Online Blog being used for Defamation of Character

Good for you for saving the articles and emails. Just for your information, it is a criminal offence in the US to use the internet to encourage people to harrass an individual. You may wish to take your complaint up with law enforcement.

 

Well, the fact that people like Mandy Austin rip things off all the time should hardly be an excuse for letting them get away with it. Photographers take copyright infringement seriously. When it happens, we post about it as a way to alert other photographers that the same thing might be happening to them.

For instance, just this morning I saw a post on a forum I read where a photographer said that her work had been stolen and put on Flickr. I checked the Flickr site out and sure enough, one of my images had been stolen and posed on Flickr too.

So Neil didn't have to ask anyone to come over here and argue for him. We come to the defense of our colleagues when it is clear they have been wronged. Most of us wouldn't make harassing phone calls or send harassing emails, but there's always the danger that someone who has been screwed in the past is going to get angry and send a harassing email or two. I deplore such actions.

I mean, it's bad enough that the photo thief, Mandy Austin, has to live with the fact that she was attempting to defraud her customers, and stealing from multiple people to get ahead in her business. What's worse really is that this sort of thing gets around. Let's face it, just a quick trip to google and everyone will see that Mandy Austin is involved with these nefarious deeds. They also know that maybe they should beware of doing business with (www.mlphotovideo.com) another company that seems to employ her. Heck, they even know what Many Austin looks like in case they pass her at the 7-11. (www.mlphotovideo.com/pricelist/staff/mail_resize.jpg). You might even find out that Mandy Austin' is shooting her web designer's wedding, or if not, then her web designer is lying about her on the knot.coms chat board for brides. (talk.theknot.com/boards/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=30726741) And that's just a quick trip down google, so, yeah, Mandy Austin's reputation may understandably suffer.

All in all, I'd say this is a pretty compelling cautionary tale about the dangers of stealing the work of others in our incredibly hyper-connected online community.

 

This is getting really really nasty. A load of people making new log-ins just so that can harrass a woman by name. What a horrible concerted campaign of bullying!

 

I think they're just passionate about their work and don't appreciate it when their work or someone else's work is stolen (what they feel has been stolen, not saying that this is the case here). I would be too. This probably happens a lot in that industry, so of course, they're going to mobilize and take action.

I really don't know who's right and who's wrong here, but I think the OP was just a little naive and didn't mean to cause any harm to anyone. IMHO, you should all just make up, end the entire feud, and move on. Peace is good....

 

You newbies (to DP, not to photography) are funny. It is obvious that you guys team up like a pack of animals to destroy someone that has done something wrong and yet it has been admitted and the blame was taken by the web designer. It is quite immature and it disgusts me to no extent. It disgusts me so much that it takes every ounce of me to not create a quick blog and present my findings on some of the many unprofessional photographers out there that enjoy beating people when they are down. The funny thing is that I could have that blog up and running with quality content on it in less than an hour. But you know what, it is not my fight and I am professional enough to stay out of it because I am not a photographer, nor would I strive to be one. All in all, you newbies should be ashamed of yourselves for the way that you have presented this information and how you attack people to ruin their reputation. I am done here!

 

Couldn't agree more.

The issue is clearly one for the web designer or whoever it was that ripped the site, not the photographer who asked for the site to be designed.

What is p*ssing me off about this whole thing is most webmasters here are in complete agreement that they despise it when people rip off their work, yet as webmasters know fine well this is an issue to be taken up with the web design firm and not the client. It is like executing the victim and ignoring the perpetrator.

I personally find it very distasteful so many people are joining the forum to wade into this thread and go after the client.

 

I do not think he's acted unprofessionally. Your responses seem to be defending someone who's actually broken the law.

Yes, as a matter of fact I have.

Yep, there are a lot of dishonest folks out there however, my web designer required me to provide him with material to design my website. My website is a representation of my work. Without images that I hand picked it would have been hard for him to design anything as well as costly (for him) because once I decided on specifics it would have meant more updates for him to do redesigns that support different aspect ratios and image orientations etc. Not a very efficient manner for a professional to work.

I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree. As I see it Neil is standing up for his rights. He's not broken any laws. The OP and her designer on the other hand are in violation of US Copyright law.

As for Neils remark about the web designer not owning up, That email is on your blog man. She told you to take it up with her not the OP. Come on man get real, take this up with the designer.

Actually, it's not easy. Not at all. Let's assume you have a family. It's not really easy to leave your family and move somewhere else because you want to compete in that market. Family ties tend to be stronger. I can also say from experience that moving a business a long distance is EXTREMELY difficult and EXTREMELY expensive. Our industry depends upon local relationships with former clients and vendors. A newcomer can't just come into town and start competing. It takes years to rebuild relationships and to start getting a steady stream of referrals from former clients.

Also a point of clarification, Neil did not ruin her reputation. She ruined her own reputation by providing the web design company with Neil's photos (her own designer claims that Mandy provided the images and that the rest were obtained through stock (those images are not stock)). The text was also copied lock, stock, and barrel and modified to fit her site. NOBODY has a template for "about this photographer". All the template folks I know of would leave that blank and ask for text to populate that field. She claims to have severed her relationship with Shalyn. I wonder if that means she won't be shooting her wedding as well (if you read the blog entry you'll see a link to The Knot where Shalyn mentions that Mandy is shooting her wedding)?

Cheers, Joe

 

The site has been taken down. You people might be the best photographers in the world , but you are showing yourselves up as nasty, childish, petty, vindictive bullies. Her claims that she's been harrassed and bullied were clearly true. You're still doing it.

 

If you read the entire history of this you will see that the web design firm sites the OP as one of the sources for the images used. You will also see that the OP is shooting the designer's wedding. That in and of itself doesn't mean anything but given the circumstances I thought that to be interesting.

If I'm going to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, it's almost always going to be the web designer. This is not the first time the photography community has dealt with such issues. It's almost like a script... the photographer will either claim ignorance or blame the web design company. Eventually the excuses get packed on and usually (but not always) the web designer had no knowledge of where the images they provided were sourced. I don't think it's unreasonable for a web designer to assume that if they're designing a site for a photographer, that the copyrights for the images provided to them are indeed held by the photographer. Maybe there's a lesson in all of this for those of you who are designers? Explicitly ask your clients if they hold the copyrights to the images supplied, maybe even add a line on to your contract for this.

Now that said, specific design components not contained in any templates were copied from Neil's website. This means the designer will have visited Neil's website. Given that the designer claims that Mandy was the source of the photos provided, and that the text from Neil's website was copied, I find it very hard to believe that both parties were unaware of who's website they were copying.

Cheers, Joe

I would denounce anyone who's contacted her with any kind of threatening message whatsoever. That is absolutely wrong.

She was the one who brought this up. Neil has contributed much to the community and as you can see by the support he's received is respected by a great many people. This kind of respect is not a commodity, it is something that has to be earned and Neil has earned that respect from the folks here by giving so much (freely) to the photography community as a whole. Most folks would not contribute to the community in the way that Neil has for fear that they'd be training their competition. So, what you're seeing here is support for a person who has selflessly given a lot of his personal time to the community. My experience has been that people of questionable character never receive this kind of support unless they have conducted themselves in an honest, and professional nature.

Cheers, Joe

 

What a load of crap! You don't care if they admitted to anything... and you obviously don't wish an apology...

Mandy did that right here by admitting to everyone she did apologize... (whether she did or not is irrelevant) by admitting to apologize she admits to doing wrong... but your growing band of photo thugs are only interested in what they get out of this (forget you... they're not interested in what you get... because all you get is a headache that doesn't go away) ...and they just keep pouring gasoline on the fire (they've got nothing to lose) ... you're their goat for everyone that screwed them over for photos.

Some business advice Neil... you've lost alot in this... you wasted so much time in this situation and that certainly will not help your business...

...the theft happened and that's truly unfortunate and you chose to ignore it (legally)... that was "your choice"... but you are now going down a road that leads no where; where no good can come out of it for you... the more this goes on the better it is for Mandy as you are the escalator and while your photo thugs think they are being helpful they are not.

You should drop this before it bites back... it can, and it will.

OK photo thugs... start typing your little hearts out! ...I love a good show!

 

Yup that's taking copyright infringement seriously. (let's act like thugs so we make each other feel empowered).

 

I've been members of many forums but this post is like WW2 against "the active members of this Digital Point forum" VS " the new members photographers or friends of Neil"

Being neutral here, I feel really bad for ORLphotos, people are posting her employer and displaying it on the web. Plus searching all over the web to search more information about her. I bet her e-mails are really being bombarded by threats and not really good things.

It looks to me that Neil has A LOT of accomplice in slandering ORLphotos. If you all think, you are helping him, you are wrong. You all said, you knew him, you were acquaintance, etc.. that makes you an accomplice in defamation of character on OP. Keep in mind that the fault is not her but the developer, if the designer admitted that all web work is their responsibility then its theirs.

If you take this to court, the web work's fault will be on the designer because it is still in development stage, no final approval has been given by OP. Plus they already admitted that it is their full responsibility.

Now as for the defamation of character on OP, that is on Neil's. You vented your anger on the web and put OP's info all over the web in third parties eyes and said false info. Now this guilt is on you.

As for ORLPhotos, I suggest you keep all your artifacts, don't let these bullies get you down. I suggest you keep a record of this forum as well. People here have accused you so much, if I were you, I would find them myself and take them to court as well. This is just me of course, I like Halo so I like to fight . I think too much harm have been done to you, Neil really need to just forgive and forget.

I suggest to all of you to FORGET ABOUT THIS and go on with all your lives. Just play Halo 3 its more fun.

OP, if this continues, you might really wanna start looking about a personal injury lawyer. If this people contacts you employer especially to get you fired and hurt your job that is a VERY VERY Big lawsuit against Neil, so you better think about it. Lawyers will take your case because people are now resulting in threatening you and contacting your employer.

Now as the finale, most of you newbies, should be banned here.. Some of you are advertising their sites even though you are still new.

I think the administrator of this site should really monitor the bickering going on with this post. As for all you "old members" , you need to report this post.

Just my two cents

 

I'm wondering why this site was made live. You know you can view HTML without posting it on the internet. Also, wouldn't you want to "test" it with your own work so you can pick and choose which photos you want where and maybe do some recoloring on the template based on hues in your own photos? I mean why would you go through all the trouble searching for the right stock photos if your own work is at hand?

Furthermore, I read his blog post about you and I really can't say you have any sort of legal case that would be worth making. He could counter sue with the copyright infringement of his image's and in you filing a suit first, he can be exempt to court costs and you could pay them all. Also, I believe he has the stronger case.

I've had photography stolen from me on deviantart and used for a school project (he was an art major.) I was really hurt, he didn't care and wanted to use it for his portfolio. I called up his school and they sorted it out for me.

 

This from someone with only three posts?

 

You've only got six, you've not got much of an argument on that score.

 

I've got 3 but not all from this post. You have 6 and all of them are from this post. So you are not really here trying to be a contributor of this forum. You are here to fight and send personal attacks.

These goes to all of you who only have posted on this topic. Read the guidelines before posting here.

Guideline:
"Personal attacks against people, or sites will not be tolerated."
We should also be reporting : problematic messages (harassment, fighting)

I have reported you ZeroSen to the admin and hopefully he/she has your IP and ban you from this forum. I hope these goes to whoever else that is just here to post nothingness and wants a fight.

 

Copyright isn't so cut & dry... and if you'd ever been privy to a legal case you'd appreciate that screen-captures, films, negatives, "raw files" and the like are inadmissible as evidence.

First because these items have not been through a screening process as public records and potentially 'altered'. (note on the blog how Neil edted his files...).

Second, no chain of custody can be proven -- as such all of Neil's suggested evidence are poison fruits.

Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary (In the US). The only document that matters is the copyright registration certificate. This proves that a third and independent party proved ownership through a public process.

In the case of a counter-claim against defamation, harrassment, or even economic corporate sabotage... if you have not previously commenced registration ... you cannot use infringement to counter the claim since infringement wasn't proven prior to the defamation, harrassment, or sabotage occurring -- the public records were not available for the claimant to "knowingly infringed".

The only thing we can agree here Neil does not have registered imagery (in his name or in his company's name)... and he didn't exercise his rights and therefore an infringement claim is moot.

 

No matter who is right or wrong..DigitalPoint forum does not allow members to attack another member for any reason, and it appears you have all ganged up on one person who came here seeking help and advice for her situation.

enough said...Thread Closed!