Teresa’s Pix in Roselle Park, New Jersey

Website: http://www.teresaspix.com/


Original source


Unknown original source


Original photographer


Original source


Original source


Original photographer


Unknown original source


Original source


Original photographer


Original source


Original source


Original source


Original source


Original source


Original source


Unknown original source


Original source


Original source


Original source


Original source


Original source




Sourced above





  • Celine (peaceetc)


    Welcome to the world of being outed by Photo Stealers (Stop Stealing Photos). It is our goal to root out and put a stop to photography copyright infringement. Your outing is one step towards that goal. You used photos you were not authorized to use, which is illegal. You’re probably confused and angry, so let us try to help you get a handle on things by giving you a checklist of things you should be doing and not doing.

    Please do NOT do the following:

    1. React with anger, go into denial, or start in with the threats. We already have the evidence against you. The best thing you can do for you is to be honest and to deal with this head on.

    2. Flag comments on this listing. The mods will just put them back, so don’t waste your time.

    3. Lie or offer excuses. We have heard every excuse in the book (really, we have. One guy even blamed Obama.), and you will not come up with something we haven’t heard before. You are not a special snowflake. Nothing you can say will justify what you did, so don’t bother.

    4. Accuse us of slander (because nobody ever figures out it has to be verbal to be slander). We stick to the facts, and if something is publicly available, it’s fair game.

    5. Create fake accounts to defend yourself. We will see through it, and it’s just a waste of time.

    Please DO the following:

    1. Remove any and all stolen images immediately. That means now. Right now. And no, simply hiding them from public view doesn’t count. They need to be completely deleted.

    2. Apologize DIRECTLY to those from whom you have stolen (and tell the truth!), and offer monetary compensation. You used their images in a professional setting to try to make money, so you owe them that much.

    3. Hope they don’t sue you. Copyright infringement is illegal under the law, and you can be sued for thousands of dollars, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, for EACH stolen image. Yes, seriously.

    4. Apologize publicly, on all the sites and social media accounts where the stolen work appeared. Again, you owe it to your clients, fans, friends, etc., to be honest.

    5. Learn about how copyright works. Look up the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. What you may think you know and what is actually the truth are probably two different things (as in: no, posting someone else’s photo as “inspiration” is not a valid reason, nor is it good enough to provide credit. If you don’t have express permission to post someone else’s image, then you don’t post it. That’s it, the end).

    6. DON’T STEAL. It’s not complicated — if you didn’t take a photo and don’t have permission to use it from the actual copyright holder, then don’t use it. It’s that simple. Yes, seriously. You claim to be a photographer, so why on earth would you want to use others’ images, anyway? How does that make sense?

    And remember:

    1. If you do it again, you will be caught. We go back and check old listings to make sure they haven’t started stealing again. And don’t forget — Google knows. Anytime someone searched for your business, this listing will come up.

    2. Think about the actual victims here (no, not you) — those whose images you stole. You screwed them over. And frankly, that’s a pretty damned crappy thing to do. And think about the clients you’ve mislead by presenting a false front. They’re victims, too.

    • That newborn image at the top of the post has an overall consumer positive sentiment return of 10:0 across all demographics. I know because we ran it through a focus group battery and survey before it was used in a marketing campaign. The image’s sentiment return is why it is placed in the fist few pages of nearly all stock images websites, and why so many businesses license it’s use for their website — whether photographers or other market-segments. Hi, my name is Dan Hubbard, and I operate Thousand Words Photography found at http://www.ThousandWords.Photo, and I use fully licensed stock imagery. I do so for a variety of reasons, but chiefly it is because our customers own 100% copyright of the images our team captures for them and because national consumer sentiment favors stock imagery as a driver to purchase service. I was ‘warned’ by a competitor the other day that I would soon find our company “exposed” on this site. Well, I like to be proactive and I’m prepared for the onslaught. Before anyone makes the claim that I have ‘stolen’ any image on my website, please note that ALL of the images on our website are fully licensed and two of the stock image copyright owners are part of our national network of photographers. Also, before someone chooses to sarcastically state, ‘your company’s name is real original’, please note that we’re aware there are many companies named identically or similarly, but WE are the only one of them with the U.S.P.T.O. registered trademark for “Thousand Words Photography.” I welcome any comments or questions.

  • Justin Case

    well, magically, the stolen images seem to be disappearing from her website.

    • Celine (peaceetc)

      Well, now, what are the odds of that?

      • Helena

        1/1 when you get caught.

    • You can’t fix stupid

      So quickly too. I am sure they don’t want the drama. Good.

      • Celine (peaceetc)

        I am all for zero drama. That sounds so refreshing.

      • Melinda Potter

        Yes, Thank you so much for promptly taken things down and just being quiet Teresa. Thank you

  • Riv New

    Website down it would appear.

    • Justin Case

      yep. 404.

  • Mason Smith

    Lol. She is a new photographer. When I looked her up on Google the FB like count was 946 and now it’s 1148 when I check the actual page?
    She’s obviously boosting a lot of things, stolen photos aren’t the only fake aspect of her business.
    Ha I mean these photos aren’t even close to the quality of her own. Why would you think that no one would distinguish quality photography, editing, as well as some decent graphic design skills from your content which looks like it came from an iphone?

    • Melinda Potter

      She even cleaned up her Instagram without prompting :). There she claims to also be an architect. I have no idea if that’s true or not, but we know she pretended to be a photographer, so why not pretend further?
      Her “about” on FB …sigh… Knowing what we know now, it just makes you gag. What a bunch of BS

      • GlennMcQuaig

        I’m thinking…

  • GlennMcQuaig

    So many of these nitwits steal the same damn photos. Or at least the same style of photos. Seems we’ve seen these baby pics before.

  • GlennMcQuaig

    Thanks, Dan. Speaking for myself, I think you have no issues whatsoever. I’m not affiliated with this site, other than being a viewer of it to see if any of my images have ever been stolen and to support the photographers whose images have been.

    • Thank you, Glenn!

    • Marc W.

      I do have a problem with using stock images for your creative photography business because it’s pretty much lying to potential customers.

      • Thank you, Marc. We of course do not lie to our customers. We tell them outright and upfront that those are stock images when asked, and nowhere do we claim we captured those images. When our customers login to their unique platform, they are able to view our photographer’s portfolios, which consist of former customer’-approved images; whether they were our customers or not. Everything we do is designed to delight our customers, and that includes veracity and their security. Our value proposition is difficult for many to appreciate, but our customers love it because they know their images will NEVER end-up where they don’t want them because of our doing.

        • Michael Goolsby

          Am I understanding that you only reveal that they are stock images when you are specifically asked? I’ve been in business for 21 years and I’ve NEVER had anyone ask me if any of my images are stock. How often do you find yourself admitting to an inquisitive client that your advertising images are stock?

          • Thank you, Michael.

            So, I had to look at our customer engagement submissions (website forms) and my email. I’ve answered 67 customer questions and 13 contractor questions related to website stock images. Our conversation rate is pretty good though: 28 of those 67 are active customers and 5 of those 13 are new contractors.

  • keca

    I can understand what you are saying here, and I appreciate your honesty and transparency.

    However, while you might think it’s acceptable to use licensed images to advertise your (or affiliates of yours) services, you have to understand that a consumer will see that image and believe that they are receiving the same photographer as the one who took that image. Can you really not see how that is incredibly misleading and borders on false advertising?

    • Thank you, keca. I think my reply to Marc, below (also pasted immediately herein below), touches upon much of your comment. I would add that I understand consumer protection laws — especially those under the FTA — very well, and we in no way violate, or border on violating, them or State(s) or Federal jurisprudence (bench law). Before a customer of ours signs a contract or pays a penny, they have selected their tog from a group of togs, and have seen those togs portfolios (see reply to Marc). Please read our press release to learn how much we understand our current and future customers: http://www.thousandwords.photo/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/First-General-Press-ReleasePDF.pdf

      “Thank you, Marc. We of course do not lie to our customers. We tell them outright and upfront that those are stock images when asked, and nowhere do we claim we captured those images. When our customers login to their unique platform, they are able to view our photographer’s portfolios, which consist of former customer’-approved images; whether they were our customers or not. Everything we do is designed to delight our customers, and that includes veracity and their security. Our value proposition is difficult for many to appreciate, but our customers love it because they know their images will NEVER end-up where they don’t want them because of our doing.”

      • Big Ron

        I understand now why you use stock photos. You turn over the copyrights of your images to your clients, so you’d need their permission (and probably pay them) to show off the images you’ve taken. You’ve kind of strangely hijacked this post possibly I guess to defend the use of stock photos. Legally, if you have the rights to those stock photos, you may be fine. But morally, to some of us anyway, using stock photos as representation of what you do is wrong. Sure, you admit it to those who have the sense to ask, but most people just automatically assume those are your pics — you’re supposed to be a photographer, after all!

        I’m still not sure if you’re actually a photographer or someone just running a website and sending out a stock photographer to do your shoots. If you are a photographer, why not pay your clients (instead of a stock agency) and use your own pictures? I’ve never understood that. By the way, I looked at your website and I honestly just didn’t get it. I really had no sense of who you are, what you do, or how much you cost. I’m not trying to take a cheap shot at you here, just thought I’d give you some feedback while I’m on the subject of your website. It’s definitely different.

        • Thank you, Big Ron.

          So, I am not a photographer, I can barely operate my iPhone camera — I’m on the business side. Callie and her team handle the creative side.

          I greatly appreciate the website feedback, and if you have specifics you’d like to share please do so.

          You’re right, I did hijack this post — but not intentionally — and I apologize for that.

      • captain-confuzzled

        Interesting approach and I can understand protecting customer’s images, however, why not do stylized shoots, or similar so that potential customers can see the quality of the work in their initial interactions with your company? Of course if the stock photos you use are by the photographer who shot them, and are used to advertise their work, or in a stretch, your overall brand, fine. But I am really hard pressed to believe that successful professional photographers cannot produce any work that is suitable for public consumption in order to represent their quality to potential customers. Sure, once you get them in the purchase process and then reveal the truth, they could walk away, but at least you have them sucked in initially, which I’m sure pays off enough of the time for you to justify your selection of marketing practices. While not illegal, I find it deceptive. But you certainly wouldn’t be the first company in the world to *spin* marketing. Thank you for your pro-active post. I now know which photographers to not send my clients to. But I’m sure you don’t need my clients as your customers. Regards.

      • keca

        Surely if your actual photographers have images that are visually similar to these stock photos, you could use those to bring your clients in? Sorry, but this is extremely deceptive despite your double talk about jurisprudence and protection laws.

        I understand that you truly don’t get that, though. Which is a shame, because otherwise you wouldn’t have come here linking your site and services that will now and forever being linked to a photo stealing site.

        As a professional photographer, I am appalled that any photographer agrees to be connected to clients in this way.

        • Thank you, Keca.

          Our value proposition is derived from VOC. That VOC overwhelmingly suggests that customers want more control — over copyright, over price, over everything — and that’s what we give them.

          I don’t mind my site being linked to this site; it’s a nice site!

  • What you doing is wrong ethically and the fact you do not see it is really very sad indeed.
    Would you go to a doctor based on a fact they have a certificate for brain surgery? No … If a client chooses a photographer based on the stock image expecting that level of work and still does not get it then what?
    Whats your answer to that.

    • Thank you, Joseph,

      Earlier I wrote, in-pertinent part, “Before a customer of ours signs a contract or pays a penny, they have selected their tog from a group of togs, and have seen those togs portfolios (see reply to Marc).” And, “When our customers login to their unique platform, they are able to view our photographer’s portfolios, which consist of former customer’-approved images; whether they were our customers or not.”

  • V323

    As a photographer, I realize properly purchasing stock photos is easier; however, to do so is disingenuous to the public, if not downright deceptive.
    If you don’t want to use your actual work in your advertising, portfolio, etc under the guise of “my client don’t want that”, then do the honorable thing, albeit more work, do model calls. Seriously. Do them, use your own work, and don’t rely on someone elses’s vision that you merely purchase on a whim to reflect what you actually do as a photographer.

    • Thank you, V323.

      To be clear, there is ZERO ‘stock imagery’ in any portfolio that a customer bases a purchase decision on. Wait, that’s not technically true, some of our togs do have portfolio images that have been licensed for stock use. Earlier I wrote, in-pertinent part, “Before a customer of ours signs a contract or pays a penny, they have selected their tog from a group of togs, and have seen those togs portfolios (see reply to Marc).” And, “When our customers login to their unique platform, they are able to view our photographer’s portfolios, which consist of former customer’-approved images; whether they were our customers or not.”

      • V323

        If you can spend money on 1 million surveys, you can spend money on creating legitimate images that display your actual work. You don’t need to buy stock. People choosing to get quotes from you are making that choice on stock images. If you’re as big, profitable, etc as you claim, having actual work by any of your photog’s displayed should be so easy & a no brainer.
        Otherwise, it just looks like bait & switch to me. Your stock images are what draws a client to think about hiring you. Even with full disclosure after contact, and a display of portfolios of actual work, it was STOCK images, not real ones that opening that opportunity.
        Come on, your organization can do better than that.

    • Also, see my reply to captain-confuzzled above regards consumer sentiment.

    • Phoxy_Photog

      To Dan – My suggestion would also be to do model calls, specifically for advertising a few shoots for each genre of photography your company offers. You can still give paying clients the option to not have their images publicly published (and just reserved for the private portfolio viewing, if I’m understanding correctly). I think if you use model images, it will give a more solid view of the type of work your company creates. (Sorry, I did read through some of what you wrote but didn’t have time to follow the whole conversation, so I apologize if I misread something).

      Also, I really appreciate the use of proper grammar and not using all caps or a zillion exclamation points. It’s seriously refreshing to have a discussion or debate in a more constructive manner, after the nonsense I’ve been though in the last week due to the thieves (I’m still on a Facebook ban from them reporting me!)

  • captain-confuzzled

    Having looked at your website and press release, I see lots of marketing spin – a million surveys, really? okay, if you say so. And I see a business model that will be very difficult to maintain, but may certainly initially draw in potential customers (that spin thing again). It sets off a whole bunch of warning bells in my head, but good luck with it all. If you can pull it off, more power to you. Anything that is truly customer centric is a good thing in my book. It’s the ‘truly’ part I’m not so sure about here.

    • Thank you, captain.

      The website actually reads, “via over 1 million survey returns and interviews.” If you do not proactively seek VOC, I highly recommend it. I recommend starting with Survey Monkey, Gizmo or Swipe; they are fast and inexpensive. I use Clarabridge – it is the best and yields valuable social media sentiment.

      Our business model is working quite well. But you’re right, it may fail! We’re set up to gauge VOC daily — because we know that consumer sentiment is dynamic — so that we can quickly change when and how we need to.

      • captain-confuzzled

        okee dok, I will then say good luck (truly), happy you gained some SEO here (sigh) and enough said by me to contribute SEO to a company I know nothing about who inserted themselves in another conversation (truly)

  • Wow…I as away for an hour or so…let me read all the posts and i’ll catch up.

  • Celine (peaceetc)

    I have no idea where all of this is coming from, or why you felt the need to defend yourself against something no one was talking about. If you are concerned about being “outed” on here, I would suggest writing to the person who runs this site instead of posting here publicly. As others have said, you’ve now associated yourself with this site, and it could adversely affect your business. But that’s your decision, I suppose.

    So why are you here? You’re quite defensive, and you’ve gone into details no one has asked for. Again, please contact the person who runs this site if you have concerns. Otherwise, you’re just hijacking someone else’s listing for a lot of nothing, as far as I can see.

    • Thank you, Celine.

      As I stated below, “I don’t mind my site being linked to this site; it’s a nice site!” And despite my being beat up a little — which I asked for — I think you’re all nice people.

      My first post explained why I’m here. But, as was pointed out below, I apparently hijacked a post, and again I apologize.

      I do not feel that I’ve been defensive, and I do not feel I’ve gone into any level of inappropriate detail.

    • Jenny M

      I’m late to the party too and was wondering the same thing. Why not just contact the site moderator?

      • captain-confuzzled

        thinking….SEO for a new company

      • GlennMcQuaig

        How does someone who’s never been here know to do that first? He had to start somewhere. I wouldn’t have know to contact the owner directly, and if I did, it would be difficult to do, because there’s not a lot of easy to find instruction on how to do that. It seems easier just to post. If you’re totally unfamiliar with this site it’s tough to figure out what to do or what the rules are.

        • Photo Stealers

          We are currently doing a redesign of the site and it will be a bit easier to figure out.

    • GlennMcQuaig

      Celine, whoa! If he’s being defensive it’s because of the comments from others here. Come on, do you not see the irony in this? The talk went quickly from “not stealing photos” because they clearly are not stealing, neither are they trying to fool customers, to “your business model is crap” and other nasty comments.

      No wonder this site has such a bad reputation for being a freaking “kindergarten sand box” (which is really an insult to children, who actually behave better).

      I agree with outing photo theft and going after those who do so in accordance with reasonable means. But we always seem to sway way off course.

      Just take the man at his word, because a look at their site shows he’s telling the truth. Let it go people, and save the unsavory comments for the real thieves.

      A simple response, directing Dan to Corey’s email would have sufficed. It’s not that easy to find here, either.

      • captain-confuzzled

        I did not say the business model was crap, i said it looked difficult to maintain, an honest and thoughtful answer, not intended to be kindergarten in any way. You added the ‘crap’. Yours is the only kindergarten talk I see happening here. We know nothing in reality about this business. You want to take his word for everything, fine, that some of us don’t, should also be fine. Am I cynical about his motives, yep. But I don’t see anyone calling him names or otherwise insulting him. What I wrote are my honest thoughts, I would not refer people to his company based on what is presented there and said so. That is my right, just as much as it is yours to take him ‘at his word’ Keeping in mind that he came here to engage in some kind of discussion. We didn’t solicit him to the site.

        • I actually appreciate both your responses. I invited this, and I believe that I’m being handled fairer than many of you would like. I’m actually going to wrap this up on my end under Bob23325 in a few minutes.

          • So basically you are telling us both yourself and several other photographers under you actually take images yet you are unable to use any of them on the website. How does that work really

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

      • Photo Stealers


        If you hate it here so much, you don’t have to play in the sandbox. I haven’t been online much today due to life happening, sorry that I wasn’t here to see what was going on. I’m still not quite sure why Dan felt he had to come but he seems to be handling it just fine.

        Again, I don’t have an issue with photographers using stock images for certain things, but when you are using it in your portfolio or in ads for your work, it needs to be YOUR work.

        • Hello, I think it’s you that I owe the apology directly to for having interloped in your blog post. If you’ll allow me to answer a couple more questions, I will not be offended in the least if you tell me leave and delete the string. You have a valuable bunch of folks here, and I have enjoyed it.

        • I have to agree 100% on the last paragraph

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

        • GlennMcQuaig

          Wow, as much as I have also supported this site, I’m surprised at this. I have every right to put my opinion here that people get really out of hand and act like children sometimes. Sometimes. And some are worse than others. If those people can’t stand that fact then they should be the ones to leave, not me.

          I’ve supported you here, I’ve put my money where my mouth is, and I’ve supported you on Facebook. For you to imply that I don’t belong here is both insulting and dead wrong.

          Fact is (and Melinda, it really isn’t hard to find) people sometimes go way overboard with insults and attacks on anyone who disagrees with them. But call them on it and suddenly you are the bad guy! Right.

          Thanks for showing me that my couple of years of support for you have apparently been wasted and unappreciated.

          • Bob23325

            Don’t get butthurt Glenn. Every one is off their game because of the trolls. Just imagine getting e-mails like the one sent from the dumbass at work. I get caught up in the drama too. I think this is a good group of people that have a common goal. We all hate assholes.

          • “Asshole[s]”; maybe that’s a good place for me to chime in. I know your team is going through some tough stuff; I did not know it earlier. I do get the troll thing now, and I think the inside joke as well. Bottom line is that I uninvitedly and untimely added upon that tough stuff. You guys have been great; all of you! You’re clearly an effective team, and any friction or argument between you is not what I would want nor helpful to your effectiveness. Please take out any residual frustration on me; seriously, I hereby indemnify and hold you harmless for any venting, made on this site, for the next two hours, no matter how outrageous. Have fun with it!

          • ALP

            However we feel about your business model, it’s nice to see someone use proper spelling and grammar (seriously bless you!) and not get all twisted up when commenting.

          • Thank you, ALP:-)!!!

            I’m printing your comment, framing several copies, and hanging them on the walls of my Wife’s office, my comptroller’s office, my marketing manager’s office, and will mail one to my Mom.

            My grammar presents a notorious ? as to my education!

          • Melinda Potter

            Oh geez! Yes! Thank you Dan for being intellegent. So refreshing, and so welcome.

          • Melinda Potter

            Bwahahahahaha! Did I just misspell intelligent?! Why yes, yes I did. I just failed the Internet

          • Celine (peaceetc)

            Nope, no venting on you, Dan. I think you meant well with what you’ve written, though I still find it a bit odd. 🙂

          • V323

            Dan, I appreciate your candor & ability to construct a proper sentence. It would have been incredibily easy for you go negative, throw insults, and disappear. Instead, you’ve given me some new insight, and while I still don’t agree about using any stock photos to represent the work, I like that you were willing to listen to different views.
            Now, as to a more important point: do you like movies about Gladiators…

          • Gladiators f****** rock!
            Did you know (dumb question) that the most fierce Greek and Roman empire era gladiators paled in comparison to those from Africa and Asia in the same time frames!

          • V323

            Pssssst: it was a terrible line from the old movie, Airplane. After all the contention today, it struck me as funny to ask. It’s OK, I’m easily amused.

          • Damn, my humor detection meter needs calibration;-)

          • Kimo

            Don’t forget the Gauls.

          • GlennMcQuaig

            Bob, you do realize that saying, “Don’t get butthurt” is a childish, Internet insult, don’t you? 😉 (Yes, it really is)

            I’ll assume you don’t realize that and take your message in the spirit in which I think it was intended.


          • Bob23325

            No insult intended. It’s just that we’ve all been dealing with that catch phrase for 3 months now and I meant it as a friendy poke.

          • GlennMcQuaig

            Yep. I know. Hence the smiley face wink! It’s all good.

          • Paul G.

            I mean, if you have every right to put your opinion here, don’t other people have the same right to put their opinion about what you said? Nobody is saying you don’t belong here, but they are saying if you’re unhappy you don’t have to stay either. I don’t think anyone is getting into personal attack territory, they’re just calling things like they see it. Honestly, this is a pretty civil conversation, it’s not like people are trading insults back and forth. I have to commend Dan for being a good sport about things. Even the people that are expressing doubts about his business are doing so in a pretty civilized manner, maybe their language is a little harsh, but eh, far from anything approaching internet rage levels.

          • GlennMcQuaig

            Paul, I agree with most of what you said. However someone did say I don’t belong here. The site owner. Not I. Those exact words. But telling me I can leave is pretty strong, considering I’m voicing my opinion that it needs to be less harsh. So getting a reply from the owner telling me I am free to leave is exactly what I’m talking about.

          • Photo Stealers

            No, I didn’t tell you you don’t belong here. I said, “If you hate it here so much, you don’t have to play in the sandbox.” in reply to “No wonder this site has such a bad reputation for being a freaking “kindergarten sand box” (which is really an insult to children, who actually behave better).”

          • GlennMcQuaig

            That can easily be construed as telling me to leave as well as telling me I don’t need to participate.

            As I stated, feel free to contact me if you feel the need to discuss this further. You still have my support, despite what you may think.

          • Photo Stealers

            I very much appreciate the support and donations but I don’t check to see who donates before replying. Support doesn’t mean you are able to say whatever you want to me and I’m not going to say something back.

            I try very hard to make sure the comments stay mostly civil. There is stuff that slips through because I don’t have the time to sit in the comments and baby sit it all day but I do what I can to keep things civil. But to say that the commenters here are worse behaved than kindergartners is a bit harsh IMHO. The convo with Dan seemed very civil but to be honest I was busy today and not able to dig much into it.
            I don’t post my email everywhere because then I get messages like the one attached.

          • GlennMcQuaig

            C, can I briefly respond to what you said?

            “Support doesn’t mean you are able to say whatever you want to me and I’m not going to say something back.”

            I never said it did. What it means is I SUPPORT you and this site in every way I can. And nothing else. However, support or not, I’m entitled to the same treatment as anyone else who posts here. And just because I stated a strong opinion, which happens to be backed up by facts (if one reads comments from years of posts) you told me I could just leave. Now, how is that fair treatment? Plus, I didn’t say anything to you. I didn’t direct my comment at you.

            “But to say that the commenters here are worse behaved than kindergartners is a bit harsh IMHO.”

            It’s simply a way to describe bad behavior and childish behavior that goes on here sometimes. To deny that would be at best, disingenuous, and at worst, a lie. It does. But IMO what is more harsh is telling someone to go somewhere else if they don’t like something, rather than try and have a discussion. Simply for stating their opinion, which is done as nauseum here. And no one is told to leave.

            Last point:

            “I don’t post my email everywhere because then I get messages like the one attached.”

            I understand that, to a point. But what happened here was people criticizing Dan because he didn’t simply email you directly about his situation. They gave him grief for posting here. While I agree it hijacked a thread, how was he supposed to know to email you directly? That was the point I was trying to make.
            And as far as email goes, to be frank, in my experience, you are not very responsive. I probably have sent you at a minimum three emails, very in depth, offering my assistance with anything you need for this site. This is over a couple of years ago. You never replied to any of them. I would have put all of this in an email to you if it wasn’t for that fact.

            Now, if you’d care to discuss this any more, please feel free to email me. You should have my email.

          • Melinda Potter

            Glenn, you had me completely understanding right up until this point here. Do you really think Corey needs some over sensitive BS from you right now?
            Do you understand at all how many messages and emails she receives daily from people who need help, or are attempting to offer it. All the repeat information flooding in, and everyone expecting a reply, right along with hate and anger she has to deal with on a daily basis? I don’t. I seriously have no clue, but I sure can imagine. Please don’t serve her up more. Now is not a good time to ask for attention or any sort of kudos, because I doubt the girl has it in her to do so. Give it a rest please

          • GlennMcQuaig

            Melinda, you aren’t aware of the background for this, so your comment is a little off the mark. I won’t bother to go into it, as it will only further derail things. To characterize it as over sensitive is also wrong, based on what you are unaware of. Let’s leave it at that.

          • Celine (peaceetc)

            There are ways to get the email thing accomplished. A simple post on here, asking for the contact information would suffice.

            As for Corey responding, I’m sure she gets a lot of emails, FB messages, etc. I wouldn’t even want to try to keep up with all that stuff. I can’t even keep up with my own stuff, and I don’t have very much.

          • People like that are vile, hateful, and quite possibly dangerous. 🙁

          • Danny Downes

            I think you’re over reacting here Glenn. Corey did not imply that you don’t belong here. She said “If you hate it here so much, you don’t have to play in the sandbox. ” which, in my opinion is a fair comment.

          • Justin Case

            Glenn, no one says you have to leave. But I, for one, think you need to target your criticism a bit more accurately. I agree that some go overboard, (myself included once in awhile) and I have called people out on it (as has Melinda and MANY others) and I have even edited my own comments when I realize they are nasty as opposed to just critical.

            I think your criticism has a lot of merit. As I have said to others who have made similar complaints, I would rather you stay and help keep things focused and civil rather than adding to the noise on your way out.

            Don’t be guilty of the same thing you are saying about others: this site is not about ANY of us, despite what people sometimes think. Stay on the issue, don’t take things too personally, and respectfully disagree or call people out. But please don’t dilute things any more than they already have been lately.

          • GlennMcQuaig

            Thanks. I appreciate the feedback. Fair points.

      • Melinda Potter

        “No wonder this site has such a bad reputation for being a freaking “kindergarten sand box”” I was unaware of this 🙁 sure, I can see the SJK storm of the century making anyone feel that way about the internet as a whole even. We all are still trying to fight, argue and get through to people that just are never going to get it, but otherwise… Really? You know you aren’t the first person to say something like this before. Another person said that they had read numerous blog posts and statements talking about how the photo stealers blog was harming instead of helping and that lot’s of photographers were complaining about it. I’ve searched and searched and haven’t found anything of the sort, but I’ll be the first to admit that it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Kind of makes me sad though

        • Bob23325

          I think a lot of people are on edge because of the Bilcie Shit Show. Being snarky with someone that may have a different perspective through a different segment of the industry should be welcomed. I did raise an eyebrow at a couple of the comments and I can be one of the most brutal people on here when it comes to retaliatory attacks from “fauxtographers”. I appreciated a glimpse into that perspective. JMHO

          • GlennMcQuaig

            I would agree with this as well, Bob.

        • GlennMcQuaig

          Melinda it really isn’t hard to see. It goes back as far as I can see. It isn’t all the time. But there’s plenty of it in most of the sets of comments. Yes, the Billcie thing was crazy, but that was THEM attacking people here.

          The thing I see is that any time someone even suggests toning down the vitriol, they’re attacked and it does become a virtual sandbox.

          I’ve posted far more in support of this site than anything else but any time I’ve mentioned the bad stuff this same thing happens. So what if I called it a kindergarten sandbox? That’s NOTHING compared to the crap others here have written.

          I’m also a photographer. I support the goal of this site. As I mentioned to the owner in her response to me, I’ve put my money where my mouth is in support of this site. How many others have done that? I have exactly the same right as anyone else here to voice my opinion.

          If others don’t like it that’s fine. Disagree. But we have the same goal in here. My opinion is it could be done in a much less nasty way.

          • Melinda Potter

            lol I have to laugh because, when I said I searched and searched, I meant for the blog’s and public statements about how the PS blog was harming instead of helping and photographers were complaining out there in Internet land. You know looking for that bad reputation out there 😉
            Yes, yes it can get pissy here. Especially when the stealers cause an emotional uproar of any sort. We all have to remember we are on the same team.
            I didn’t feel it happened in this case, everyone seemed to stay on topic and disagree/discuss intelligently, but I’m with you that some can get a little too carried away at times.
            I’ve been know to throw out a few “hey now calm down, you’re starting to look like an ass” type comments before, as some DO get… I don’t know the exsact word I’m looking for, but I get embarrassed that people might think I agree or go along with them somehow, or that they may somehow be speaking for me.
            I think when things get heated the best thing to do is set an example by keeping cool and level headed. It’s hard at times but I think it’s important that we all try.
            OY! Bill and Stacie really have us all nerves up, and then the trolling and the horrible e mail Corey got… Bad timing Glenn, please, stick around. Keep contributing. We need more voices, not less

      • Melinda Potter

        Is there any way that YOU would handle things differently, or more effectively?

        • GlennMcQuaig

          Absolutely. I would not allow personal attacks. But that requires heavy moderation and is difficult. I help moderate a large Nikon web Forum and it’s virtually a full time job (as an unpaid volunteer).

          • I dont care for personal attacks …

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

      • Celine (peaceetc)

        I never mentioned his business model, or another else. I truly don’t understand why he didn’t email Corey. I will say I’m not at all a fan of photographers using stock images to advertise, but I didn’t address that, either. I simply find the whole thing rather strange. That’s all.

        • GlennMcQuaig

          Celine, that’s fine. I included more in my message to you than should have been addressed to you. I apologize. Honestly. I hope you can accept that.

          • Celine (peaceetc)

            If you have concerns about how this site and commenting section are run, I suggest you take it up with Corey or one of us mods. I think that’s more productive than doing it here. If you need to know how to reach one of us, please let me know.

          • GlennMcQuaig

            Yes, I’d like to know how to reach you or any of the mods off the forum. Thank you for your advice and feedback.

        • Paul G.

          I’m very confused as well. I don’t even want to call the business model into questioning but like…of all the possible mediums to choose for…advertising(?) why this? This is a comment thread for people who steal photos, this is like, the last place anyone would go if they were trying to learn about a legitimate business. And it can’t be good for SEO to have your company being discussed in a thread like this.

          • I am confused as well he came here as a preempted strike since he thought PS would eventually list him here.
            Sent from a iPhone, please excuse the brevity and typos.

          • “Why this [site]?” That’s a great question!

            Very early and throughout the day, I kept referring similar posts to my first post.

            As it turns out, I was missing a large bit of data, and kept failing to see it. I read your post several times, and it wasn’t until my Wife walked in a moment ago, and said, “Mile in their shoes,” wile pointing to your post, that it clicked.

            You see, we really did seek out and conduct over a million survey returns and interviews — FROM CUSTOMERS or (perspective customers).

            But, I failed! I never sought out or payed much attention to the tog community sentiment. Shame on me, right?

            That’s why this is one of the FIRST places EVERY legitimate tog business should go (Yes, I know. Save the value prop you all hate).

            I won’t make that mistake again! And, l’ll tell others about my positive experience here.

        • Phoxy_Photog

          I believe using stock images in a way the represents that the user is the copyright holder or creator is against the stock image websites’ terms of service. If not, it’s highly unethical- stock images are used to promote things but not to say that the buyer of the license of the image is the copyright holder.

  • Bob23325

    This is a very constructive post… for someone like me that is not a photographer. Just a little better understanding of the photog biz outside of weddings. I can see the need for “stock images” in advertising and I can also see the “tunnel vision” from photographers on this site regarding the use stock images to misrepresent the quality of a photographers work in advertising. I’m in the Virginia Beach area. They spent a butt-load of money on an advertising campaign to bring tourists here. Unfortunately, the advertising company used stock images of Myrtle Beach, SC. That did not go over very well. In my business I tell people that just because someone has a photo of a limo on their Website does not necessarily mean they have that vehicle. If the image is loaded with palm trees or has a mountain in the background the odds are good the vehicle is not in this area. We have a service advertising a Bentley sedan and found all the photos on their Website were taken from Hemmings Motor News. The photos are from a North Miami Beach car dealership. I haven’t seen this vehicle with my own eyes yet… The majority of the photographers on this site are professionals that earn their living taking photos. To have someone lift another photographer’s image or even use a stock image to misrepresent the quality of the work on their Website or advertising are going to get lit up like a Christmas tree here. That misrepresentation forces legitimate photographers to compete with what are essentially frauds. Let’s use Brett & Jizelle in Las Vegas as an example. It was obvious they had never shot a wedding, but they sure did have a lot of wedding photos they lifted off of legitimate photographers. Don’t take offense Dan. These people here are very protective of their industry.

    • Thank you, Bob.

      I obviously do not get the inside joke, but your post gives me an excellent opportunity to close this out from my end.

      Foremost, and again, I apologize for having hijacked an important post. And I mean it when I say that I really like this site and am in no way ashamed of having this conversation, nor do I take any offense.

      Frankly, I feel like everyone is being a little easier on me than they would like; thanks! Moreover, there have been some fantastic comments made here that I have learned from.

      I get the frustration, re, “The majority of the photographers on this site are
      professionals that earn their living taking photos.” Remember – and I know some will disagree – I too run a photography company. We have organic photographers that I have to pay salaries whether they shoot or not, and contractors that I have to keep busy if I want them to continue working with us.

      I get the passion. In an era where anyone can spend a couple thousand dollars and have a tog website and DSLR, I too am driven crazy by the competition when it costs me more than that in payroll every day. I sign requisition requests every day for new equipment. Every time I set up a new contractor I’ve spent $70 of that by time I get their background search back, and if there’s unacceptable info in the
      report, I’m out that money. I too do not like Johnny-come-lately, especially when they are not equals to my photographers or my value proposition.

      But, I think the real argument of opinion here is whether stock imagery is acceptable in marketing versus portfolio, or at all. I think most if not all parties to this post-thread believe that stock imagery is not acceptable, at all, when it comes
      to a photographers website. I just don’t think we’re going to agree on that.

      But, you’ve all given me pause for thought, and I will strongly consider any options that are not in opposition to our value proposition.

      Thank you also for the emails, they were thoughtful.

      And a special thank you for the two brave souls who made contractor submissions:-).

  • Danny Downes

    Hello Dan. I read your press release and I have to say that I found some of the business speak very heavy going.

    • Thank you, Danny.

      You are not the first person to write/say that, and I agree, especially from the B2C perspective.

      Unfortunately, the press release has been reprinted and we’ve given interviews based upon it and so changing it is not possible.

  • Bob23325

    The trolls are up.

    • captain-confuzzled

      what scares me is that I knew exactly what you meant! lol CARRY ON!

    • Danny Downes

      I’d love to see this one when it makes it to Judge Judy. One hell of a case – I can’t wait to see what it is.

    • C Sab

      Lol does he mean like how he had a case against this site? You know, the one that never happened? Lol Silly Bill, you need evidence to win a case, you should know that by now after your last one. We have all the evidence, you thieves have nothing.

      • Kimo

        I think she’s just trying to egg people on. You know, like get them to fight her fight. She’s too afraid to actually engage in the issues, so she gets Billy the boy-clown to fight for her, and tries to enlist others to do her dirty work.

        • C Sab

          Bill’s always prepared to pick a fight with anyone. How else is he supposed to suppress his feelings of inadequacy?

          • Kimo

            He doesn’t try to suppress them, that would imply that he acknowledges them. He is so inadequate, that he can’t even feel inadequate. He just knows something’s not right.

            The one things all their failed ventures and dysfunctional relationships have in common is them. Perhaps it’s time to look at that as a possible source of the failings.

  • Melinda Potter

    I find this very interesting, and not in the “I think you’re crooked kind of way” Just this is very different than anything I’ve seen done before. I have quite a few questions, if you don’t mind?
    So lets say I’m looking to get a family portrait taken. I navigate through your site, and then I’m presented with some photographers to choose from in my area?
    Would I then schedule with the photographer at their studio, or would that also happen through you?
    Would I pay for services not yet rendered, or would I pay the photographer directly? Do they then pay you a finders fee?
    Walk me through what a typical family portrait customer would experience if you would.

    Now I’m a corp of some sort in need of some specific images for a web campaign. Instead of shopping for stock, I want to have my content created for me exclusively. Would I too get directed to a handful of commercial photographers? Do they now bid, on my project or is the price negotiated by you? Again do the photographers get paid directly and in turn pay you a finder’s fee, or…

    I’m also wondering why you don’t list the photographers that work for you. Is this because they do not work with you exclusively?

    I’m also wondering where’s the back door? As in, where is that tab inviting photographers to come check out how the company could work for them?

    Most sites/services like yours that match photographer with client (or visa versa) also use the photographer’s work to advertise their services to the public. Is this something you plan on doing in the future because your business is too young at the moment or something you don’t plan on considering?

    • Thank you, Melinda.

      I hope you don’t mind that I paste your post herein and comment section-by-section.

      “So lets say I’m looking to get a family portrait taken. I navigate through your site, and then I’m presented with some photographers to choose from in my area? Would I then schedule with the photographer at their studio, or would that also happen through you?” – I take your question to be pre-contract signing. So, many togs do not have a brick and mortar site. Three options we recommend: 1) We are partnered with Citrix and have a full suite where the customer and one or more tog can real-time collaborate, share files, etc., but also because Citrix owns Go-to-Meeting(TM), the full collaboration suite adds some functionality to a web-meeting (you can see the portals in the footer of our website); 2) we lease space at a Regus or the like; or, 3) we strike a deal with a local studio. B2B customers usually request we come to them. If it’s a big B2B opportunity, either I or Callie will travel and meet the customer and tog(s) at the customer’s site.

      “Would I pay for services not yet rendered, or would I pay the photographer directly?” – Depending upon the shoot (wedding, products,
      event, etc.) there may be a deposit upon contract signing. Contracts are digitally signed in the Citrix suite, as well as electronic payment.
      All B2B shoots however are invoiced. Even if we do not collect a dep
      from the customer, contract togs get 10% of contract amount to keep their
      interests and commitment to the future shoot.

      “Do they then pay you a finders fee?” – Neither customers nor contractors pay a finder’s fee, nor a subscription, nor a handling fee — nothing like that at all! I cannot attract and keep top-talent contractors or customers like that. Frankly, that would kill wallet-expansion.

      “Walk me through what a typical family portrait customer would experience if you would” – Obviously, this is all individual customer dependent. Ideally the customer would complete the customer engagement inquiry (http://www.thousandwords.photo/?page_id=4369). If they cannot or do not want to, we will have a conversation with them and enter their data manually, which will auto-fill to the Citrix suite. Again, ideally the customer would take advantage of the Citrix suite. We learn what the
      customer wants, if it’s a special occasion, determine location and props, a shoot-site visit may be scheduled, the customer is presented with available togs portfolios, the customer may or may not want to engage the tog directly, a decision is made, the price is set, the contract is executed. After the shoot, the customer is provided a change to look at RAW images in Citrix and make back-end request, the back-end work is done, the edited images go through quality, and they are uploaded to the Citrix suite. The customer can view them after signing for receipt and can take advantage of our no mark-up prints/products or they can download them and have them printed or post them wherever they want.

      “Now I’m a corp of some sort in need of some specific images for a web campaign. Instead of shopping for stock, I want to have my content created for me exclusively. Would I too get directed to a handful of commercial photographers?” – It would depend on the nature of the B2B opportunity. If it’s a big B2B opportunity, either I or Callie will travel and meet the customer and tog(s) at the customer’s site. B2B opportunities may involve a marketing/Ad firm or lawyer(s). The B2B space is a different look every day.

      “Do they now bid, on my project or is the price negotiated by you?” – That’s a really good question, again – B2B is a different look every day. We have a videographer that has been locked up by a client because his talents match so well to their needs. In this instance, it made more
      sense to release the contractor and let him work directly with the customer
      without our involvement. In most instances, we would negotiate the fee with the customer, but in the B2B sphere this would involve conversation with the chosen tog.

      “Again do the photographers get paid directly and in turn pay you a finder’s fee, or…” – Save the example above, we handle all invoicing/billing.

      “I’m also wondering why you don’t list the photographers that work for you. Is this because they do not work with you exclusively?” – This is a topic we’re working through right now. Contractors, especially this early, could leave the team at any time, necessitating frequent website changes. Also, our intermediate goal is 600 contractors. Do I want to pay for building 600 contractor portfolios? Employees are a little different story, but with their own challenges. Further, as you suggest, there are some issues with fiduciary duty and multiple contracts, and we have to find a way to be amicable. If you’d like an update when we make a decision, email me and I’ll keep you in loop.

      “I’m also wondering where’s the back door? As in, where is that tab inviting photographers to come check out how the company could work for them?” – Learning our contractor process starts here: http://www.thousandwords.photo/?page_id=4341

      “Most sites/services like yours that match photographer with client (or visa versa) also use the photographer’s work to advertise their services to the public. Is this something you plan on doing in the future because your business is too young at the moment or something you don’t plan on considering?” – So, all options are on the table, but we MUST make certain we do not violate our own value proposition. We also have to make sure a customers are consistently protected. For instance, I have had 19 togs go through our contracting process up to the background investigation. These togs are four to five star rated togs on national sites who are felons. I can’t send them to my customers. Now, let’s say I build out a portfolio page
      for a contractor, who in-between their quarterly background earns an arrest or conviction, and I don’t know about it. If their portfolio is still on my site, won’t customers hold me accountable?

      • Melinda Potter

        Thank you for the explaination and walk through. I think I have a better understanding now.
        I’m not convinced this will be succussful long term, but I’m no business person either.
        The only comparison I feel I can make is to the hair salon/beauty industry (Yep, little known fact about me. I was a hairstylist for 13 years)
        Youre attempting to be a high end salon (to make up for no print mark up and giving away rights. – the full service) with more of a high volume salon business model. I’ve never seen this work before, And I’m not sure it can. But, good luck to you. And again thank you for being so easy to talk to, and open to our criticism and questions.
        Even though you use stock to sell photography services, and that’s against my way of thinking or code of ethics. I like you, and I wish you well

  • Danny Downes

    The world?

    • Helena

      It’s a troll. *yawn*

      • Danny Downes

        I love trolls but I didn’t realise they could access the Internet from under their bridges. The irony is that this troll came on to this site to complain – so that makes him/her/it a dumb fuck.

        • Kimo

          They have to access from under the bridge, lest the world see what they really are.

  • Helena

    I’m confused. You have a photography business but you give away copyright so your clients can’t see any of your work as an example of skill or style, and they select you based on the use of stock imagery? What if there is a difference in quality? Doesn’t that open you up to lawsuits? I’m genuinely intrigued as to how this works.

    • Thank you, Helena.

      I hope you don’t mind that I answer with an earlier post below. If it does not answer you fully please let me know.

      ‘”To be clear, there is ZERO ‘stock imagery’ in any portfolio that a customer bases a purchase decision on. Wait, that’s not technically true, some of our togs do have portfolio images that have been licensed for stock use. Earlier I wrote, in-pertinent part, “Before a customer of ours signs a contract or pays a penny, they have selected their tog from a group of togs, and have seen those togs portfolios (see reply to Marc).” And, “When our customers login to their unique platform, they are able to view our photographer’s portfolios, which consist of former customer’-approved images; whether they were our customers or not.”‘

      • Helena

        So they see their photographers portfolio prior to booking. If they have permission to display the Images, could they not be used instead?

        • Thank you, Helena.

          Is there any chance that my reply to Melinda, like two post-thread entries below, answers your question?

          If not, let me know ad I’ll do a better job.

  • Bob23325

    Very good points Mark. I’ve seen a couple posts on this thread that has me raising an eyebrow too. As for your claim that FB shut down the PS page…. Wrong! The person that runs this site and the FB page took that one down because of trolls. Anyone that comments here or on that FB site have been targeted in one of the most jaw-dropping cyber-bullying campaigns of stupidity I have ever seen. Take a look at the blog post before this one… There is enough documentation there to show you it was her decision, not Facebooks.

  • Photo Stealers

    I shut down the Facebook Page.

    • Bob23325

      Pretty scary when I represent the voice of reason, huh? LMAO

  • Again you have no need to use stock photography ….
    2 no photographer worth their salt would EVER give they copyright away ..

    • Bob23325

      You’re missing what the advertising world needs and that’s what this guy does. If someone wants to sell their copyright for a few bucks that’s their choice. If someone takes a photo of a crowded beach here and sells it to someone that is doing a “come to Virginia Beach” ad campaign that doesn’t affect anyone here. Now if they take one of this guys stock photos and slaps their watermark on it in an effort to pass it off as their own work that is something he would probably appreciate where the heartach is coming from. Just my opinion…

      • Melinda Potter

        “You’re missing what the advertising world needs and that’s what this guy does”. And the people that work for him are able to create it

        • Thank you, Melinda.

          Well, I’ve interloped so much today, what’s more time?
          Yes, my people can create an experience that fills the void between what is available and what is needed; no matter where the customer is.

          Have you, or has anyone else following, wanted to contact or close a deal with a prospective customer and convey that you have all the resources to make them happy (time, additional people, money, a 25K lens (Zeiss — f—— nice, right), a model, a location, a bond, etc.

          Well, as much as some may disagree with me, that’s part of what I do.

          I make it easy for you — and all my contractors — to say, “Yeah, that’s no problem.”

          There’s a happy medium between “You disgust me” and “I still hate you, but thanks.”

          • Dan I dont hate you and I understand you business model… I do I really do. You still honestly have no rhyme or reason to use stock images to populate your website.
            With all the money you make and all the contracts and photographers you say you employ there is no way you can say that it is not possible to actually use the images that they create to attract clients.
            Well unless the images that your photographers create are not up to the same level as the stock images you purchase.

            Hey I get it … the pretty stock images you show get the clients in the door then after that you show them the work of your photographers that are passable just enough to hook the deal.
            Well that’s how I look at it I can be wrong but without seeing actual work from those photographers you claim I have no choice but to lean toward my conclusion.

          • Hey Joseph, thank you, Man, I love your posts — they’re real and that’s rare.

            I have spent some time answering Melinda and Helena herein. Please read those strings before you pass full judgement. If I’ve missed something, let me know and i’ll correct it.

          • I will do that..

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

  • Going deeper … Any photographer giving their copyright 100% away for a few measly bucks need to reevaluate why they are a photographer in the first place.
    I would say they an idiot more of an uneducated fool.

    • Thank you, Joseph — I like your posts!

      I was going to wait to get to your posts in a few minutes, but this one is important, and I will be defensive here, because you have no information to support the claim, “few measly bucks.”

      I pay my employee 1st shooter togs 75k min, plus COLA if they are in a high-cost metro area, w/ benefits, plus bonus, plus education/COE, plus vehicle, plus all their membership fees, and I buy all their equipment.

      I pay my contractors 60% of contract, plus travel, plus finders, plus wallet-expansion bonus, plus COE and/or trade shows, plus a technology fee when appropriate. I handle all contracts, all merchant fees, and all technology costs. I have deal in place with CNA for contractor insurance at low cost, and I let them take advantage of our no mark-up printing/product for their independent customers.

      Hell, I pay budding contract assistants on shoots, because they are not building much of a portfolio.

      I have a contractor that came on board on April 3 that is booked for over 67k through Q2 ’16 — just my company! He’ll make six figures easy by Q4 ’15 with his other work.

      Did I mention that NONE of my contractors are required to do any back-end work? We pay other contractors to do all editing and other contractors to do QA/QC work.

      Do you honestly consider any of that “measly?”

      • Peter Kelly

        Pardon me for being so skepical, but I simply don’t believe you.

        Those figures just don’t make sense as to how the photographic market has changed over recent years. News outlets have virtually disbanded their staff photography because every man and his dog is prepared to send in any picture/video they’ve grabbed just for a bit of kudos.

        As evidenced by this site, every ‘wannabe’ who gets a camera these days thinks they can do wedding photography and will happily charge $300 all in!

        And given the availability of quality from even fairly ordinary cameras, plus people’s preference for social media, the market for portraits and such is far less than it ever was.

        There will be the very isolated case of a photographer that can make a lot of money, but they are household names.

        So, what am I missing about your business model that can produce such a vast turnover?

        • Thank you, Peter.

          As I stated somewhere in here, I am not a photographer.

          I do not approach starting or running any business from the mindset of a particular profession or skill set because that’s usually a recipe for failure. Rather, I approach as a businessman.

          Two years ago, Callie said, you know — I have degrees in marketing and photography, I’ve been shooting for other’s fiscal gain for years now, let’s do something more with it.

          I said ok, and proceeded with a full tenX; market segmentation and prioritization, submarkets, etc. then I did a full map and SWOT and an initial value proposition.

          That’s when the surveys and social sentiment VOC extraction sprints began. After each sprint, another SWOT and value prop revisal.

          132 sprints from 2013 to Mar 26 2015. We went live on April 1, 2015 with a full boat of customers.

          What did I learn from those sprints? Customers want more control and security, they want zero boundaries, and there are more customers than the photography market realizes!

          As our website lays out we listened to them! We give them full copyright, we do not markup on prints or products, we give them RAW control and they webchat live with their editor, they can pay us in cryptocurrency, we contract faster, we only use top-talent that have back ground investigations.

          How many of you have done “a day in your life” shoot? Or set up micros at a funeral for video and stills capture? Or placed video contact lenses in a bride and grooms eyes? Who is NOT using drones? You have to, customers love them and drone stills give vantage point you many times can’t get otherwise.

          You hint that people can do a lot themselves, and you’re right! That’s why we do more and see zero boundaries!

          Somewhere in here there’s a post where I state I too am frustrated by wannabes, but you can use them to your benefit. Do you know how many customers are familiar with the difference between a f4-5.6 and 1.8, or a Mark II/III versus the Sams Club Rebel package, or just $9.99/mo Adobe versus Adobe and thousand$$$ in add-ons and plugins.?. Customers are smarter than most business give them credit for.

          You use the term “turnover”; that’s a bad word. I think you meant volume. The answer is above.

          • Peter Kelly

            Thank you for answering, but it merely confirms my initial impression for me. The claims you make are fanciful, to say the least, and some display a complete lack of knowledge.

            There are no commercially available contact lens cameras yet and you need a fully fledged licence for a drone, which cost a considerable sum and time to obtain.

            You must have met a whole raft of different customers to me, as most I know just want a photographer to go about their business and hand over stunning pictures with as little input as possible.

            Plus, if you suggest there are these many thousands of opportunities, why are there so many photographers pitching for them and getting so little work?

            Your claims do not add up.

            If you are so confident, how many photographers and videographers do you employ? What value of orders do you turn over in 12 months?

          • Thank you, Peter.

            You see many boundaries!

            You went online and did a surface web search for camera contact lens — probably only in English — saw the recent news from Google and concluded that Google invented THE smart contact lens, read further: “Google has invented [A] new smart contact lens with an integrated camera. [emphasis added].” The base technology was developed in 2008 at Sandia and Livermoore, together with MIT, and the Google patent was actually filed on September 16, 2013, and you can go online right now and purchase camera contact lenses, not from Google. You see boundaries!

            You went online and did a surface web search about drones and read recent FFA news about drone licensing in Real Estate tog and are now convinced that drone laws are not state-by-state and municipal. See: http://www.drone-laws.com. You’re now wanting to write, but federal law reads that I cannot charge for drone use. Are you certain? Can you not think of some legal ways to profit from drone use? You see boundaries!

            I’ve put enough information on this site and on my website, that if any tog reading wanted to use a tenth of it in their value proposition, they would see tangible fiscal results. I happen to know some that are, and I will help them. You see boundaries!

            The website, a little dated, reads 137 togs– i’ll updated it later today to reflect 164.

            “…value of orders..?” You’re asking me to tell you my revenues? Yeah, no.

          • Peter Kelly

            Complete tosh! Otherwise details of the supplier of contact lens cameras, please?

          • What exactly do feel is nonsense? About my last post. It’s easy to sling insults by being real vague about the root of your insults. I give specifics, you give some!

          • Peter Kelly

            I’m not putting on a ‘tough guy attitude’, but I believe you are either an idiot, a fraud, or both.

            First, you said you paid employees 75k and when I asked how many employees you replied with 164. My reply is simple maths and doesn’t even include all the other sums you mentioned.

            If you buy the kit needed, as you claim, you’re looking at $1 million for capital outlay too!

            I also asked for a direct link to where contact lens cameras can be obtained, but you ignored that.

            You think that $12.3 million is not an astonishing number, despite the fact that other than entities like Getty Images there won’t be any photographic business that comes close.

            For some reason you seem to be making bizarre assumptions about my life (you don’t even bother to check that I’m in the UK, which is why I’m well aware of limitations here regarding drones).

            There is nothing you have said that sounds remotely based in reality and you have provided no proof whatsoever..Indeed, much of it is entirely contradictory as you claimed to have a degree in photography but are not a ‘tog’. So which is it?

          • Peter Kelly

            Ooh look, Mr. Hubbard disappeared from here without a trace!

            Perhaps he finally realised that those who are not stupid enough to fall for his hollow sales pitch were pointing out the obvious flaws to the whole world and it might just not have the desired effect on his potential ‘clientele’.

          • Peter, try reading and drop the tough-guy attitude.

            Literally no one that was part of the conversation yesterday is confused that the tog count is employees and contractors. It is written throughout this post.

            I do think it’s weird that see 12.3m as such a large number.

            Let me guess — based on all your other comments — you made well less than six figures in tog work in ’14, and a number like 12.3m is impossible for you to imagine for life time tog work.

          • MPR1776

            Three red flags for me, the website mentioned here still has test pages showing up, means it is fairly newly built or someone doesn’t know how to make those not show up on searches. Second website listed on the first, uses the same exact images as the first, is fairly newly built, has a tab for partners but doesn’t list any, third website mentioned on the first website isn’t even completed yet….(fairly new to me is 2014-2015) LinkedIn is 2015, FB is 2015 for second site mentioned. Kind of reminds me of Brett and his many businesses.

          • Thank you, MPR1776.

            Well, there is an April 1, 2015, press release.

            Nothing new to the conversation herein.

          • Penmar

            No, the base technology started in 2005 with Professor Babak Parvis out of the University of Washington, he was an engineer.

          • Thank you, Penmar.

            Babak is an engineer. And he was instrumental in advancing middle-ware and integration of his own ideas and ideas in patents from as early as 1994. He was brought to Google to work on wearables and is now at Amazon. But, the “base technology” — being that which makes the ‘thing’ work, is in-fact not his doing.

          • Penmar
  • Bob23325

    I was out working on one of the limos and I had to come back in. I am so on edge with trolls…. Did anyone else have a flashback that Mark Gorska sounded like Bill and Misty Feelerson sounded like Stacie? SMH a lot lately… CARRY ON!!!!

  • Melinda Potter

    She took down the infringed photos. Cleaned up her entire online presence. She didn’t kick and scream and fight. She didn’t refuse to remove the stolen work. She didn’t deny, or insult. In fact she said nothing, unless she has been in contact with the original artists behind the scenes to make amends with them. That would be why there was no back and forth at all. Minimal comments (minus Dan’s inquiry). But, some aren’t as kind and/or as willing to make things right as she is. Some go on the attack. That’s when things can get a little heated/testy. The SJK listing is far from the norm that happens here

  • Melinda Potter

    I’m not going to try to explain how so very wrong it is for a photographer not to use their own work to market with. That should be a given. but “I read many comments on other posts and it is straight Bullying”. or is bullying when someone steals your content, you ask for them to take it down, and they refuse. Or maybe refuse and throw in some insults and threats, and a “There’s nothing you can do about it!” or two. What we say here isn’t bullying, it’s standing up to a bully. If you can’t see that, could you please explain why?

  • Justin Case

    Take your own advice and use your time somewhere else. You are doing nothing but trying to stir things up, I know you didn’t really read the other posts or you wouldn’t use such pathetic arguments. No one who actually reads the comments can miss the truth of the real issues you have chosen to be so cavalier about.

  • V323

    The world = Stacie. Not really the world, knowwhatImean?

  • Lorne Chesal

    While this post didn’t start out as being about using stock imagery, it has morphed into just that.

    I have 2 thoughts. One… a restaurant in town promotes their menu as being “of the freshest local ingredients, lovingly prepared by our own executive chef and his team, who all attended the finest… ” and so on.

    IMO, clients and compettitors have an reasonable expectation that each and every item on the menu was made on site by that team or their staff. Not explicitly stated, but certainly inferred and expected. In this case, semantics should not “win”

    If it’s discovered that the entire dessert line comes from a white-label bakery/patisserie from upstate, I think it’s reasonable for their to be some blow back. Guests may/will vote with their dollar and just go elsewhere. Their choice. Maybe a story hits the local paper. Competitors will weigh in. Some will be smart enough to create signage that overtly assures guests what is “made here” and “by whom”, thus turning the focus positive.

    So, that’s my 2nd thought. Maybe photographers, and creators of content, should borrow a bit from the politicians. Although I believe they were driven to this by legislation.

    Attached to each piece of marketing.. “My name is , and I created the images/content/music/drawing you see here ”

    No finger pointing… no ,”ask your groupon guy if he did..” etc. Raise the bar and make everyone else rise to it.

  • Penmar

    Let me give you some insight, that it just isn’t about a few pics here and there that didn’t belong to the photographer, just some stock photos. I have a friend who had pictures of her first grandson taken by someone who never gave her the images, a person who used images (I am not sure if they were stock or taken from other photographers) to promote herself as a photographer, two years later, my friend is still trying to get those images, memories of her grandson that she will never, ever be able to get back. So no, it is not just about using some stock photos on your website, it’s about the people who images are used to scam people out of money, whether it be senior pics, newborns, kids, weddings or whatever. Do I have too much time on my hands? Perhaps, but it is to my benefit and it definitely enriches my life if someone sees or reads about this page before they scam someone else out of money and irreplaceable memories and thinks better of becoming one of the entries here by not using images they didn’t take to take advantage of people.

  • Penmar

    I just have one question, if your company is that good, that well known, that well thought of, so sought after, why on earth would you not use the images your photographers have created to promote yourself as unique, amazing and the most fantastic group of photographers available to anyone to promote yourself instead of stock images available to any photographer on the planet?

    • I had a great time yesterday.

      Part of the reason is that people involved actually read ALL the posts.

      They didn’t read one or few and then fire off a miss-aimed shot.

      They did the work and read.

      You should now read.

      • Celine (peaceetc)

        Dan, please be civil. She asked a question which didn’t warrant a snarky answer. Thank you.

      • Penmar

        I will take that as a no comment on my question. And I guess the part about ‘welcoming all comments or questions’ was just rhetorical.

        • Celine (peaceetc)

          His comment was out of line.

          Dan, again, please be civil here. If you can’t do that, then I would consider this conversation over. Thank you.

          • Thank you, Celine.

            Quite right, I have no excuse for forgetting my manners.

        • Thank you, Penmar.

          And I do apologize.

          But, I’m afraid I must insist that you kindly review the entire discussion from yesterday.

          Afterwards, I will answer your questions as you ask them.

          • Penmar

            I did read them, if you are talking about giving away copyrights and only showing those images to potential clients that are allowed by current or former clients. Here is my point, as my dad always drummed into my head, common sense, the gold mine is not in stock images that just everyone can use on multiple sites, hundreds of thousands of times and not just on photography sites. But these are also used on dental, medical, corporate sites, mom and pop sites, Ad nauseam. The more you have of the same product, the less valuable it becomes.

            A photographer, by trade, is evaluated on his images, not stock images and if out of 100 of your clients only two allow the photographer to use an image or two for his portfolio, he either has to go out and do stuff outside of working as a contractor for you to fill this out, in which case you can not claim those as happy clients or he simply shows his few images to your potential clients as what he is capable of doing. So to give over all rights to the images to the clients seems counter productive to me to say the least and does not really allow for your company to compete with those who offer more in terms of how their images can meet the potential clients needs or wants.

            So again I ask, if your company is so wonderful, the photographers so amazing, why are you hiding their light under a web of secrecy or in your case a veil of stock photos, so to speak?

          • I agree with you 510% not a typo.
            Thing is Dan is not a photographer so he will never get it

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

          • I have to know. Why that percentage?

          • The percentage is due to the mantra you will always here when use stock images. While I under what you doing and how you are doing it …. Ahhh hell forget it you will stay clueless
            Sent from a iPhone, please excuse the brevity and typos.

          • Thank you, Penmar.

            Do you remember reading about our customers choosing their tog from togs portfolios’? That’s in here in several places.

            An individual photographer is evaluated in-part on his/her images, and their appearance, their equipment, their contracting, their appreciation of all other things than artistry. But a photography company is evaluated — primarily — by the value proposition they present to B2B and B2C customers.

            “The more you have of the same product, the less valuable it becomes.” Great statement, and I agree! We are the only company providing this value proposition to customers, and they love us.

            You wrote of competing — i’m not. The only sure way to win a war is not to fight one by setting a bar to conflict so high that there’s no point to waging war.

            I also set my bar high enough to attract customers and reward them, to wit:

            1) Customers own copyright;
            2) Customers have creative control (e.g. never hearing no, live participation in editing);
            3) Customers never pay mark-up for prints and products;
            4) ALL togs (employees and contractors) have initial and quarterly background screenings – I have gone through numerous background investigations for contractors (highly rated and reviewed on all the well known sites) that have felony convictions for some really scary crimes;
            5) We put powerful technology in our customers hands;
            6) All of our contracting and payments is fast, secure and digital;
            7) Togs do not control back-end work. We have separate editors and QC staff;
            8) Zero rescheduling fee;
            9) No cancellation fee;
            10) And on, and on, and on…

            Somebody used the term here yesterday, “no brainer”. I love that because my people hear me say often in response to a proposal, “What’s the no-brainer ROI?” Customers think that way, whether B2B or B2C — they’re smart and they want more.

            Joesph is right, as I pointed out numerously yesterday, I am not a tog.

            I am in business to make money. The best way to do that is by taking better care of your customer than your competition can or will. That’s the core of our value proposition , and that’s why we are winning while delivering and delighting with superior product.

          • MPR1776

            #1 – Stumped, Would never do this and I am not even a professional photographer. Why? Because the client can then sell my image to any company/person, for any reason, for any amount and I get nothing for my work other than the initial payment. If someone steals my image I have no recourse because I no longer own the copyright.
            #2 – all customers have creative control or they won’t be your customer for long and never telling a customer ‘no’ despite the fact they may be asking you to do something illegal or dangerous is not the most sensible thing to do.
            #3 – Acceptable, under certain conditions, for example, I want 10 huge canvas prints, cost of this would be in the hundreds/thousands, this cost should be in addition to the cost of the shoot. They want a package like we used to get for our school pics, acceptable to include this in the price of the shoot.
            #4 – If I do my homework, talk to friends, people I know (word of mouth is still the best way to advertise, stats show this), ask who they have used in the past, check the bbb and other review sites, like Angie’s list I should be ok.
            #5 – Is that the drones? And do the clients control them or the photographers, because your statement sounds like the clients get to play. Google Glasses? Not very good reviews on those. Black Magic? Hasselblads?
            #6 – Simple enough to set up, I have done so on several websites I’ve built.
            #7 – So in other words, photographers just click the shutter, the other staff actually decides how the final product will look, I am too much of a control freak to give up my post processing.
            #8 – Fine until it happens a 100 times 2 mins before the shoot and your photographers have wasted all that time setting up not to mention traveling to and fro.
            #9 – See #8
            #10 – This part really scares me

          • Everything about his model scares me and sets the industry backwards in my opioion
            Sent from a iPhone, please excuse the brevity and typos.

          • keca

            I couldn’t agree more. It’s actually making me sick to my stomach that some big wig wannabe is pushing the notion that photographers don’t create their art. I just can’t think of words strong enough to address how misguided and downright ignorant that statement is. I’ll definitely be sharing this with the photog groups I am a part of that also have some of the major players in the industry as active group members.

          • Thank you, keca.

            Please do that.

          • captain-confuzzled

            Dan, this is looking more and more like a misguided marketing and/or baiting exercise on your part. It may well backfire on you. But hey, its your dime.

          • Thank you, MPR1776.

            #1 – We discuss our press release in this post that covers this well. The gist is — and I know this will aggravate many — togs do not create, they capture! Customers feel that way; it’s irrelevant how togs feel;
            #2 – See #1;
            #3 – Let’s be clear, were talking about “mark-up”. Read our value prop as to the national average of over 700% mark-up for an 8″x10″. We charge Zero mark-up;
            #4 – We love Angie’s List!!! We’re moving away from all the tog listing sites like theKnot, etc.
            #5 – Drones, streaming, FGs, data-analytics, etc. (please everyone start thinking B2B AND B2C);
            #6 – Yes, I agree it is simple — from a business perspective. But we’re not talking about paypal or some other silly platform and some widget code. Citix’ Podio, ShareFile, RightSig, etc. A fully integrated suite of products providing ultimate and optimum Ux/UI with Bank-level AES suite-wide. Still easy thought;
            #7 – You missed the memo. Customers care about their control, not yours. They decide with their dollars;
            #8 & #9 – Life happens and Customers expect businesses to understand. If you’re set up well, this is not an issue; and,
            #10 – Doesn’t deserve a response.

          • MPR1776

            Actually customers don’t care so much about control as long as you get the results they want. Woocommerce does all the bank level AES and other stuff, suite wide. And you are using wordpress for your websites in spite of the appearance because your pages tell me you are. And photographers do create and they create quite beautifully if they know what they are doing. But YOU don’t want them to create because then they might start asking for more $$ or go out on their own making more $$. As for #5 you sound as though you are trying to be all things to all people all at the same time.
            #8 and #9, you most certainly will find this to be an issue if you have to pay people despite not receiving any income for the job. You did say you were in business to make money.

          • Thank you, MPR1776.

            Wow! Please, put your last statement on your website — no matter your industry. Customers do care about control. I have the data, and get the data daily — you do not, but you should.

            WooCommerce is not 128/256 AES, and does not integrate well. It’s a basic package bundle product.

            Yes, it is a WordPress theme; anyone who can press F12 can see that. Point?

            No, togs do not create, they capture. Period, end of story, there is no argument. Please walk up to a product developer, or a restaurant owner or a bride and tell them YOU are going to create an image that centers upon their IP, their food, or their face.

            Customer’s deserve the respect and efforts that their dollars dictate.

          • keca

            Unbelievable. Tell me, would you say that to one of the photographers who is stupid enough to actually work with you?

          • He must lol

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

          • MPR1776

            Ok, well, let me see here, I ran a business, customer oriented, not photography, but managed to do so well enough to retire at age 51, with no debt and no need to work again, unless I choose to do so. And I did so by giving my customers what they wanted, not by giving them complete control over me or my business. Oh and btw, the photographer creates the image the customer wants with how she/he lights the product or person, he/she does not just push the shutter button.

          • captain-confuzzled

            If ‘togs’ only capture then you don’t need anyone who has any qualifications, so why the heck are you paying them $75k as you say. Lots of money for someone who just captures (presses the button). You are talking out of both sides of your mouth and it is ridiculous to hear. While I am angry enough at your words to pop a comment in here, I won’t engage any further as others have already said what is important and you clearly are not listening, or if you are, your arrogance prevents you from actually hearing what is being said. If your business model works for you great. Thankfully, there are people in the world who value creativity and artistry, they just aren’t your customers. You are building on photography as a commodity. Quantity over quality is a fine business model, but don’t equate it to Professional photography. You will have to take shortcuts somewhere. Letting the customer be in charge is a great idea! Don’t you think if it was that simple, the service providers who are professional photographers trying to build a life career would have simply adopted that model. Your websites claim that you are ‘disruptive’. I would agree with that. And it sounds romantic in the way you try to portray it. We’ll see what happens. I have no issues with you succeeding, if, in fact you do. I just wouldn’t come here on this particular forum with your arrogance and expect a warm reception. You started out with the charm bit. I was leery then, I am more leery now that I know more about your businesses. I’d say good luck but you have indicated that you have already succeeded and don’t need anything from us. Go away. Your veiled insults are not welcome here. By the way I have seen some of your photographers’ work. It isn’t all that hard to find. Some are quite nice, some quite amateurish. Since you are as you say, not a photographer, how in the world will you judge the value for your clients? What a wasted conversation this has been. I will be more selective in the future.

          • Kimo

            Unfortunately, society sees photographers as button pushers. This is inspired, in part, by the wannabes with a new SLR suddenly becoming “pro.” Society now thinks anyone can do.

            Another part is the old artists; painters, writes, etc. who viewed photography as less of an art because it used technology. Ayn Rand famously stated that photography was not art because it involved no creative process. Many other big names felt the same and received attention for it.

            It seems this business model plays on that sentiment. They take the public perception that photographers push buttons, and twist it up a little, then BAM, a new business. It degrades all photographers, even the old pioneers of photography, by creating the illusion that photography isn’t artistic or creative. One only has to read anything by Scott Kelby or Ansel Adams to know this isn’t true.

          • Celine (peaceetc)

            All right, Dan, that’s enough. Please stop now. Move on.

          • MPR1776

            I will no longer engage with them (pun intended), you are right not the place for this conversation.

          • MPR1776

            Sorry, could absolutely not resist one last rebuttal, but promise to just sit on my hands.

          • LoLTonelica

            Anyone else have a HUGE issue with the last part of #1? It’s more than unpopular opinion, it’s plain wrong.
            The hours spent planning a shoot, especially a conceptual one, is time spent CREATING. Posing the subject, controlling the light, composing the whole shot… That is creating.
            I am sorry, but the disregard for the creative aspect of this medium inspires little faith.

          • Thank you, LOL.

            Not trying to inspire faith.

            As has been covered herein, I’m not a Tog. But plenty of research has provided me a few insights, to wit;

            You don’t pose a subject — you may position one, or you may arrange a product and it’s surroundings, you may even suggest that a bride or child, or group do or not do something that enables you to capture an image. But you’re not creating the beauty, nor the complexity, nor the emotion captured;

            You do not control light — unless you’re God; are you God? You use, or don’t, available light and all other interference sources;

            “…disregard for the creative aspect of this medium.” That’s the thought process that customers do not get (and they don’t want to) and that makes artists poor.

          • LoLTonelica

            Sir, with all due respect, I think you’re done here.
            You have shown distinct and unapologetic disregard and disrespect for the professional photography community at large.

            It’s very disappointing you don’t, actually, no, won’t see the value in what we do.

          • Thank you, LoL.

            But I do (see value)! And so do customers. But they want to be placed first; absolutely first.

            Those of you who were party to this conversation yesterday know that my wife is a tog. Remember? Take stock of how mad you are right now; multiply it. Do you not think I have been through all of this before?

            Our value proposition has not been easy. Customers are at first confused because its more than they ever thought they’d get. Togs hate us [me] because we remove most of their control and return it to the customer. Competitor companies hate us [me] because they see the writing on the wall.

            I am not saying that togs shouldn’t be appreciate, even heralded, but the customer must come first — in all aspects.

          • Celine (peaceetc)

            Dan, I think this has been discussed enough. Please give it a rest. Thank you.

            Oh, and FYI — you might curry more favor if you don’t call photographers “togs.” It’s not exactly endearing.

          • Seriously?
            I though that was endearing, or at least pH balanced.
            Thanks for the learning point.

          • MPR1776

            I can and do control light and I am not God, all that expensive, top of the line technology you say you offer your clients includes softboxes, strobes, scrims, beauty dishes, barn doors, reflectors, broncolor, einstein, and many more, all of those things are used to control light by the photographer that knows how to use said equipment. And yes, we are creating the beauty when posing and positioning, it’s called Composition.

          • BigAl

            God you are talking a whole load of shit here aren’t you? It’s a shame you don’t seem to have one creative bone in your body! It’s fuckwits like you that are degrading the creative arts, especially now it’s digital and so much cheaper to produce, now you don’t need to pay for ongoing materials. I really hope your dumb ass business proposition fails, it really deserves to.

          • Melinda Potter

            I can’t see it actually working as it has been explained to us.

          • Melinda Potter

            Ut oh! A site/service that I may or may not have referred to earlier (I don’t remember if I said it out loud or not) as being similar to yours with the only differences being that the photographers bid on jobs presented, a fee is paid to be a contractor, and no stock is used to promote unless it was created by the company or by a photographer contracted through them. Yes, the photographers sign away copyright, and the whole “you as our customer are in complete control” bit. Even more similar verbiage is used to sell their service as well… I would love to link them to you here, but For some reason I didn’t bookmark them for future reference. (Gee… I wonder why?). If I remember right they used “pic” or maybe “pix” in their name? It was something cute and clever like that) and Im sure they are plenty more sites such as this popping up as well. At least this glorified real estate to photographer match up site that I speak of, also tries to market to their talent and spin quite a bit to make the deal seem sweeter. Things like showing super fun creative job requests, showing top contracted photographer’s earnings through the site, beautiful imagery created by the photographers that have joined the service, while keeping the lower rated, yet to be hired photographers, and the ho hum real estate photos, out of view (only show the really great real estate photos. The fancy expensive properties), some paid testimonials etc. This is something you might want to consider doing as well as losing the stock photos. Working on the back door a little. There’s a lot of money to be made off of photographers. Dare I say, even more money to be made from them than by them. Might want to learn and use that photographer’s speak at least. Charm those darn togs! Just a thought

          • V323

            What really bothered my was the verbiage, supposedly taken from the surveys, that inherently diminish & dismiss the value of photography. Apparently we’re all just drones that can press a button like every other, so why should a client pay more for prints, copyrights etc. I’m sure there are equally degrading insults made about the value of marketing, but I’m also sure the marketer here doesn’t care, it isn’t his profession allowed to be devalued via a survey.

  • Emilee

    LOL at using one of the most popular newborn photographer’s in the WORLDs image. Smart move. If you’re gonna steal, steal a Lambo.

  • Phoxy_Photog

    We do make images. Our own. Very regularly.

  • Phoxy_Photog

    By coming here, and supporting what this website stands for, is us working professional photographers standing up for the integrity of our industry. Being new doesn’t excuse purposely taking images someone else shot and using them in a way that purports that YOU took them. It’s false advertising, besides theft. Could this new photographer produce images for clients that are similar in style and quality as the ones she stole? I doubt it. New photographers have a lot to learn yet. And, regardless of selling printed products, it is against the Copyright Act. Sharing pictures on social media doesn’t mean we are pretending we took the images. And kids using pictures for a school project falls under “fair use” as there is no intent to profit or advertise anything with them. Google does not own our images.