom designed wood and stained glass box, maybe that was 32 hours, but the wedding i’m being booked for a few months from now, they’re getting it for 600, because i’m not doing an album (saves hours of design work and print costs), i’m only there a few hours, i’m not scoping out the venue beforehand (would that be beneficial, yes, is it necessary, no- so that makes it a luxury they have to do without), I probably wont spend that long editing, there’s no engagement shoot- they had a budget, I worked around that in a way that gets them everything they need, and I feel like i’m getting a fair day’s pay, photos are still going to be fantastic, but they had to forgo a few niceties, i’ll say i’m going to work 5 hours taking photos, 3 hours to edit, maybe an hour for admin- so less than 10 hours all in? All i’m saying is that you can get really great photography for 500, but you don’t get the whole package, and for a low budget wedding this is entirely appropriate- not everyone gets married in a castle with 100’s of guests

          • Me, Myself and I

            Consercative figures.

            First meeting 1.5 hours driving and 1 hour meeting.
            Rehearsal 1.5 hours driving and 1 hour on location.
            Prep gear 1 hour
            Travel the day of … 1.5 hour
            10 hours shooting
            Post (redundant backups, culling, basic corrections …) 5 hours
            Final meeting 1.5 hour driving and 1 hour meeting
            Paperwork .5 hours

            25.5 hours

            Of course we also have work that we do on our business that isnt directly related to that shoot.

            Can be much more.

            Sure if you don’t meet in person, don’t go to the rehearsal, don’t hand deliver the final product … you cut that down significantly.

  • hussey

    Did you see the pics from the reception? It appears that she either has a very old dslr, or has zero clue about how to use it (or both). Just shooting in P mode should provide better photos than that, right?

    • Diggers

      She has a Nikon D7000 (or one of the upgrades). Certainly good enough if you know how to use it.

    • Me, Myself and I

      Zero clue … ive shot better with an old rebel xsi and a kit lens than that (was my 3rd / emergency backup camera for a year).

    • Mihir

      pictures she took of herself in the Photo Booth seemed to be of better quality than her work.

  • One of those images are from my friend Kristen! http://www.kristendriscollphotography.com/

  • It seems like this young lady has now made it virtually impossible for her to have a career in photography. The couple would get over their lack of wedding photographs if they are in love, but I am left astounded by how Chloe Johnston has managed to get herself in so much struggle. Is he something to do with her age and naivety? She is 20, a photography student from what I gather but is there nobody there to mentor her? Someone needs to talk some sense into her as this is definitely not the way conduct oneself.

    • CrackerJacker

      Got a link?

      • Yes, it is her own facebook page https://www.facebook.com/chloe.johnston.9277

        • You can’t fix stupid

          Just reading her story. Why would she “mail” documents that are so important that they got lost. Something like that you send registered or with a courier.

          “He won as sadly the County Court didn’t receive my mediation papers. I did send them out but of course post gets lost every day.”

          • You can’t fix stupid

            Part 2

          • You can’t fix stupid

            part 3

          • V323

            A lot of those comments are disturbing; some of her friends are claiming he’s a pedophile. This could get a whole lot worse for everyone.

          • Me, Myself and I

            I can see libel suits gearing up.

          • You can’t fix stupid

            Yes those accusations could land those people in deep poo-poo

          • thisisace

            That just shoes how childish herself and her cronies are. The groom could mudsling about her being a fraud but hasn’t.

    • Photo Stealers
      • Rebuttal gone it seems screenshot anyone?

        • Photo Stealers

          He’s posted it himself above.

  • Jerry

    Too funny… Read the article and then I see stop stealing photos chiming in…. Love the site. Keep it up!

  • Jack Thomas

    Wow, she even left the watermark of someone else’s photo on one of the shots in her gallery?!

  • You can’t fix stupid

    There are still stolen images on her page. (The baby bump one) Why she just didn’t clean up when the $!&* hit the fan I don’t know.

  • xma1e

    People need to realise we are talking UK Sterling and not US dollars.

    While your average GOOD Wedding photographer UK price range is £1,200 to 2,500 GBP ($1,700 – $3,500 US) , £500 ($700 US), would be considered higher end of the budget market for the UK. Especially considering Leeds is in the North East of England where prices would be lower than the South.

    For £500 GBP, the quality is pretty poor for that price (even if considered “budget”) which is probably why the small claims court awarded the couple a full refund.

    • Photo Stealers

      I believe this couple paid £750

    • xma1e

      Didn’t see that this was 1 day (8 hours) PLUS an engagement shoot!!!

  • Steve

    There are hundreds of Photographers after work and too say the best photographers charge thousands of pounds and any one who does not is rubbish! Is snobby and totally stupid. Competition drives down prices and some one charging £500 is not automatically a bad photographer. In their area they will be reacting to what the market is. In Wales people are poorer than in London and large parts of England. The same can be said of Northern Ireland and parts of Scotland. People in the valleys of Wales will not pay what people in Cardiff or Swansea will pay for their photography. XMA1E Needs to think before he/she pontificates in a world that is not Black & White. There are many shades of Grey.

    • Justin Case

      Steve, many people here have done the math. £500 for a full days work (and several days of pre- and post-production is an unsustainable business model for a professional.
      The simple costs of running a legal, insured, up-to-date business would mean you would be just covering your cost, and more likely running at a loss.
      Can you do weddings for £500? Sure. But that is as a hobby, not as a professional.

      • xma1e

        You forget to include the engagement (which they swapped for a Christening shoot) that was included in the “package”, so that’s an extra half day on top plus editing. The costs for this is shrinking even more.

        • ohmydingdong

          They did not get ANY of the free photopgraphs from the free session.

    • Me, Myself and I

      £500 = 708$US.

      I have a program I wrote to help me build quotes and to reverse calculate offered ammounts from clients to see what my salary would be so I dont work myself out of a house and home.

      She was essentially paying herself an hourly SALARY of 3.07$ / hour or £2.17 / hour for what should have been 28.5 hours of work once you factor in cost of doing business, 2 meetings (planing meeting and a meeting to hand over the final product), quick visit during the rehearsal to scope out the venue, and the hard costs for travel (gas /wear and tear) and assuming she is ashoot and burn, for a usb key and dvd with a case and nice printed labels and covers.

      You cant just take the ammount the photographer charges and use that as a salary
      … thats not how it works.

      • Kat Forsyth

        I totally agree with you, although part of the complaint is that she didn’t do all that extra work, like meetings or – probably – venue visits. But I still agree that £500 isn’t anything like you should pay for good photos.

      • xma1e

        Also the “package” included an engagement shoot.

        • Me, Myself and I

          Did NOT factor that in … wow.

  • You can’t fix stupid

    What is the bingo card for this one?

    • Justin Case

      she’s blaming the web designer. Yawn.

      • Photo Stealers

        It has been a while since I’ve heard that one.

        • Kat Forsyth

          That site had a DESIGNER??

          • You can’t fix stupid

            LOL

      • You can’t fix stupid

        I think this one is going to be blamed on Facebook.

  • Justin Case

    On nearly every post someone always chimes in with “I just don’t understand, how do they get away with it? Aren’t the clients disappointed when the pictures they receive don’t live up to the ones on the website?”

    So now you know exactly what can happen. Worst case scenario? For everyone involved here, it seems.

  • xma1e
  • Paul Wheatley

    A Statement by Paul & Chareen Wheatley regarding the claims by by Chloe Johnston. Dated 14th April 2016.

    Our original Court Claim is added at the end of this statement, so readers can see exactly what our complaints were.

    We refute allegations made by Chloe Johnston photography in relation to recent media coverage and will address the points she has raised in her online statement. Chloe arrived late for the wedding booking which the wedding venue can confirm, along with a text message from Chloe apologising for her lateness. We have not alleged that she was late for the wedding ceremony, we have stated that she arrived after the agreed arrival time, which was 11am. The reason we expected her at 11am was that she had failed to respond to ALL our attempts to contact her over the previous month so we had missed the client meeting and any planning phone calls we should have had. She was supposed to arrive early so we could go through the plans with her. Chloe has never apologised for the stress she caused us when she ignored all our attempts to contact her.

    A bride takes two hours plus to prepare for the Wedding so Chloe did capture some getting ready shots and that has never been disputed.

    Our main issues surrounded the very poor quality of our group shots and missing coverage. Although Chloe’s pre-wedding behaviour deprived us of any opportunity to plan them, we took a list of our required photos to the wedding and gave them to her. We only have a handful of the formal group photos we requested. Some of these are in odd locations like the car park, with cars in the background.

    During the booking process, Chloe indicated she wanted to go into the woods near the hotel to do the “couple portraits”, but we warned her the groom is disabled and might not be able to walk that far. On the wedding day, Chloe tried again to get us to go to the woods. The groom explained again that he couldn’t walk there and expected to continue the portraits at the hotel. To our surprise, Chloe then persuaded the bride and matron of honour to go to the woods instead. The groom was left alone at the hotel for around 45 minutes. We feel that the trip to the woods cost us coverage we wanted and caused bad feelings. Chloe should have been gathering the coverage we wanted not using our wedding as her portfolio shoot.

    Our photobooth supplier was I-Events and it’s easy to see that the photobooth images (of Chloe) are of a higher quality than those supplied by Chloe as our “professional wedding photographer.” We never gave permission for Chloe to use the photo booth or sign the guest book.

    We received around 276 photographs on a USB from Chloe, however some are duplicates, eg black & white versions. If those images had been quality ones and we had been supplied with the group photos we requested there would probably never have been a court case. We gave the news agency access to the full set of images and a representative selection was chosen for the articles.

    In Chloe’s statement to the court she claimed that we had been very happy with our images, yet our original statement to court shows this to be untrue. We waited 9 weeks for our images and during that time we were sent a small preview set, which we were happy with. You can see my wife’s response to those in Chloe’s statement. However, for Chloe to mislead readers by claiming this reaction was to the full set is unacceptable. The first time we saw the full set was 8.30pm on 22nd November. We made our complaint about quality and missing coverage on 25th Nov.

    A slightly confusing aspect of some of the media reports surrounds “fifteen photos.” The fifteen photos are in relation to coverage of the evening reception, not the full day. As Chloe was not responsible for running the photobooth we feel that 15 photos is very low for evening event coverage. Despite that, it was not a major issue in the court claim as you will see.

    Chloe has also alleged that she had a second case against us for fraud. This is completely untrue, which we will explain in a moment. After our initial complaint Chloe blamed us for all the things we were complaining about and described us as unreasonable. We were unable to get her to take any responsibility for her failings, so realised we either had to shut up or take her to court. We then realised that we couldn’t proceed with a court claim because Chloe had not supplied her address or a contract. We texted Chloe to ask for her address and she replied “F*** off” so we had to try and figure out where to serve the court documents. We found out her address but she denied that she lived there, so we drove there to see if there were residential properties on the street. (Google showed it as industrial units so we were confused.) Chloe phoned the police and claimed we were stalking her. She also denied that she lived there, so the stalking claims didn’t quite make sense.

    We then obtained an address for her father, following a public appeal for information. When we submitted the court claim, we used both addresses at which Chloe might reside, because she wouldn’t tell us the truth. So we submitted the same claim against both addresses. The court hearing on 6th April was simply a formality to get the claim against her father’s address removed because the claim had been dealt with at the industrial park address.

    On the day of our original hearing, Chloe did not attend the court. She claims that she lost because her documents were lost but this was not the case. She had submitted her written defence prior to the hearing and we were sent a copy of it as is standard practice in such cases. The judge had all the information he needed to reach a decision.

    An aspect of our claim was misrepresentation because Chloe had advertised as an experienced wedding photographer capable of producing “stunning romantic photographs.” It was only when we complained that she changed her story and blamed us for booking a “student photographer.” We based our decision to book Chloe on her professional website (now taken down) her Facebook page (also down) her advertising in Facebook groups and her verbal representation. We truly believed that she was an experienced wedding photographer because she consistently claimed to be one. Yet on the day of our wedding she attended with a cheap consumer DSLR and cheap lens. Her work falls below the quality of the work of the photobooth supplier.

    After the judgement Chloe initially refused to pay. Then she sent two men to my front door to bully & intimidate me into accepting part payment. When I asked them to leave my property they refused. The police were subsequently called, during this time these men could see I had a ten month old baby in my arms. The remainder of the debt was recovered via bailiffs as Chloe refused to pay and only did so to avoid a further CCJ. I had to pay additional costs to get the bailiffs to recover monies owed.

    To gain sympathy with readers Chloe has claimed that she fears for her life and has seen us waiting outside her property. She failed to disclose that she lives next to the Royal Mail delivery office for Bramley! This is where residents have to go to collect any parcels that arrive when they are out. We have had to collect two parcels from there this year, which hardly constitutes harassment!

    Chloe claims to be against cyber bullying, yet she posted unkind and defamatory remarks about us online after we complained to her. This happened before we ever mentioned the dispute publically. All of this situation is Chloe’s own doing. All we did was complain about our missing group photos and her taking the bride and matron of honour to the forest for a photoshoot while the groom was made to wait at the hotel. We never demanded a full refund. We simply tried to discuss our complaints with her but she would not accept any responsibility for the problems. So we went to court to ask a judge to determine how much we were owed and we were awarded a full refund and costs.

    As a business she should listen to her customers. We know of two other couples unhappy with her work on their wedding day. We have been abused, called vile and references were made which disgusted me. Sadly court was the only option. We are shocked that Chloe has made an untrue statement online yesterday which seeks to absolve her of any blame for her own poor service. Chloe’s website claimed that “each and every wedding is treated with individuality, care and love.” We have been treated terribly by Chloe Johnston.

    Paul & Chareen Wheatley

    14th April 2016

    Below is our original statement submitted via the Small Claims Court website

    Our claim against Chloe Johnston-Winterburn trading as Chloe Johnson Photography (CJP) revolves around the following issues:

    Misrepresentation – We can prove that Chloe advertised extensively in Facebook wedding groups claiming to be a “reliable, experienced, creative, trustworthy female wedding photographer” who could “create stunning romantic photographs of the bride & groom” and “gorgeous wedding memories.”

    We were urged to “allow C Johnson Photography to capture your day how you would like it to be captured” because “I base my packages around you… to ensure all your needs are met.” On her website we were reassured by phrases such as “Each and every wedding is treated with individuality, care and love. I work alongside you both to ensure we can create stunning and never ageing photographs. To ensure I capture all your minor details of your day I’m always there in the lead up to the wedding to help out where I can.”

    We booked CJP on the basis of her online claims and paid £500 for 8 hours wedding photography booked for 13th September 2015. We believed that Chloe was a professional wedding photographer. We checked her website and Facebook page. We have now discovered that Chloe did not even bring any professional photographic equipment to our wedding. She came with a cheap consumer grade camera, a Nikon D7000 and cheap 18-105mm zoom lens. We don’t think she had a proper flash and do not remember one being used.

    The lead up to the wedding was very stressful as after we paid the final balance in early August we found we were unable to contact Chloe again.

    We posted on her Facebook page, emailed and phoned her but she was gone, we got no response. Chloe had asked us to make the payments via Paypal but use “friends and family” option which took away our chance to claim anything back from Paypal. We hadn’t realised Chloe was cheating us out of our paypal protection, she said she was just avoiding fees. In a panic we even arranged an emergency replacement for her by phoning a guest to ask them to step in as wedding photographer. Finally, at 11pm on 12th September, the night before the wedding, Chloe responded by text informing us that she would be attending.

    The agreed start time was 11am but CJP did not arrive until around 12.15.

    Due to Chloe not responding to any attempts to contact her before the wedding we were unable to have the pre-wedding meeting and discussions that we expected. Despite this, we were organised and supplied Chloe with a comprehensive written list of group photos and desired shots when she arrived at the venue. We have only received a portion of those. Several of the formal group photos are missing. The important “main group” of all guests together is of little use as it has been taken from too low an angle so that many people’s faces can’t be seen. This is due to the photographer’s neglect in not finding a good place to take the photo. The venue provides two other good locations for the group photo which would have enabled all guests to be seen. We have obtained examples of these after searching online.

    CJP failed to take into account the groom’s disability when providing the wedding photography service. The extended time taken to arrange the main group on grass meant that the groom was in severe pain and this is evident by his expression on the few groups that were taken afterwards. Prior to moving onto the grassed area, Chloe was informed that the groom could only stand on hard ground comfortably.

    The situation worsened when Chloe insisted she wanted to take us into the nearby forest to do the “stunning romantic photographs of the bride and groom” we had anticipated. The groom explained that due to his serious knee injury there was no way he could walk into the forest. Instead of taking more portraits at the hotel, Chloe persuaded the bride to go to the forest without the groom. She took the chief bridesmaid instead, while the groom was left for approx 45 minutes waiting at the hotel. He felt he could not go to the room to rest because he didn’t know when his wife would return, so he waited in the bar.

    This experience had a negative impact on the groom’s enjoyment of the day and means that there are fewer nice couple photos than we expected. After delivery, we complained about the shortage of nice couple photos and Chloe blamed us for not spending enough time doing them!

    Chloe has been trying to discredit us online and to the Police by stating that Mrs Chareen Wheatley said how happy she was with the photos and it’s just Mr Paul Wheatley who later objected to the quality & service supplied. However, this is untrue. As the photos took so long to be delivered we kept contacting her asking for updates re progress and she sent over a couple of small selections which amounted to less than 10 photos in total. It is this small preview set that we liked and were happy with. We finally received the full set of images on a USB drive at 8.30pm on 22nd November, 9 weeks after the wedding. Our initial complaint was made on 25th November. There was no point after delivery of the images that we said we were satisfied with them.

    Our package included an engagement shoot which we swapped for a Christening shoot for our baby. We have not received the images from this shoot at all.

    Chloe claims that she has “fulfilled the contract” despite having never issued a contract. After our complaint, Chloe stated that her clients should expect 250-700 images from a full day wedding. We only have 276 and some of these are duplicates or watermarked web versions. We do not have 250 quality images of our wedding.

    Initially we asked to discuss the matter and find some resolution due to the various issues we had:

    Missing images

    poor quality of images

    failure to take into account the groom’s disability on the day

    excessive delay in delivering the images

    misrepresentation of her skills and experience

    her bad attitude to our complaint

    Chloe accused us of trying to grab money back from our wedding suppliers by faking complaints and refused to discuss our complaints or requests for a refund. She insists there is nothing wrong with her service or the product supplied.

    We were sent screen shots by a local amateur photographer friend who saw her being disrespectful about us in a Facebook group.

    After this we realised that we needed to take action via Small Claims court but when we went online to commence the claim we did not have an address for Chloe. That’s when we realised we should have been given a contract and proper trading address details for her. We texted Chloe to ask for her address but she refused to provide it. We believe there has been a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in that CJP did not issue proper documentation, did not display any address anywhere online and refused to give us an address when it was requested.

    We searched online but could find no address anywhere so turned to Facebook for help as we are not very internet savvy. A photographer in the Midlands discovered CJP’s domain was registered to an address at LS13 2EF but he warned us that on Google maps there did not seem to be any residential properties there. We drove to that address to see if we could spot a car we might recognise but it looked like industrial units and a pet shop.

    We were left to plead for help on the Leedsface. Facebook group as a last resort. When we did that we were contacted by another of Chloe’s clients who explained they had to involve Trading Standards before managing to obtain their wedding photos.

    As a result of our appeal for information Chloe called the Police and said we were harassing her. The Police have been phoning and coming to our house due to Chloe lying to them about our dispute.

    As CJP refuse to deal with our complaint and have made insulting comments about us online we would like to bring the matter before the court to determine what compensation and refund we are due.

    • Photo Stealers

      Paul, I am so terribly sorry for your experience.

    • One word WOW!

    • Helena

      Awful. I’m so sorry.

    • NJP

      Hey Paulie. You have already been compensated in court for whatever “loss” the court felt was appropriate. What you are doing now on all these websites is public shaming. For what? Because you feel like the court decision didn’t do enough? From what I have read online, you got more than the paltry price you paid was worth.

      Guess what, you aren’t that important.

      Shame that professionals don’t have a site where they can rate their customers and warn others not to deal with them.

      • You can’t fix stupid

        Maybe it has to do with the fact that she went bad mouthing their names on different groups on FB.
        She should have just kept quiet. Now she has this added to her name when people Google her.

  • U Really That Dumb?

    It truly amazes me how stupid some people can be. They think we won’t check, or that we are stupid and will believe them. Well, at least she isn’t claiming to have been a cop or a lawyer (yup, we’ve seen that here before). At least not yet.

  • Photo Stealers

    I don’t care about the he said/she said BS. The bottom line is however she wants to claim it occurred, images were in her portfolio that were not her images to use.

  • spacecadet

    If we’re talking about infringement, the photographer has a pretty good case against the Daily Mail and the news agency flagrantly claiming to own the copyright. There’s a very simple copyright small claims process in England. They have no defence.

    • Photo Stealers

      I don’t know what kind of copyright release was given to the clients, she may have given a full release which isn’t unheard of with new photographers. Either way, this blog is about photographers using other photographers images, not companies.

      • neilvn

        Wouldn’t this fall under editorial use, and therefore skip much of the restrictions on copyright anyway?

        • Photo Stealers

          That was my thought as well but I am not as well versed in the UK laws but they do also have a fair use act.

          • spacecadet

            Fair dealing, not fair use. No way does fair dealing cover this.

          • Me, Myself and I

            News reporting has a specific EXCLUSION for photography.

            News reporting

            Using material for the purpose of reporting current events is permitted provided that:

            -The work is not a photograph.

            -The source of the material is acknowledged.

            -The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose.

            So photographs are SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED from fair dealing exemptions when it comes to news reporting. In other words … Photographs are not fair use for news reporting in the UK.

          • BigAl

            I thought that there was some precedent set in the UK courts whereby the image could be used if the image itself was the subject of the new item. Rather than an image being used without permission to illustrate a news item that may for example be about the subject of the image.

          • Me, Myself and I

            Not sure about that. I just read the actual law and it SPECIFICALLY excludes photography for news reporting.

            I’m not a lawyer, just play one on the internet.

    • Justin Case

      Papers in the UK are notorious for “print first/pay later.” They have enormous reserves for legal fees and fines arising from libel claims constantly made against them. I doubt the Daily Mail’s legal team would get very worked up over the threat of a £500 wedding photographer coming after them.

    • Me, Myself and I

      Fair use : Reporting.
      They are talking ABOUT THE IMAGES.

      What is fair use?

      In copyright law, there is a concept of fair use, also known as; free use, fair dealing, or fair practice.

      Fair use sets out certain actions that may be carried out, but would not normally be regarded as an infringement of the work.

      The idea behind this is that if copyright laws are too restrictive, it may stifle free speech, news reporting, or result in disproportionate penalties for inconsequential or accidental inclusion.

      What does fair use allow?

      Under fair use rules, it may be possible to use quotations or excerpts, where the work has been made available to the public, (i.e. published). Provided that:

      The use is deemed acceptable under the terms of fair dealing.

      That the quoted material is justified, and no more than is necessary is included.

      That the source of the quoted material is mentioned, along with the name of the author.

      Typical free uses of work include:

      Inclusion for the purpose of news reporting.

      Incidental inclusion.

      National laws typically allow limited private and educational use.

      source: https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p09_fair_use

      • spacecadet

        Sorry, this is in an ENglish paper. The US isn’t the world and our laws are different. See above. Fair dealing in the UK does not cover photographs

        • Copyright laws are Basically global and each country has some variations … Your comment show you dont actually know jack or shit about the subject.

          • Me, Myself and I

            Actually, he might apparently be correct.

            News reporting

            Using material for the purpose of reporting current events is permitted provided that:

            -The work is not a photograph.

            -The source of the material is acknowledged.

            -The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose.

        • Me, Myself and I

          You are correct. I stand corrected.

          This is a good example of how nuanced the differences in laws are between countries.

          What is fair dealing?

          Fair dealing is a term used to describe some limited activities that are allowed without infringing copyright. Briefly these are as follows:

          [… skipping to re4levant section …]

          News reporting

          Using material for the purpose of reporting current events is permitted provided that:

          -The work is not a photograph.
          -The source of the material is acknowledged.
          -The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose.

          It is important to note that this only affects news reporting. Not research, criticism …

          That being said, thanks for pointing out my mistake.

          ps.: I’m not from the US either. 🙂

  • neilvn

    Just when you think the story can’t spiral any further into craziness …

    • Photo Stealers

      Reminded me of all of those fake Case Photography pages w the stolen images.

  • Designer_86

    To be fair to the “young” girl. After viewing her website the photos that have been copied are in the mobile uploads section. This may be as a result of automatically pulling through from a social media account, where she has posted/shared images that she likes. From the (not so well designed) website I think that her lack of experience shines through and it could be seen as harsh or unfair to deem her actions, those of malice or exploitation, which is what I think you are portraying it to be. Instead I think that it was the actions of a naive and inexperienced young girl, whose dreams and aspirations have been shattered. Surely she is more than paying the price and has learned some harsh life/business lessons along the way.

    • U Really That Dumb?

      Sorry but no. See the response from the web host posted below. She had to deliberately add them to her page. It’s not automatic. So try again with coming up with another excuse for your friend.

      • Designer_86

        Just to clarify. She is not my friend nor do I even know her other than what I have read about the whole saga though social media. I was just trying to point out that just by taking a look at her website you can immediately see that this girl does not have the knowledge or experience to be a professional photographer. She is however young and trying to build a business in this industry and will make mistakes. In this case she has made a few major mistakes, but I don’t think that it’s fair for other creative professionals to resort to slating her publicly on the internet, at least in terms of accusing her of copyright breaches. I think that the whole website lacks structure and there is no clear definition of what is exactly her portfolio showcase. Again I think this is down to lack of maturity and experience. Even the description of her services lacks substance and content, again lack of experience. If she really was looking to steal images and use as her own she would not use really low res versions, some of them have the original branding on them and she would be passing them off as her own under gallery. It was merely an observation.

        • U Really That Dumb?

          Illegal none the less and shows she shouldn’t be in business.

        • You can’t fix stupid

          You can not say that age is something here. If she is advertising as a photographer, charging people she should know the laws.
          Sharing and image = legal
          Downloading it to a computer and then re-uploading it = illegal.
          Very simple
          As a photographer who is charging people she should know the basic copyright laws.

    • U Really That Dumb?
    • Helena

      I’m 99.99999% sure that’s not what happened.

  • Tim

    In her defense, this does have more to do with poor website design, than intentionally stealing photos. This website design pulls from a users personal facebook page. If she uploads a mobile image, it puts it on the website.

    This is clearly a very inexperienced photographer, but as far as her website, it only has three posts that were all within a few days last year.

  • Pete L.

    Sites like this are worse than the people that misappropriate photographs. There are courts of law to pursue copyright infringers. This site has no rules of evidence, requires no evidence authentication, and does no investigation into these stories before posting what is essentially public shaming. It is an extension of the joke that is modern day journalism.

    • You can’t fix stupid

      Excuse me – every photo on this site has been sourced to the original owner. There is a link to the original work and the stolen work. What more evidence do you need?

      • A real link of the stolen photos, the link they say is online… Don’t you see this is just a click bitter article, wich is also harmful to the photographers community?

    • Photo Stealers

      Two of the original photographers contacted me with proof the images were their original works.

      • VSB

        Don’t feed the trolls! The evidence speaks for itself.

      • Pete L.

        I think you miss my point. There is a legal process by which copyright holders can have the photos removed (DMCA) and also by which they can pursue damages in a court of law. Did that process take place here? Was the photographer given the opportunity to respond to the allegations here? Do you look into the facts beyond just that they appeared on the website. Are you familiar with all of the law regarding copyright infringement? As an attorney I can tell you that very few cases are so simple.

        This may in fact be an actionable copyright infringement. I don’t really care about anyone involved in this case. However, the notion that a blog that has no oversight, no evidentiary standards, and may or may not choose to interview and investigate both sides can publicly accuse anyone is disgusting. This is no more than a attention hungry public shaming website.

        • Justin Case

          As a lawyer I’m sure you are familiar with the concept of consumer protection. That is ONE of the functions of this website. If you did your research, checked past posts, etc., you would see that many people have been deceived, mislead and outright scammed by people using images they could not possibly create in order to make money.There are countless ‘thank you’ messages posted by both aggrieved photographers and clients for the exposure this site brings to the issue.

          Photo Stealers has NEVER claimed to be a replacement for the courts. In fact, photographers are constantly urged to pursue compensation through the legal system. (As has happened in this case, as I’m sure you know).

          People post all kinds of lies and fraud on the internet. And they get called out on it. The evidence is not secret: everything is sourced from PUBLICLY POSTED sources. The subjects of the posts are also able to come and defend themselves if they follow the rules.

          If you don’t appreciate the work that the site does, take your puritanical views somewhere else. You are doing none of the people you “don’t really care about” any help here.

        • U Really That Dumb?

          If you’re an attorney, what’s your interest in this? Why are you on this page? Why haven’t you done your research on not only this thief but many others?

        • Photo Stealers

          The original photographers are not in the UK.

        • please explain to me what kind of overdoes a blog need to simply publish the truth?
          I will wait on you infalua le legal mombo jumbo

        • So answer this why does the blog need oversight? It simply publishing truthful events which is miraculously protected under the law. What legal mombo jombo you will make up to justify that BS.
          BTW i feeling a bit attention whorish today

        • Me, Myself and I

          Interesting approach … but this is “journalism” not a judiciary process.

          20/20, W5, 60 minutes, Frontline … are you next going to ask them the same question?

          Do you cry foul when an investigative reporter publishes a report on an allegedly corrupt politician?

          Someone pointed out an alleged thief, the site investigated the claim and published a news report on it. If the alleged thief isn;t happy they can then fall back on libel laws to find satisfaction but I believe Corey is well protected by freedom of expression laws and her own belief in the truth of what she publishes.

          If you don’t like the site, you are free to ignore it. If you don;t like this TYPE of site then let me point you to even worse ones. Here, claims are at least researched.

          Check out RippOffReport or any other of these complain boards if you want to see a REAL public shaming site.

          You want a worthwhile crusade? Ignore this site and go after Ed Magedson … you would have a lot of thankful people if you got him shut down.

        • Michael Goolsby

          The photographs she delivered were shit. Miss Johnson of C Johnson Photography is a hack and a charlatan. Sue me.

      • NJP

        In the interest of providing the public with all the information out there so they can make their own decisions…how many complaints, restraining orders, or other legal action has been taken against this website?

        Or do you not want that known?

        • U Really That Dumb?

          Attempted and failed or actually completed through the courts? Because anyone can attempt anything they want. Doesn’t mean they actually have shite to go on. Especially when their own attorney fires them for being an idiot and not telling them the truth.

          • You can’t fix stupid

            Don’t forget the one attorney who admitted that she was “duped” by them.

        • Justin Case

          And how is that relevant to the issue at hand? If there were any “restraining orders, or other legal action” do you think this website would still exist?

          “In the interest of providing the public with all the information,” why don’t you tell us who you really are and why you’re asking such an obviously loaded question?

        • U Really That Dumb?

          Look into this case where the thief and her boyfriend not only attempted to go after this page, but many other people as well and were laughed out of court and the offices of their attorneys.
          Now they are playing games and threatening people and this page all over twitter.
          http://stopstealingphotos.com/sjk-photography-aka-picture-stacie-klein-delray-beach-florida/

        • Photo Stealers

          Complaints? Many.

          Restraining orders? Never.

          Legal actions? Two lawyers have sent letters but it hasn’t gone any further.

          I see that you are in law Pete/NJP (same IP address). Are you acting officially or just being curious?

          • U Really That Dumb?

            Wait, NLP is Pete? Not shocked!

          • You can’t fix stupid

            Oh what could this be a Billcie lawyer?

        • NLP Its caught red handed 101 its incacualble how many complain and talk about lawyers and shutting this and that down only a hand full followed through with baseless threats. They forget looking true the hurt and pain that the truth is the ultimate defence.

        • U Really That Dumb?

          Pete,
          You come here making claims about this page, that you’ve not been to before and know little to nothing about, and try to “White Knight” it. When called out, you bring in your sock account and try to defend your comment. Why are you unable to defend them without the sock? Where is your evidence you’re claiming above? Would you say the same things about any other media source?
          Why are you not responding to any of the questions or comments to your post? Perhaps because you have no real basis in your claims? Sounds to me like you made some assumptions.
          As asked, and now asked again, why are you here? Curiosity or official duty as a lawyer? Who is your client?

          • You can’t fix stupid

            I see he is mighty quiet all of a sudden.

    • Coming from you that means a lot. Really.

    • Lisa

      This site also has no power to do anything other than discuss. How is this worse than committing the actual crime of stealing someone else’s work?

  • I can’t believe this… First time in this page, I will never come back. You didn’t do your homework! Just PLEASE go to her Facebook page (wich is up!), and see the real photos of the wedding, ALL professionals!…

    And about the “stolen photos”, if her old site is online, where’s the F** link?? All this is just a click bitter!!!

    You’re just making it all worse for the photography community… >:(

  • VSB
    • Helena

      OMG I just looked. I would have been utterly devastated. Awful quality.

      • VSB

        I hope the guests took photos! Anything is better than what they showed in the article.

      • Kataphractos

        You would have been devistated because you hired some amateur to for a rediculously low price? You get what you pay for, unless you think you are special, and should get the best quality stuff for almost nothing. A skinflint hired this woman because he is a cheep, stingy bastard and then refused to pay her because his overinflated expectations were not met.

        • U Really That Dumb?

          Excuse me?
          You apparently didn’t read the part about her being a photo thief. OR the part that she lost in court.
          Now take your attitude and opinions elsewhere if you’re not going to actually read what happened.

          • Kataphractos

            I did read what happened, but she still was paid 500 by some cheapo and they got shitty photos, which is what they paid for. If the assholes wanted a professional, they should have paid for it.

          • U Really That Dumb?

            Mr. F.A. of OPNY, time for you to go…
            This is about her being a thief. NOT about the victim.

          • Kataphractos

            Who?

          • U Really That Dumb?

            You

          • You can’t fix stupid

            This page isn’t about what they paid or what happened. This page is about the theft of images on her site.

        • Photo Stealers

          This post isn’t about the price of her photos or the quality of work. It’s about the images in her gallery that were not hers to use.

    • Me, Myself and I

      Holy! It looks like she was using the pop up flash or just ambient light … in a dark venue …

      Bad lighting, dutch angle, bad processing …

      The outdoor formals are okish but the reception shots … omg! THE RECEPTION SHOTS!

      Sorry, I know we don;t normally critique the work, only the theft but … wow.

      • VSB

        The photographs are awful and judging by her Photo Booth selfies, her conservative black outfit must have been at the cleaners…

        • Me, Myself and I

          I shot a wedding where I was ASKED to wear a hawaiian shirt so I would not stick out. 🙂

    • Celine (peaceetc)

      I hadn’t seen that set. Setting aside her ability compose a shot, etc., and just focusing on the technical aspects of the photos… to be blunt, they are terrible. They aren’t print worthy in the slightest. I would think they were taken with a cheap mobile phone instead of a DSLR, if she hadn’t flashed her Nikon in the photo booth pictures.

  • You can’t fix stupid

    Well it seems like Chloe Johnston from Leeds is lying again. She said that she couldn’t access her web page. It seems that you can only access it with your FB account. You don’t need passwords and email addresses to open the site.
    Another lie.
    See attachment
    Next she will blame Facebook.

    • U Really That Dumb?

      So not shocked by that.
      It’s a shame that her friends think she’s innocent and believe the continual lies coming from her.

  • Peter Kelly

    This is a very sad tale indeed and one where no one benefits.

    First of all we have a deluded young woman who thinks you can jump straight into wedding photography simply by owning a camera that has attached lenses! Sorry, but the reality is so far from that it isn’t funny.

    Second, that young photographer appears to have been happy to support her claim to experience by using pictures that didn’t belong to her.

    Third, we have a couple who apparently hired a photographer without doing even the minimum of checking her credentials, simply on the basis of price. Of course, I don’t know what went on before booking, so that may be a little unfair. The sad truth is, though, that it is now widely believed by couples that £500 is a ball-park figure for wedding photography and anything else is a rip off.

    Fourth, because of the lying by the young woman and the ineffective vetting by the couple, the wedding pictures were a disaster and the day, which should have been a total delight, was irrevocably spoilt in their memory.

    Fifth, the whole debacle necessitated a court case. which should always be the last resort, but still Chloe Johnston would not accept her fault in it, despite a judge ruling.

    Sixth, the story takes on a whole new, shabby dimension when national media are involved. I haven’t discerned how it ended up there; did the couple not take the court verdict and resolution as a finality?

    Finally, we have mud slinging in all directions and most of it is sticking, even though this should have been a case which was no one else’s business and lessons learned all round.

    Why is it that people can’t behave with honesty and decorum any more, or am I too old fashioned?

    • You can’t fix stupid

      And you forgot about her lying about the images being automatically loaded to the site.

      • Peter Kelly

        I don’t think there is a single aspect of this story that has any decency.

        Very, very sad.

        • You can’t fix stupid

          Also who is paying for that website. You had to pay

    • BigAl

      Yes I to find it surprising that anyone could possibly think that £500 could buy you a full day’s coverage of a wedding, even if it is pretty much shoot and burn. I married back in 1987, and IIRC that is what we paid for a competent local professional to shoot the full day, and include one album with I think about 50 prints in it. Of course back then it was shot on a mix of medium format film for the formals, and 35mm for the reception. At least the cost of entry to the “profession” back then was enough to put off the Walts, if you shot weddings medium format was pretty much expected so you couldn’t just go out and spend the proverbial £500 on a consumer grade SLR, actually it was probably literally more than £500 for a Medium Format kit back then.

  • Peter PdcPic

    her website has now been taken down.
    Also she is now blocking everyone in her statement that does not agree with her.

    Lame move if you ask me. She claims the couple were bullies, though the only bullying i see is on her statement by her friends calling names etc

    • You can’t fix stupid

      Oh yeah I was blocked from her FB

  • You can’t fix stupid

    Oh this just gets better and better. (It is so sad that you can only laugh)
    The web designer said he didn’t do it.

    • You can’t fix stupid

      part 2

      • You can’t fix stupid

        part 3 – these were taken from her FB post.

        • You can’t fix stupid

          helps to add the screen shot

          • Kat Forsyth

            I’m confused; if he never put it online then how is it online?? With stolen pictures on it??

          • You can’t fix stupid

            According to her website – you need to log in with your FB page. It is also a paid website so who is paying.

          • You can’t fix stupid

            Well you need to use your FB account to log into that site. So…….. if he didn’t log in with her FB account then who did?

    • Justin Case

      To be fair, she seems to understand that creative work should be compensated. That is a point in her favor in my book.

      • Peter PdcPic

        though the creative work she stole she does not seem to care about lol

    • pie

      Mate, 9th of June 2015. This is the UK: DD/MM/YYYY

      • You can’t fix stupid

        But if you read the ones further down they happen in November

  • Michael Goolsby

    Why, why, why do these little twits who just bought a camera suddenly feel that they are in any way qualified to take on the important task of photographing someone’s wedding day before they can even competently photograph their own cat? C Johnson is a typical “zombie photographer”, someone who merely pretends to be a professional, but ends up botching everything because they have no clue what they’re doing. And like zombies, by sheer volume these twits end up making life that much more difficult for real photographers, too. (I noticed that she has “a passion” for photography. How original.) This twit likely would have been outed sufficiently just with the news media coverage. All the same, my thanks once again to Photostealers.com

    • You can’t fix stupid

      I cringe every time I read “Since I was little I always had a passion for photography” OMFG

  • Celine (peaceetc)

    I keep seeing people argue that the couple was stupid to hire a photographer for so little money. Those in the photography industry understand the pricing issue, but the average person likely does not.

    Besides, Ms. Johnston accepted a job in exchange for money in the capacity of a professional (otherwise she would not have charged). I don’t care if she charged $1 or $1,000,000. She was there to do a job for a once-in-a-lifetime event. If you take a job, you do the work, and you do it right. The end. If you can’t do it, you don’t take the job. If you screw it up, you do what you can to make it right. Ms. Johnston allegedly did none of these things, but honestly, that’s beside the point.

    Don’t forget the photographer misrepresented herself by posting stolen images on part of her social media, which could reasonably lead a potential client to believe she was more skilled than she ended up being.

    Chloe represented herself as being able to competently complete the job. She was the one who set the price in question. Yes, if the couple had been more knowledgeable, they might have been able to see the warning signs and gone with a different photographer. Hindsight is well and good, but doesn’t change what actually happened.

    Frankly, I’m sick of people blaming the couple because they didn’t understand that $850 wasn’t very much money for quality wedding photography. To most people, that’s a lot of money. Even if it weren’t, Ms. Johnston was hired as a professional to do a job. Her execution of said job left the couple unhappy.

    In the end, this page is about the stolen images, not who should have done what or who was the biggest idiot.

  • You can’t fix stupid

    She is now blaming her school for not teaching her about copyright laws. Guess she realized that the whole “blame it on the web designer” didn’t work.

  • Peter PdcPic

    I’ve read someone making the excuse shes possibly been hacked.. maybe we should make a list of all these excuses lol

  • V323

    Ohhh she deleted her “statement” finally. Interesting.

    • Guess she realized it cause more harm than good…

    • You can’t fix stupid

      FB removed it.

    • You can’t fix stupid

      And still nothing about the lies about how the photos got onto her page.

  • You can’t fix stupid

    Yet another lie from her. She said that she was taught never to credit artists.
    A direct quote from her “They never tell you to reference” total BS.
    Chloe Johnston (aka The Photographer from Hell aka C Johnston Photography) you are caught lying yet again.
    Why don’t you ever address the lies you told about stealing photos?

    You first blamed the web designer.
    Then you blamed your school for not teaching you.
    What is next blaming your parents for not teaching you to steal?

    • Its the blame and hide game

    • BigAl

      You know it’s odd, because they didn’t really pay much attention to this sort of thing when I was in school, or in Further Education college immediately after that. But I left school in 1980, and there wasn’t a World Wide Web, although the internet had started by then. Oh and we didn’t all have word processors on our personal computers, which was a Sinclair ZX80 if you were luck enough to have one.

      I know for a fact that things have changed significantly since then at Secondary and FE levels. My son (25) and daughter (19) both had specific lessons in copyright, and Plagiarism, and what was and was not allowed at school at the start of their GCSE courses. When they both started in Further Education, most of the first week was again devoted to most of this stuff, copyright, plagiarism and what was and was not acceptable. Of course for students there is a little more freedom, as the UK like the US has always made allowances for educational use of IP. It is stressed though that where the use of others work is allowed that there are strict rules on attribution, that must be adhered to in coursework, and also on not using more of the work than is absolutely needed to make the relevant point. Of course for photo’s using less than the whole can be difficult, as often it is the whole composition that matters. It is also pointed out that the rules outside of education are even more strict.

      I would expect that any AQA course on Photography/Art would have some section on copyright. It is important for those who are not in the UK that AQA as a qualification awarding body do so for courses that are below degree level. Mostly it awards GCSE and A/AS Level awards, alongside vocational qualifications. AQA and I think EdExcel are the two biggest of the examining boards for Secondary/Further Education in the UK, and as such are governed by rules set by the Department for Education, one of the largest departments in the UK government.

      If this young woman has actually got any qualifications from this organisation, then she should be expected to know at least that plagiarism is wrong, and that if it were a vocational qualification in photography that what she was doing was illegal.

    • Dave Cullen

      Having just completed my HND in photography I can assure you, that in order to pass the course you have to reference every single thing and every single photo /photographer. You are told about copyright and not to steal other peoples work….. are you sure you went to school for a “course”? What was the course called? And if ( a BIG IF) you did, what was the name of the school, as they seriously need to be struck off!!

      • You can’t fix stupid

        Apparently she went to AQA.

  • Peter PdcPic

    What I find most annoying, is that Chloe thinks everything is ok now as she claimed now to have won from Paul. She is totally ignoring this issue and blocking everyone who mentions even a word about copyrights. The usual facebooker does not understand copyrights any way and she is playing on that.

    • yessheisstupid

      she never won paul. He served court papers on 2 different addresses as she refused to supply a business trading address, obviously the incorrect address paul had to refund the court costs to chloe johnston. He wont £605 after sending baliffs around to chloes, then he had to refund chloe £155. Chloe didnt win any court case, she applied for judgement set aside

  • U Really That Dumb?

    This needs to go up on every single post here! Especially the copying part!

    She obviously fails to understand that: 1) she DID steal images and then went on the attack; 2) she is the one currently instigating all of the problems.

    http://40.media.tumblr.com/9bbabc1bc94dc2ae2fc02dfd1c70daee/tumblr_o2litzD2Wo1rtoud0o1_500.jpg