Art Director Wants Me to Email Her

[phule]

<p>Carina,</p>

<p>Thanks for commenting. Welcome to Photo.net, though I wish it were under better circumstances. </p>

[virginia_john_mybusiness]

<p>This raises a somewhat peripheral issue t that I don't know if we have addressed and probably should be a separate query. From time to time my son and I will collaborate on a shot -- recently a couple of thousand of them. He is in the military and we recently were together on his ship and shot about 3000 images together and he gave me another 20 thousand images from his recent deployment to process, since he does not have access to PS or LR on his ship, though has much more Nikon equipment than I do. We do share common bodies and have some lenses in common. When shooting together we are collaborating on composition, passing cameras back and forth, acting behind and as assistants for each other etc. How would Photo.net have those shots credited?</p>

[melinda_potter]

<p>Question:<br>

If his PN account has been removed, does this mean he can no longer see the replies in this thread?</p>

<p>I'm wondering if I should give him the benefit of the doubt as far as why he hasn't removed ALL stolen content from ALL his ports and pages. I'm growing impatient. I realize it should have been done regardless, and without us walking him through it, but... He's just a kid (I don't mean that in a derogatory way), and time is on his side. If he wants to learn how to photograph and someday be a very good and respected photographer, he could possibly achieve it, but... Only if he learns from this, and completely cleans up the mess he created. He still has a site out there with several stolen images that he has already taken down elsewhere.<br>

http://gbphila11.wix.com/gjphoto#!</p>

<p>And 3 stolen images remain on this site<br>

<a href="http://www.georgejphoto.com/">http://www.georgejphoto.com/</a></p>

<p>Depending on the answer you all give me, I may just give the go ahead for Photostealers to post about him. I just don't want to jump the gun, because he seems to want to clean up and do the right thing.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p><em>If his PN account has been removed, does this mean he can no longer see the replies in this thread?</em></p>

<p>No, it does not mean he can no longer see the replies--anyone can read all of the thread without logging in--although if he had set the thread to send him replies automatically, presumably that ceased.</p>

<p><em>[H]e seems to want to clean up and do the right thing.</em></p>

<p>Please pardon my cynicism, but it seems more likely that he has removed many stolen images because the perceived likely negative consequences to himself personally and/or his business outweigh the perceived likely benefits of keeping them there. Offering to return the bank's money after the dye bomb explodes and the cop grabs your arm isn't likely to be motivated by a desire to do the right thing. I hope I'm wrong--but I bet I'm right.</p>

[melinda_potter]

<p>Dave, I believe you are right. After re sourcing all the stolen images that are still up, I found out he actually favorited many (if not all) of the artists on flickr before stealing from them. I also took the time to re read his abouts and bios, look at his "work" again, and just reevaluate altogether, and...George lacks character (to put it as nicely as possible). He is not a photographer, and I don't believe he has what it takes to ever become one. Photostealers has been contacted and given what they need. The ball is in their court now, unless George makes some changes in the mean time. At the very least he will be put on the "watch list" as a repeat offender risk. If he does it again, or keeps things as they are he will get blasted for sure. He may even be facing some fines, and legal problems at this point. I just don't get it. I don't get it at all. </p>

[e_rin]

<p>George is not a photographer. He is a fraud who deserves any fines and legal problems that come his way. He asked for this the second he started posting photographs that he did not take on his websites and claiming them as his own. He's still asking for it by leaving these stolen photographs up. You can't lie and steal your way to the top. The truth will eventually come out.. if it's not someone catching him in his lies, it's going to be by someone who hired this photographer with "a background for producing high quality work" to capture an important moment in their life and got terrible photographs in return.</p>

<p>The only way to gain experience as a photographer is to BE a photographer.</p>

 

[MichaelChang]

<p>He has removed most of the offending photos from his website except for one on the homepage slideshow, as far as I can tell stolen from Francesca Semenza:<br>

<a href="http://www.francescasemenza.com/img/gallery/original/glamour-13237154081326802939.jpg">http://www.francescasemenza.com/img/gallery/original/glamour-13237154081326802939.jpg</a><br>

<a href="http://www.georgejphoto.com/">http://www.georgejphoto.com/</a></p>

[melinda_potter]

<p>Your right about the one in the slide show, and these two as well</p>

<p>http://www.georgejphoto.com/#/?udt_portfolio=photoshoot-milan<br>

One of his "High school seniors" can be found here</p>

<p>http://www.dripbook.com/Igortermenon/photography-portfolio/unpublished-work/ (he stole a few from this photographer)</p>

<p>Used to be in an album called "Fine art" but, he changed the label to "High School Seniors" <br>

http://www.georgejphoto.com/#/?udt_portfolio=tunn-composition</p>

<p>original here<br>

http://www.up-her.com/photo-5241/seyrantepe-istanbul-2008-by-yagmur-kizilok/</p>

<p>and then there is his other site with numerous stolen works. I think this site was left completely untouched<br>

http://gbphila11.wix.com/gjphoto#!<br>

Some of the Originals (mostly found through his favorites on flickr)</p>

<p>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30616213@N04/6144096007/<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/salutemyshorts/3425734877/in/faves-george_briseno/<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/salutemyshorts/3594092338/in/faves-george_briseno/<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/salutemyshorts/3593654460/in/faves-george_briseno/<br>

<p>It also looks as though his "business" used to be called "George Briseno Photography" at one point. He most likely got caught stealing and had to change his name. He's probably in the process of doing it again. Who knows?</p>

[movingfinger]

<p>I took what I thought would be a quick look at this thread, and then could not stop reading due to the investigative work of Melinda. Wow, what a skill you have for finding and matching images from web sites around the world. I am impressed. If you're not already, you ought to be earning money from your web sleuthing skills.</p>

[melinda_potter]

John,

Hard to tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but...

No, its not hard or time consuming at all. Especially when others who posted before me were already on the ball sourcing

and linking. It takes longer to write a post and submit it here at photo.net, then it does to find where photographs are on

the net. Using google image search is really easy, just drag and drop, and a lot were found just by having a quick scroll

through George's Flickr favorites. I'd gladly get paid to do it, but I don't think anyone would pay me to do something they

could easily do themselves if they needed/wanted to stop an infringer. Besides I wouldn't want to run into George's

everyday multiple times a day, I think it would get to me too much. I'd become jaded, and disgruntled for sure. I'd much

rather spend my free time shooting, learning, reading, and looking at wonderful photography made by legitimate, talented,

honest photographers. I'm still kind of shocked that this even happened here at photo.net within this forum. It's the last

place I would ever think of running into this sort of thing.

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"I'm still kind of shocked that this even happened here at photo.net within this forum. It's the last place I would ever think of running into this sort of thing."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It should not be a shock to you.</p>

<p>Firstly, anyone can become a member at Photo.net, it is a public forum - there is not a background search to ensure members are suitable.<br />Secondly, it occurs to me that Photo.net managed this situation with due diligence and also promptly, once the facts were apparent and clear cut.<br>

Rather, it is the commentaries, not from the OP: but by other Photo.net members which is keeping this thread active and uncovering more sample images.<br>

<br />So it appears obvious that it is members, other than the OP, who see value in continuing this particular conversation.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"So it appears obvious that it is members, other than the OP, who see value in continuing this particular conversation."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, and I think the value is in keeping with site rules and maintaining an honest and mutually helpful community.<br>

<br>

George's Flickr images have been deleted. He has been banned from p.net and ModelMayhem. His Facebook account has been removed all likely as a direct consequence of his foolish self-serving post here. <br>

<br>

He was also given the benefit of a doubt by way of a few days of grace period to explain himself, and things might have turned out differently had he come clean immediately and did what was necessary to redeem himself. He chose not to. <br>

<br>

No one likes to be the site policeman unless tasked to do so, but it's in our collective interest to expose those who abuse the community for purposes of self-interest. It would be a good outcome if this thread served to prompt another would-be-George to reconsider their conduct. <br>

</p>

[eddymendoza]

What concerns me the most is the tone of the conversation and the almost apologetic fashion in which some photo.net

members have gone out of their way to forgive this person. Some of you have offered advice on how to circumvent the

law and punishment. I'm all for repent but seriously folks! Let the guy realize what he's done and pay for it. It almost

seems as if some members feel sorry for this guy and want to help him overcome his attempt to cheat and lie to make

money. He is either a repeat offender or a young novice and neither should be allowed here I think.

 

I await the bashing of the masses with a clear mind.

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"He is either a repeat offender <strong><em>or a young novice</em></strong> and <em><strong>neither should be allowed here</strong> </em>I think."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't feel sorry for the OP - BUT: <br>

There is not ANY reason why a person simple because they are a 'young novice' should not join and be welcomed to and assisted by the Photonet Community.</p>

<p>WW</p>