Apparently this photographer submitted a photo for critique from her peers. When looking at her Facebook page they realized not only were some newborn poses extremely scary and dangerous but also that some of her images were stolen.
In addition to the thieving, she’s also posed newborns on the middle of the street and on railroad tracks. NEVER do this.
The first image that caught my eye as being stolen:
A group of photographers had this wedding company catch their eye when they noticed their Daily Deal for a wedding photography package for $450. Yes, you read that price correctly. Then upon closer inspection they realized that some images were TOO good and it turns out they were, in fact, not OWE’s photos.
The website:
The Facebook:
The Daily Deal:
The stolen images on Facebook in a gallery of their own, posted last month in an ad for Spring sessions.
Received a message from the owner. It’s the guy he hired for marketing’s fault. Webdesigner/Marketing = same/same.
So the original images are down that are above but I kept looking into his Facebook page. This image is of him drinking coffee and editing…
There are upwards of 15 PAGES of results for this image on Google, so needless to say I can’t find the original source but it’s not Jesse or OWE.
I kept digging, because I hate excuses.
Those images on the left? Not theirs. The names of the slideshows? Not theirs either. Not sure if they are using Animoto and just used their stuff or what but…
Nick Collins does not work for OWE any longer. He’s been asking to get his name off of their site.
Again, this page isn’t meant for you to go harass these people but help find other stolen items along with support for the photographers that have been stolen from.
Originally I only published this company to my Facebook page because they only used stock images from what I could gather and while I’d love to out all the shady effers along with the stealers ain’t nobody got time for that! However, this photographer duo was quick to jump on the FB page and be jerks and that annoyed me. Then this article was posted and their comments annoyed me more. Then I found one photo on their blog that was stolen and I decided to post this. *They’ve since sent me the proof the image was stock, I’m leaving this up because they were so kind to work with.
Also an interesting sidenote, Carston Leishman used to run Leishman Photography and all links are gone. Twitter is located here. Makes me wonder if something happened before as some of the blog titles are the same as the ones with the plagiarized copy below.
Update 4/11/13 @ 8:23PM:
I’ve updated this blog post with a lot more screen captures that I think will support my case that they were using these purchased images in their gallery to represent THEIR work.
There’s also some more comments from Carston and he even sent me a message.
Their website now looks like this.
But this morning it looked like this.
The main image was used in their original wedding gallery, now offline, and it is a stock image. It was also used in the wedding gallery seen below.
Oh yay, screencaps procured! Many of these are stock images, the first two images on the first line, the first image from the second line, the third image on the fourth line, the first image on the last line.
Here’s one of the screencaps of the images that were included in the gallery above as seen on the Lemontree site. The caption on the bottom says, “It’s fun to see what each other was doing on the wedding day.”
This is a stock image but would you know that reading the description on the bottom or would you think it’s their own work?
Another image from their wedding gallery, now removed. Pay attention to the caption on the bottom which reads, “Having us photograph your getting ready means you’ll have the whole days memories captured for you.”
Another image from the now closed gallery, again, notice the caption on the bottom insinuating that they took this image which reads, “A lot of time and effort goes into decorating a venue. We try to capture each venue’s ambiance as it was meant to be.”
Another stock image, again, given the caption you would infer they took this image.
They commented to thePhoto Stealers page and ended up deleting their comments so here is the original conversation before they deleted their comments when they realized they didn’t have their stories straight. I don’t know who Loreena is but I’m assuming she is someone associated with the studio or Carson and Mandy.
Loreena did comment more but I didn’t capture that, darn. She did however send me some love notes.
They’ve been singing the same tune everywhere I’ve seen their local photographers calling them out. I have to give props to the London Ontario photographers, you guys are pretty awesome.
Let’s put this new story to the test shall we? Also, buying stock images to represent your own work is NOT supporting the industry.
The blog is now 100% their own work eh? Yeah… no. Here’s what their blog looks like at the moment.
Right off the bat what catches your eye? That camera? Mine too. It’s stock and not their 100% own work.
I can’t find the source for the wedding dress image but here is the article as seen on She Knows funny, it doesn’t sound like the author’s name is Mandy.
100% all of their own work eh?
Nope.
Earlier use of stock on their blog:
The girls in the poppies are a stock image.
Here’s what their Facebook page looked like before they shut it down.
Now here’s what Carston sent to me:
I cannot find this image on Dreamtime via image search if it is a stock image there, I cannot locate it.
It’s sure been interesting hearing all of the justifications regarding this mess. Here’s some of my favorites!
Any stock pictures used were bought and paid for to create advertising.
There has been no misrepresentation of my work.
My work is better than any of the stock images presented.
Using some stock images to create an association to a product is perfectly legal, non intrusive and somewhat necessary these days in a world where thievery is abundant.Do you really think I want my work stolen like all the items you post up here?
Our blog sites uses 100% of our own images because we are blogging about our work.Our main site only has a couple stock images used to fill the gap where needed.
We did in fact use stock photography on our facebook banner and a couple of product images on our website, and are completely OK with this.This choice was based on not having a perfect image to place there at the time we were trying to launch.
… we have since removed any stock images which might be interpreted as representing our own work and replaced with our own.All of our galleries, session posts and banners are still 100% our own work.
…by purchasing a stock photo we are supporting our fellow photographers and the industry.
At no point did we claim any purchased image to be ours, nor did/do we suspect that a potential customer could base their decision to use our services on the items in question.
I was also unaware that some of our written content was plagiarized, and am working to fix the issue. Using stock photography in a written article is a non issue. We are not ashamed of doing so.
In closing here’s the bottom line issue with using stock images in a gallery of a photographer’s works, be it on a website or Facebook. Clients are booking you based on the images they see. No two photographers are a like and the images they booked you on are most likely NOT going to be what their end result is. The images used on Lemontree are a clear case of this. The images above they used in their wedding portfolio to “fill in the gap” are cleanly edited and shot in a traditional style. The images from the weddings they actually have photographed are NOTHING like the stock images. The style and editing are vastly different and even a non-photographer can tell the difference between the two.
Why do I care? Because people like Lemontree come in to a market using images that took years of training and experience to create and pricing themselvesas a newcomer. Clients shop around and this means that for every session Lemontree and other photographers that use images in their galleries that they did not create themselves book, someone that has never once misrepresented themselves has lost the client to photographers like Lemontree. Furthermore, once the client is “burned” by one of these photographers, how likely are they to test the waters again? I’ve heard many stories of clients who were ripped off and would never pay a professional again because of the experience.
As stated, we have never stolen a photo. You are accusing us of doing so. We have made a formal apology to the community for using some stock photos.
Please correct the accusations of theft. I was also unaware of any plagiarized content on our site and it has been rectified.
Thank you
Text doesn’t just jump onto your blog or website, someone puts it there. You didn’t realize someone would find out you plagiarized and I’m sorry but that IS theft – even if you didn’t technically steal a picture you stole someone’s words. You didn’t list a source, you paired it with a stock image and your signature. I don’t care if it’s gone now that you were caught. It’s something you should NEVER have done in the first place. While there may be some grey area in your eyes for using stock images in your gallery to represent your work, I can’t imagine that even you see the grey area in plagiarizing.
Supernova Photography by Sabrina committed the fault that so many thieves do, they used work on their site that was a HUGE departure from their typical work. It never fails to catch someone’s attention to follow up on. Some of the work on the site is hers, but not all and it’s fairly easy to spot the differences.
This image is by A Bryan Photo and the image is taken from the feature here on Snippet and Ink. That rant about lack of watermarking? Keep it keepin’ on and add a few choice swear words into the mix.
Next.
It’s another stock image.
Whew. That’s all the weddings! Hmm, notice anything? Yeah, NONE of these images were taken by this photographer.
I had a sneaking suspicion that her boudoir gallery would have more stolen works in it. I’m not even even going to bother with the stock images. Just trust that if I’m listing the source it’s stolen and if not, it’s stock for this gallery as well.
This image is by Haute Shots. Again, notice the cropping.
Next.
The image is by Susan Pacek Photography, no longer listed on her site but I have a copy with her watermark from an old feature online. Again notice the cropping.
This photographer claims she’s been showing these images on her Facebook to PROMOTE the other photographer. Sure, and the watermarks were eliminated to help promote them right??? Suuuurreee. It appears she’s starting to remove the stolen goods but who knows how long she’ll stay clean.
Also, she forgot that she had this gem when she started the inspirational posts with her first image, “So its a New Year, and I promised you guys I would stay committed to putting up a photo every day for 365 days. This way you can see my growth and development and it will keep me motivated to always be shooting and challenging myself. Enjoy!” Sure sounds like she is claiming these were hers… not ones she admired.
Here’s her Facebook and image gallery.
Update 6/2
She has changed her business name to 2 Otters Photography
**Update below with even more screen shots**
Update 4/8/13
Her page is now down but I’m not sure if it’s hidden or been taken down by Facebook. Before the portrait photographers received a mass email from one of her fans outing her theft, some wedding photographers found out she had stolen images and were already on the case so there are more images that were stolen before I found out that she had quietly deleted.
Her excuse has been that she found the images on Pinterest and shared them since she was so inspired by these other photographers. The problem with that very flimsy excuse is that she never posted the images that are so inspiring to Pinterest, nor are they online anywhere with the watermarks cropped out like they were on her Facebook. The images on this page that are on Pinterest all still have the original watermark and cropping in place.
One of the photographers she stole from posted an album that has some more information behind what happend to her.
Update 4/11/13
Mary Catherine is rounding up the carts and having her friends and other photographers send some pretty nasty hate mail and leaving voicemails for Lisa and other photographers she stole from. I’ll never understand why after stealing images the thieves attack those that they stole from but they do it often enough for it to almost be a pattern. So fair warning if she stole from you, she may be lashing out at you herself or via her network. I’m attaching the original screen cap below of the start of her “Daily Inspirations” from her Facebook. They most definitely did not say anything about being from other photographers.
This is one of the first stolen images in the gallery.
This is originally from Lisa Holloway, seen here in I Love Photography. Note the watermark that is on this image that is missing from Mary & Catherine’s image.
Another image in the gallery. Again, the story accompanying the picture is not promoting and is actually giving the impression she took this. Again, notice the cropping.
Another image from the gallery, you may recognize the child from above. Notice the cropping.
It’s another image from the same session from Dinofa.
Another gallery image.
This is originally from the Chrisman Studios but their blog is not working so you’ll have to take my word for it.
This is another image that a wedding photographer recognized as one of their friends around the same time that the portrait photographers started getting wind of the theft.
There are more that I couldn’t find sources of but it appears she’s deleting like a mad lady. Interesting behavior for someone that was just innocently promoting another photographer?
Here’s a tip: when promoting another photographer’s work GIVE THEM CREDIT. Oh – don’t remove the watermark either. Why would you specifically look for images without watermarks to promote? See conversation below.
Again, I have been unable to find the images Mary used on her Facebook with the same cropping anywhere on the internet.
This wall of shame is dedicated to photographers that feel that it's okay to steal others' work and post it as their own. Oh I'm sorry, it's okay to let their "web designer" do it.