Stealing Wedding Photogrpahy

[laronge photographie coutu]

<p>http://mcnettimages.com/2100-stealing-wedding-photography-is-your-photographer-who-they-say-they-are/</p>

<p>I came across this blog post via Alltop. One thing to note is that the photographer being called out for stealing is in the same area as the one calling him out. It's an interesting approach to trashing your competition. </p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"It's an interesting approach to trashing your competition."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed, but rather than trashing, I'd rather think of it as uncovering the unscrupulous conduct of a competitor. </p>

[shawn_mertz]

<p>The video in the post wouldn't play. Maybe my browser is too old. Can you tell more about what's in it?</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Shawn, try the direct link to Vimeo:<br>

<a href="http://vimeo.com/71236213">http://vimeo.com/71236213</a></p>

<p>The video's introduction makes you believe its purpose is to help brides choose a competent photographer, but it quickly shifts its focus to a particular photographer's website as an example of their online images to showcase their talent when many of the images were in fact stolen. </p>

<p>As Josh says, it's an interesting approach that indirectly promotes himself by exposing another photographer's conduct as an example of what a bride should watch out for.</p>

[laronge photographie coutu]

<p>I wonder if the photographer who made the video knows for a fact the images were stolen. It's very possible both images were shot by the photographer displaying them. In the first example, where the photo was on another studio's site, it could be that the photographer worked for that studio and has since moved to another studio and is simply showing a shot he shot while working for the first studio (very possibly with permission). The second image the photographer who made the video claims is a stock photo and shows it on a stock site. It's very possible and plausible that the photographer being accused of stealing, shot the image, put it in his portfolio and placed it at a stock house.<br>

<br />The photographer who made the accusations may be opening himself up to a liable lawsuit. </p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Josh, I imagine the photographer thought long and hard before posting the video. He doesn't appear to be the reckless type, at least from looking around his site, but you never know, do you? :-) </p>

[laronge photographie coutu]

<blockquote>

<p>I imagine the photographer thought long and hard before posting the video. He doesn't appear to be the reckless type, at least from looking around his site, but you never know, do you? :-)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I suspect he has some local knowledge but I think calling out another local studio publicly seems petty to me. If his purpose was truly to educate brides in a general sense, which is fine because misrepresentation unfortunately does go on in the wedding photography world, he would have not just used examples from one photographer and probably wouldn't have identified them. </p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I suspect he has some local knowledge but I think calling out another local studio publicly seems petty to me."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can only guess that he was a victim of the alleged deception through a loss of business, hence the call-out, albeit easier for him if the dirty work was deferred to someone else. </p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Interesting that the alleged stolen images are not to be found on the alleged offender's site:<br>

<a href="http://www.garywwalston.com/gallery-mid/29/">http://www.garywwalston.com/gallery-mid/29/</a></p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>I take that back. It's apparently still up for others to verify:<br>

<a href="http://www.garywwalston.com/gallery-detail/315/">http://www.garywwalston.com/gallery-detail/315/</a></p>

[William Michael]

<p>Most Photographers are aware that images can be pilfered - and if they weren't - they are now. </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>The most interesting thing to me is that Google has caught up with the image pilfering. by simply uploading an image (w/ or w/o exif), google accurately searches for that image or images like that images? I didn't know Google was quite that good.</p>

<p>As far as the video goes, it would have been easy for him to block out the Photog's name. While the target is clearly slime, This Michael Mcnett clearly has an agenda (local competitor it appears). That, and he keeps dancing around the issue, image theft, instead of simply calling a spade a spade. I'm rolling my eyes. </p>

[robert_l2]

<p>I know Michael personally as a colleague. Over time, I have felt that his comments come off as plain arrogance and a feeling of being superior to others. He often expresses himself in a manner that displays it is his way or it’s wrong.<br>

It was incredibly unprofessional to focus on this particular photographer. As mentioned above, Michael doesn’t know the back story. It could have been photos from a wedding that was second shot, which some contracts allow to be displayed on both websites.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I should say, that I've just spent 5 minutes playing with google's tool using other images from the 'target's' website, and 3 of 4 of the images were stock, model mayhem, and another italian photog. I didn't scrounge either (the fourth didn't come up with any hits), that was four in a row off the gallery.</p>

<p>If I were that motivated (as he clearly is), then I'd have gone through every image and sent off headsup emails to every one of those photo's owners, not posted a video...</p>