# Let's talk theft of images...



## MLeeK (Aug 23, 2012)

Anyone seen Gary Fong's latest theft discovery? 
http://stopstealingphotos.tumblr.com/post/29831962568/24-7-protography-benjamin-ramalho-photography
If You&#8217;ve Had Images Stolen Off The Internet, You Can Get Up To $150,000 Per Image Stolen |

It's not a quick short read, but definitely interesting! So, take your coffee. 
The guy is an arrogant ass first and foremost. Stupid as a post at best and his friends? WOW. Balls of titanium. He's looking at MILLIONS in lawsuits. 37 Photographers and multiple images from most of them.


----------



## KmH (Aug 23, 2012)

So you're helping him advertise his book?

Do you have a question?

Do you figure he gets a kickback from his attorney to drum up work?


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 23, 2012)

KmH said:


> So you're helping him advertise his book?
> 
> Do you have a question?
> 
> Do you figure he gets a kickback from his attorney to drum up work?



Wow.


----------



## Tee (Aug 23, 2012)

That's some good detective work.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 23, 2012)

The guy has time on his hands, that's for sure. He has gone on a crusade to find stolen images and offenders. Obviously retirement is a little to quiet. On the flip side of that I guess that having someone to police the internet for photographers is nice for us. 
I wasn't talking about gary, his book or any of his other products,  but about the guy in this particular incident and his balls of huge proportions, Keith. Did you happen to read any of the tumblr post?


----------



## sm4him (Aug 23, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> The guy has time on his hands, that's for sure. He has gone on a crusade to find stolen images and offenders. Obviously retirement is a little to quiet. On the flip side of that I guess that having someone to police the internet for photographers is nice for us.
> I wasn't talking about gary, his book or any of his other products,  but about the guy in this particular incident and his balls of huge proportions, Keith. Did you happen to read any of the tumblr post?



Ah. Makes more sense now. I admit, I was a little confused as well about to whom you were referring, because of this:
"Stupid as a post at best..."
I read that as "Stupid, as a post, at best..."  meaning you were saying that you thought the whole blog post was stupid.
But that didn't really jibe with what I know to be your attitude about copyright infringement, and it didn't really make sense with the rest of what you said.  So, I suspected you were referring to the guy who stole the photos, but until I just went back and read it again, I didn't get the "That guy is just as stupid as a post"...which kinda makes me feel...stupid as a post.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 23, 2012)

sm4him said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > The guy has time on his hands, that's for sure. He has gone on a crusade to find stolen images and offenders. Obviously retirement is a little to quiet. On the flip side of that I guess that having someone to police the internet for photographers is nice for us.
> ...



Made me chuckle! Yeah... I am never any good in the mornings  until my meds kick in. Sometimes I have to laugh at what I THOUGHT I said clearly... total gibberish. 

SO anyway... Yeah that Benjamin Ramalho and friends had some incredible nerve. He's trying now to salvage, but that's not going so well for him either. Some of the ones I see get called out I feel for the people-they make a mistake, apologize and do whatever they can to make amends-then get attacked more. It just shocks me that Fong manages to find quite a few who are pretty ballsy. He's found a few that keep coming back again and again to do the same thing over and over.


----------



## sm4him (Aug 23, 2012)

I don't feel sorry for ANY of them if they are representing what they've taken as their own work. The ones who simply didn't understand copyright and posted an image that wasn't theirs, but did NOT represent it as theirs, that's another story, but it's just so NOT cool to take anyone else's image and try to pass it off as yours.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 23, 2012)

Does it amuse anyone else that the Stop Stealing Photos tumblr reproduces stolen photos?

Yes, yes, fair use, something something. Whatever, I don't know if it's illegal or not, it's just funny.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 23, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Does it amuse anyone else that the Stop Stealing Photos tumblr reproduces stolen photos?
> 
> Yes, yes, fair use, something something. Whatever, I don't know if it's illegal or not, it's just funny.



Ironic


----------



## IByte (Aug 23, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Does it amuse anyone else that the Stop Stealing Photos tumblr reproduces stolen photos?
> 
> Yes, yes, fair use, something something. Whatever, I don't know if it's illegal or not, it's just funny.



Yeah but at least he is giving the REAL photographers' credit instead of outright stealing them =8)


----------



## CCericola (Aug 23, 2012)

It all started when a guy on the PPA group found his wedding picks on this guy's site. He was asking us what to do. He also emailed Corey (who is a girl by the way) and she went to work screen shotting and researching. The guy has stolen from 30+ photogs I think and it just keeps getting worse. Gary was a bit late to the party but offered some advice. I would think posting the screen shots and crediting everything would fall under fair use. The theif already threatened Corey with a lawsuit. We'll see what happens. 

on a funny note. There is already a parody facebook page up because of this whole fiasco. It was kinda funny
https://www.facebook.com/pages/258-CONtography/486659728011933


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 23, 2012)

I believe as long as it is to educate and not to profit in any way it's fair use-could be off. I do know Fong works closely with his own attorney, so I am pretty sure he's good on his legalities. Also note that Fong does not live in the US. I don't know what the laws are in Canada, but that's where his residence is.


----------



## CCericola (Aug 23, 2012)

He does have a house in Canada but he's American. I think the case he won against the chick who stole his studio name was a US case, I think. Anyway, he does do his homework. I wonder if it will be worth all of those photographers to join in a lawsuit like Gary suggested. But intruth I think the only thing of value this guy has is his 5DMIII.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Aug 23, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Anyone seen Gary Fong's latest theft discovery?
> 24/7 PROtography / Benjamin Ramalho Photography - Photo Stealers
> If You&#8217;ve Had Images Stolen Off The Internet, You Can Get Up To $150,000 Per Image Stolen |
> 
> ...



This was a great way to wake up this morning, thanks for the link. This guy must be one of the biggest moron's on the internet. 

Read his about me section from his website, and that's all you need to know about the catastrophic level's of douchiness:
ABOUT

I hope he gets sued and pays out the a$$ for his idiotically blatant copyright infringement of multiple artists.


----------



## Heitz (Aug 23, 2012)

The first rule of cheating is to NOT make it obvious.
source: I work at a university, so I'm an expert on the subject


----------



## KmH (Aug 23, 2012)

Yes, I read it.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 23, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone seen Gary Fong's latest theft discovery?
> ...


I had read his "about" and yeah, total ass. 
I think the facebook spoof is really uncalled for and is harassment. Not that this guy didn't ask for it. 

I have a feeling he's looking down the barrel of some BIG ASS lawsuit issues. Probably would have gone away if he and his friends hadn't gone to the extreme level of dick head that they did. His response to his early douchiness-he "had to" put up a defense. Ahhhh, yes. A defense justifies lying AND saying that the original photographers STOLE HIS WORK? Holy Crap Dude!


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Aug 23, 2012)

https://www.facebook.com/247PROtography


Is dead now. Looks like Facebook is shutting him down.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Aug 23, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> I have a feeling he's looking down the barrel of some BIG ASS lawsuit issues. Probably would have gone away if he and his friends hadn't gone to the extreme level of dick head that they did. His response to his early douchiness-he "had to" put up a defense. Ahhhh, yes. A defense justifies lying AND saying that the original photographers STOLE HIS WORK? Holy Crap Dude!




The way he has carried himself makes him king of douche at the top of highest peaks of douche mountains. 

I sincerely hope he sees the full repercussions of his poor decisions.  I hope he gets sued out of his clothes, put out on the street, and made an example of.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 23, 2012)

I was surprised when he removed the stolen images and thought he was going to continue doing  business as usual. Most of the ones who get caught shut everything down immediately. This guy? Nope!


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Aug 23, 2012)

MLeeK said:
			
		

> I was surprised when he removed the stolen images and thought he was going to continue doing  business as usual. Most of the ones who get caught shut everything down immediately. This guy? Nope!



Seriously. How can we begin to explain the sheer levels of audacity, hubris, and ignorance by this guy.

All I hope is that there is follow through.. his Facebook is killed now. I hope they pursue this in court. 

HE threatened to sue which I think is hilarious. God, what a mess.


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 23, 2012)

The domain is now parked with GoDaddy 

24/7 PROtography | Shot above the Rest!

And to top it off, he is only registered as a Sole Proprietorship, not even an LLC
http://dor.wa.gov/content/doingbusiness/registermybusiness/brd/Default.aspx


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 23, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> The domain is now parked with GoDaddy
> 
> 24/7 PROtography | Shot above the Rest!
> 
> ...




His website loaded for me just fine still.

He had probably better start unloading assets now. That isn't looking good!


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 23, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > The domain is now parked with GoDaddy
> ...



Are you cached?  I tried the site again and hit refresh and I'm still getting a parked page.  Yea, not separating you personal assets from you illegitimate business is never a good idea!

Edit:  tried it for a third time and now their site is coming up.  Maybe they took it down temporarily to scrub it some more.  I'm noticing a MAJOR difference in the quality of "their" portfolio.  No wonder they wanted to portray others photos as their own.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 23, 2012)

Still coming up. Took a few seconds to load, but still comes up for me. I'll have to check the ipad when I go to bed.


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 23, 2012)

His About page is supremely ironic.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 23, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> His About page is supremely ironic.


He sure doesn't need any help inflating his own head. Might need a crane to haul around his balls, but thankfully the overinflated head helps with that.


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 24, 2012)

It's doing it again!  I go to the site and now it's parked by GoDaddy.


----------



## StillCapture (Aug 24, 2012)

Hi all, I'm new here, been reading through this site for hours.  My first post, hooray .  @ MJHoward, I work part-time at San Francisco Licensing Dept.  For photographers, Sole Proprietorship is the most common (about 90-95%) structure for photographers.  LLC, LPP, Corp, and others for a photographer rarily make sense unless you are hired by National Geographic, have extreme photography.  LLC and others, perform nothing other than more paperwork and supposed 'protections' in comparison to sole proprietorships.  Spent sometime on the stop stealing ordeal, wow, the member has some time, good work by them.  Too me though, this all seems way blown out of proportion.  I tried going to the persons/company's facebook page but nothing there.  To me, they do sound sorry, and made some very poor choices.  But for as much pounding as they seem to have taken, seems like they have learned a great deal about how sensitive we are in this industry.  The person Gary Fong, that is plain goofy to offer such services.  I watched videos he's made, and he contradicts himself by not getting more to the story, rather just offering to help break this person or people more.  I agree we all need confirmation of them seriously acknowledging their actions as unethical.


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 24, 2012)

StillCapture said:


> Hi all, I'm new here, been reading through this site for hours.  My first post, hooray .  @ MJHoward, I work part-time at San Francisco Licensing Dept.  For photographers, Sole Proprietorship is the most common (about 90-95%) structure for photographers.  LLC, LPP, Corp, and others for a photographer rarily make sense unless you are hired by National Geographic, have extreme photography.  LLC and others, perform nothing other than more paperwork and supposed 'protections' in comparison to sole proprietorships.  Spent sometime on the stop stealing ordeal, wow, the member has some time, good work by them.  Too me though, this all seems way blown out of proportion.  I tried going to the persons/company's facebook page but nothing there.  To me, they do sound sorry, and made some very poor choices.  But for as much pounding as they seem to have taken, seems like they have learned a great deal about how sensitive we are in this industry.  The person Gary Fong, that is plain goofy to offer such services.  I watched videos he's made, and he contradicts himself by not getting more to the story, rather just offering to help break this person or people more.  I agree we all need confirmation of them seriously acknowledging their actions as unethical.



Let's see.... you just registered in Aug 2012, probably today... this is your first post, and the way this reads, I wouldn't be surprised if you were Mr. Ramalho himself trying to do some damage control!  If it is, you're screwed pal!  BTW, as an owner of an LLC, there is no additional paperwork that I have to do over a Sole Proprietorship, at least in KY.  I simply fill in a blank on Schedule C and I'm done.  It's nice to have potential business liabilities separated from my personal assets though


----------



## IByte (Aug 24, 2012)

CCericola said:


> He does have a house in Canada but he's American. I think the case he won against the chick who stole his studio name was a US case, I think. Anyway, he does do his homework. I wonder if it will be worth all of those photographers to join in a lawsuit like Gary suggested. But intruth I think the only thing of value this guy has is his 5DMIII.



I would sue for that camera and make watch me dismantle it screw by screw...aaah the horror!


----------



## jaicatalano (Aug 24, 2012)

That's nuts. I never even think to do that to someone. I always get the photographers permission to post their sessions but I ALWAYS include them because talent comes from all over so why not give credit to them.

Anyway, thanks for making others aware.


----------



## sapper6fd (Aug 24, 2012)

After reading this guys site, it sounds to me like he couldnt care less about the sale of his photos.  Its written in such a way that it apears as if he is posting his work in the hopes someone will take the image so he can proffit off of a lasw suit.  

I honest believe this guy wants people to rip his work.  He has no interest in the sales.  He's only interest is in suing those who take them becaue he knows its more valuble this way.


----------



## Tee (Aug 24, 2012)

sapper6fd said:


> After reading this guys site, it sounds to me like he couldnt care less about the sale of his photos.  Its written in such a way that it apears as if he is posting his work in the hopes someone will take the image so he can proffit off of a lasw suit.
> 
> I honest believe this guy wants people to rip his work.  He has no interest in the sales.  He's only interest is in suing those who take them becaue he knows its more valuble this way.



Huh?


----------



## sapper6fd (Aug 24, 2012)

Tee said:


> sapper6fd said:
> 
> 
> > After reading this guys site, it sounds to me like he couldnt care less about the sale of his photos.  Its written in such a way that it apears as if he is posting his work in the hopes someone will take the image so he can proffit off of a lasw suit.
> ...



I'm refering to the OP's link to this

If You&#8217;ve Had Images Stolen Off The Internet, You Can Get Up To $150,000 Per Image Stolen |


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 24, 2012)

StillCapture said:


> Hi all, I'm new here, been reading through this site for hours.  My first post, hooray .  @ MJHoward, I work part-time at San Francisco Licensing Dept.  For photographers, Sole Proprietorship is the most common (about 90-95%) structure for photographers.  LLC, LPP, Corp, and others for a photographer rarily make sense unless you are hired by National Geographic, have extreme photography.  LLC and others, perform nothing other than more paperwork and supposed 'protections' in comparison to sole proprietorships.  Spent sometime on the stop stealing ordeal, wow, the member has some time, good work by them.  Too me though, this all seems way blown out of proportion.  I tried going to the persons/company's facebook page but nothing there.  To me, they do sound sorry, and made some very poor choices.  But for as much pounding as they seem to have taken, seems like they have learned a great deal about how sensitive we are in this industry.  The person Gary Fong, that is plain goofy to offer such services.  I watched videos he's made, and he contradicts himself by not getting more to the story, rather just offering to help break this person or people more.  I agree we all need confirmation of them seriously acknowledging their actions as unethical.


Hmmmm, suspiciously sounds like benjamin whatever his name was or the incredible friends he had on the facebook. 
You've got some things backward there. yes, most are sole proprietors, however that doesn't mean that a LLC isn't the most SENSIBLE format. And it doesn't make much sense to form an LLC if you are working for Nat' Geographic. 
The guys work? REALLY? Frankly, what IS his sucks balls on that site. The IQ went to the dump when all of the stolen stuff was removed. 
I really find the statement "The person Gary Fong," hilarious. Really? There isn't anyone in the industry who doesn't know who Fong is. 
So, benjamin and friends, we'd actually prefer not to have you here. As we already know you have had a theft issue, we're not really comfortable with you here.


----------



## IByte (Aug 24, 2012)

MLeeK said:
			
		

> Hmmmm, suspiciously sounds like benjamin whatever his name was or the incredible friends he had on the facebook.
> You've got some things backward there. yes, most are sole proprietors, however that doesn't mean that a LLC isn't the most SENSIBLE format. And it doesn't make much sense to form an LLC if you are working for Nat' Geographic.
> The guys work? REALLY? Frankly, what IS his sucks balls on that site. The IQ went to the dump when all of the stolen stuff was removed.
> I really find the statement "The person Gary Fong," hilarious. Really? There isn't anyone in the industry who doesn't know who Fong is.
> So, benjamin and friends, we'd actually prefer not to have you here. As we already know you have had a theft issue, we're not really comfortable with you here.



...Gittem' girl!


----------



## StillCapture (Aug 24, 2012)

I'm Sarah, not sure who Benjamin is, other than I read that page few linked to.  Reading it, and looking at images, it looks like he's about 1000 miles away from here.  I'm a big supporter of forums and sharing thoughts, but to call me a man, or because someone does not see it the way you do, no need to let thoughts turn into silliness.  I know who Gary Fong is, don't know much about it, seen videos of his, actually bought two items from his site just weeks ago as it was very informative.  He is very informative on his site.  But to see him say one thing in videos about when people are sorry and not knowledgable about how things work, slack should be given.  I agreed with that video, as it's humane.  At times this doesn't apply, that is 10-4 big buddy .  Too me though, this just seems silly at this point.  As for business structure, whatever works for you, that's all that matters.  Here we give no legal advice on structure, but most of us in the offices know, sole proprietor is fine.  LLC can certainly work, and work great, just changes taxes, share, minutes recording processes/requirements and the such.  It's definately a more formal structure no doubt about that .


----------



## Tee (Aug 24, 2012)

sapper6fd said:


> Tee said:
> 
> 
> > sapper6fd said:
> ...



Ah, gotcha.  I only clicked on the first link.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 24, 2012)

StillCapture said:


> I'm Sarah, not sure who Benjamin is, other than I read that page few linked to.  Reading it, and looking at images, it looks like he's about 1000 miles away from here.  I'm a big supporter of forums and sharing thoughts, but to call me a man, or because someone does not see it the way you do, no need to let thoughts turn into silliness.  I know who Gary Fong is, don't know much about it, seen videos of his, actually bought two items from his site just weeks ago as it was very informative.  He is very informative on his site.  But to see him say one thing in videos about when people are sorry and not knowledgable about how things work, slack should be given.  I agreed with that video, as it's humane.  At times this doesn't apply, that is 10-4 big buddy .  Too me though, this just seems silly at this point.  As for business structure, whatever works for you, that's all that matters.  Here we give no legal advice on structure, but most of us in the offices know, sole proprietor is fine.  LLC can certainly work, and work great, just changes taxes, share, minutes recording processes/requirements and the such.  It's definately a more formal structure no doubt about that .


Well, if that isn't a complete 180


----------



## StillCapture (Aug 24, 2012)

huh?


----------



## StillCapture (Aug 24, 2012)

MLeek, my views wont shift, there are so so many of these same type of cases out there it is absurd.  To focus on one person vs. repremending each person is silly.  Focusing on one person, that actually doesnt seem to have done what so many others have to an extreme just seems odd.  I'm part time photographer, part time at SanFrans Licensing Dept.  To see someone take my work and show as theirs would be an honor, but at same time, I'd be a bit annoyed if I weren't given credit.  There's 11,317 photographers licensed in CA according to our records (current as of July 2012).  Every month it gets updated.  But I can see in July 2011 it was 9,812.  Point is so many people want to be a photographer, and many are cutting corners its sad.  Number is bound to raise more, so more and more of what we're seeing is bound to get out of control.  I'm thinking we need to pull licenses if an additional requirement (signing a state pledged copyright form) is not met.  To track that would be up to public, with a system put into affect that allows public to report, and after a certain number is reached, license is revoked.  Something to that nature.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 24, 2012)

The problem with this guy is that it is THIRTY SEVEN people he stole from and the number of images he stole from those THIRTY SEVEN people is exponential. 
THEN he decided to be an ass and accuse the photographers who actually took the images of stealing them and say he was going to SUE THEM. 
There have been MANY people have made this mistake that aren't getting crucified like this. Why is that? Because they immediately took the stuff down and made amends. There are few who claim their web designer or something for a minute, but they have NEVER accused their victims of the crime or acted the ass that this guy did. They apologize and do whatever they can to make up for what they did.

*A thief is a thief.* If someone stole your _____(fill in the blank), then PUBLICLY claimed you were the theif and impinged upon YOUR reputation how would you feel about that?  
Furthermore if a thief stole your _________with the value that ONE photograph has he'd be SITTING IN JAIL. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Pay a huge amount of $$$ in bail and pray you aren't spending the next 10 years or so sitting.

I DO NOT condone the attacking any of them personally or the spoof facebook page or the personal taunting. That is absurd, childish and totally uncalled for. Now discussing it and speaking your thoughts regarding the whole thing? Totally fine. 

I am curious to see what the 37 photographers do and I hope that because of his incredibly ballsy statements they pursue it to the fullest extent possible. Like I said, A thief is a thief.


----------



## StillCapture (Aug 24, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> The problem with this guy is that it is THIRTY SEVEN people he stole from and the number of images he stole from those THIRTY SEVEN people is exponential.
> THEN he decided to be an ass and accuse the photographers who actually took the images of stealing them and say he was going to SUE THEM.
> There have been MANY people have made this mistake that aren't getting crucified like this. Why is that? Because they immediately took the stuff down and made amends. There are few who claim their web designer or something for a minute, but they have NEVER accused their victims of the crime or acted the ass that this guy did. They apologize and do whatever they can to make up for what they did.
> 
> ...



Yeah a thief is a thief, but focusing on one, it's a waste to me. 37? What about the Williams case from last year, 200 (dont recall the number, but 200+) artists work, but he was taken to court and was given community service. Followed that story as it happened right here in SanFran sad to say. That guy, he never gave a hint to be sorry about any of it. Kept pictures up and all. We were all appaulted here in the local industry. Well, I just don&#8217;t agree, but that&#8217;s me. Sounded to me like the reality hit him, and seemed to me sorry. I'm sure he's punishing himself as of now as he lost his page on facebook it looks like. But you're right a thief is a thief, I just don&#8217;t agree with pummeling him.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 24, 2012)

So, according to you discussing the fact that the Williams Case only ended in Community service being an outrage would be taboo too.


----------



## StillCapture (Aug 25, 2012)

Taboo, I can see that, but it was how that guy in SanFran in 2011 never once showed any remorse or care in the world to fixing the issue that caused the uproar.  This other guy seems like he recognized he f'd up and resolved it, definetly not as quick as we all would hope, and he could do without being an ass, but he did do as all us photographers demanded, get our work off your page and site.


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 25, 2012)

All of that is well and good but, bottom line? You can't get blood from a stone.

If Photographer A loses a lawsuit in which he's been sued for $150,000.00 by Photographer B, and Photographer A doesn't have $150,000.00, Photographer B doesn't get much beyond bragging rights...


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Aug 25, 2012)

StillCapture said:


> Yeah a thief is a thief, but focusing on one, it's a waste to me. 37? What about the Williams case from last year, 200 (dont recall the number, but 200+) artists work, but he was taken to court and was given community service. Followed that story as it happened right here in SanFran sad to say. That guy, he never gave a hint to be sorry about any of it. Kept pictures up and all. We were all appaulted here in the local industry. Well, I just don&#8217;t agree, but that&#8217;s me. Sounded to me like the reality hit him, and seemed to me sorry. I'm sure he's punishing himself as of now as he lost his page on facebook it looks like. But you're right a thief is a thief, I just don&#8217;t agree with pummeling him.




Oh, so he lost his Facebook page, and he probably feels weally weally bad, so we should just leave him alone cuz he's weeeeeeallly sorry.... 

This isn't the playground Stillcapture. Adult's make adult choices in an adult world. He *chose *to rip off the hard work of other artists for his own advancement. When confronted, he even had the audacity to accuse the artists of stealing HIS work. Now you're going to sit here and play Devil's advocate to a scumbag, no-brain, thief. Oddly enough, you've just joined the site to become involved in this thread. Something doesn't add up. 

You're convincing NOBODY that he shouldn't be pursued to the full extent of the law for his crimes. 




StillCapture said:


> Taboo, I can see that, but it was how that guy in SanFran in 2011 never once showed any remorse or care in the world to fixing the issue that caused the uproar. This other guy seems like he recognized he f'd up and resolved it, definetly not as quick as we all would hope, and he could do without being an ass, but he did do as all us photographers demanded, get our work off your page and site.



Oh really StillCapture? Good to know-- by this line of logic, I can commit any crime, and in the court of StillCapture, so long as when I get caught I set things "right" that absolves me from the crime. Do you realize how stupid this sounds? It *doesn't matter* that he got the work off his page and site. *What matters is that it was there in the first place.* You can't really be that dense.


----------



## IByte (Aug 25, 2012)

StillCapture said:
			
		

> Yeah a thief is a thief, but focusing on one, it's a waste to me. 37? What about the Williams case from last year, 200 (dont recall the number, but 200+) artists work, but he was taken to court and was given community service. Followed that story as it happened right here in SanFran sad to say. That guy, he never gave a hint to be sorry about any of it. Kept pictures up and all. We were all appaulted here in the local industry. Well, I just don&rsquo;t agree, but that&rsquo;s me. Sounded to me like the reality hit him, and seemed to me sorry. I'm sure he's punishing himself as of now as he lost his page on facebook it looks like. But you're right a thief is a thief, I just don&rsquo;t agree with pummeling him.



Nah I believe in pummeling him, some people like this here can't be reasoned with.  You got to use oldschool methods with these kind of thrieves.  If you try to use bunny hugging methods like community service it will not sink in!  Two thumbs up for Gary.  I would make hime go bankrupt, money or no money his credibility is scarred..a nice constant reminder why stealing is wrong.


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 25, 2012)

Rotanimod said:
			
		

> Oh, so he lost his Facebook page, and he probably feels weally weally bad, so we should just leave him alone cuz he's weeeeeeallly sorry....
> 
> This isn't the playground Stillcapture. Adult's make adult choices in an adult world. He chose to rip off the hard work of other artists for his own advancement. When confronted, he even had the audacity to accuse the artists of stealing HIS work. Now you're going to sit here and play Devil's advocate to a scumbag, no-brain, thief. Oddly enough, you've just joined the site to become involved in this thread. Something doesn't add up.
> 
> ...



Dude - he just needs a time out. Spankings are too emotionally damaging nowadays you know.


----------



## StillCapture (Aug 26, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm with you Rexbobcat.  That guy knows he did wrong, you can see it in his messages on that 'stopstealing' post.  I reread that 'stopstealing' post over and over, I didn't read it like Rotanimod did.  Doesn't say he's 'suing' anyone.  Guy was trying to fix his wrong doings, and said he was going to file for a court order for having that stuff removed.  Also, my girlfriend Samantha read it with me, and we're confused where it says others stole from him...never saw anything about that, but can see how someone could read it like that though.  Maybe it was his arrogance?  IDK.  What I know is the guy seems sorry, or as Rotanimod says "weeeeally sorry" (cute), and appears or at least appeared to try and make things as best he could by repenting and taking images off.  That's how I read it at least and it's what my gut tells me.  Steve5D is also right, you can't squeeze blood out of a stone.  Gary Fong is great, but to encourage idea to try and bleed someone after watching videos he's made is so contradictory I'm a bit taken back.  I agree the guy is an ass, results to image removal took a day longer than hoped for, but mission accomplished, he took them off, he's having to deal without his page anymore on facebook etc. which as you know is king at sharing work.


----------



## MTVision (Aug 26, 2012)

StillCapture said:
			
		

> I'm with you Rexbobcat.  That guy knows he did wrong, you can see it in his messages on that 'stopstealing' post.  I reread that 'stopstealing' post over and over, I didn't read it like Rotanimod did.  Doesn't say he's 'suing' anyone.  Guy was trying to fix his wrong doings, and said he was going to file for a court order for having that stuff removed.  Also, my girlfriend Samantha read it with me, and we're confused where it says others stole from him...never saw anything about that, but can see how someone could read it like that though.  Maybe it was his arrogance?  IDK.  What I know is the guy seems sorry, or as Rotanimod says "weeeeally sorry" (cute), and appears or at least appeared to try and make things as best he could by repenting and taking images off.  That's how I read it at least and it's what my gut tells me.  Steve5D is also right, you can't squeeze blood out of a stone.  Gary Fong is great, but to encourage idea to try and bleed someone after watching videos he's made is so contradictory I'm a bit taken back.  I agree the guy is an ass, results to image removal took a day longer than hoped for, but mission accomplished, he took them off, he's having to deal without his page anymore on facebook etc. which as you know is king at sharing work.



Did you actually read everything?? He may feel bad he got caught now but when it first went public he was all "oh haters want to hate cus their jealous". Then it changed to something like he works with tons of photographers....then he stole people's work to fill space - used google to find images. Didn't you know Lightroom automatically erases people's watermarks and adds their own??

And who cares about FB? Poor guy doesn't have a FB page anymore. Boo-freakin-hoo. King at sharing OTHER PEOPLE'S work. 

I've seen so many cases like this recently and this dude is the ONLY one who didn't just apologize and take the photos down. Nope he denied denied denied and made up a ton of ridiculous excuses. There is absolutely no excuse. None at all. He is/was a photographer so he damn well knew what he was doing. Just the fact that he edited out people's watermarks proves he knew exactly what he was doing. 

The stop stealing website did nothing wrong except out some guy who was stealing and profiting off other peoples work. Yet this ass wants to sue her to get the truth taken down. 

I just don't see where you are seeing that he is weally sorry. I didn't see that. I see an arrogant thief who got caught and didn't want to admit any wrongdoings.


----------



## StillCapture (Aug 27, 2012)

MTVision said:


> StillCapture said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hi Megan, what I see, personally, and a few of us here in the office, that this guy was an arrogant ass, but within 2 days, realized he f'd up, and took action by taking images down and gave a public announcement of his wrong doing.  This isn't anyone I support, but he did take action.  Also, how do we know he profited anything, reading a few other site forums, sounds like he or they didn't even perform any photo shoots, as they were new.  But outting him off FB is HUGE in my book.  As this is KING at rounding business up.  Without it, he's left with craigslist...does that even get photographers calls?  Marsha (friend that works in accounting here) does part-time photography as well, she said she posted over and over in craigslist but never a call (well, she said 2 were made but that's over 2 months).


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 27, 2012)

StillCapture said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > Rotanimod said:
> ...



I think you missed the sarcasm there... 

Having to deal without a facebook. WAAH. He can use any email and just start a new facebook. Pretty simple. No big loss there!


----------



## IByte (Aug 27, 2012)

StillCapture said:
			
		

> Hi Megan, what I see, personally, and a few of us here in the office, that this guy was an arrogant ass, but within 2 days, realized he f'd up, and took action by taking images down and gave a public announcement of his wrong doing.  This isn't anyone I support, but he did take action.  Also, how do we know he profited anything, reading a few other site forums, sounds like he or they didn't even perform any photo shoots, as they were new.  But outting him off FB is HUGE in my book.  As this is KING at rounding business up.  Without it, he's left with craigslist...does that even get photographers calls?  Marsha (friend that works in accounting here) does part-time photography as well, she said she posted over and over in craigslist but never a call (well, she said 2 were made but that's over 2 months).



He should have ballsed up and took it down earlier or better yet don't freaking do it in the first place!


----------



## MTVision (Aug 27, 2012)

StillCapture said:
			
		

> Hi Megan, what I see, personally, and a few of us here in the office, that this guy was an arrogant ass, but within 2 days, realized he f'd up, and took action by taking images down and gave a public announcement of his wrong doing.  This isn't anyone I support, but he did take action.  Also, how do we know he profited anything, reading a few other site forums, sounds like he or they didn't even perform any photo shoots, as they were new.  But outting him off FB is HUGE in my book.  As this is KING at rounding business up.  Without it, he's left with craigslist...does that even get photographers calls?  Marsha (friend that works in accounting here) does part-time photography as well, she said she posted over and over in craigslist but never a call (well, she said 2 were made but that's over 2 months).



So how do you know he didn't profit off of others works? Just because he was new doesn't mean he never took money for shoots. Why would he have a FB business page and a website business page with full galleries if he wasn't in business and doing shoots? Oh and can't forget all the Craigslist ads

And, if, as you believe, he hadn't had any paid shoots then outing him on FB wouldn't hurt him. He doesn't need to round up business if he isn't in business. Right?  

I don't believe that he should be insulted, threatened, etc. but I don't think there was anything wrong with outing him - on FB or anywheres else. With his attitude he probably wouldn't have taken anything down without a little public humiliation. Plus he obviously has no respect for the profession otherwise he wouldn't have done what he did so who cares if he gets business - i don't. 

He took action after 2 days - but for those 2 days he was making every excuse possible. And his FB outing wasn't half as bad as this other photographers - her name was Megan - cant remember the name of her business. She only stole from a few photographers and she was blasted all over the Internet and on the local news. She was threatened and called every name in the book. She posted a public apology - never once did she blame it on anyone/thing but herself. But this guy on the other hand stole from 36 photographers and it took 2 days for him to actually admit to some of it. 

None of this would even be an issue if the guy didn't lie and steal in the first place. I have no sympathy for him or his "business".


----------



## StillCapture (Aug 27, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> StillCapture said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...



Yeah, you're probably right.  Unless Facebook supports IP detection, which I would think they would.  If they do, no fan page can be made as it won't pass through their servers.  But now he'll or they'll know not to use or even think about using images he or they find on google or wherever.  I like the comment by IByte too, I agree, should never have done it, but we have to understand so many people, and ironically photographers, dont realize the value and legalities of copyright and such.  People save pictures they find online all day, everyday, and email them, post to facebook because it's 'funny' or whatever the case may be.  The watermark issue, IDK, that one is above me, but we don't know if he was trying to claim it as his or their own work, although it does look like it, but that's off assumption and this always is a deadend.  If this guy is broke like I've read in other forums, it's a deadend, and we have to just keep vigilant eyes on the industry as a whole.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 27, 2012)

IP detection would do no good. We have 5 facebook accounts in my house. They all log in on the same IP.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Aug 27, 2012)

I know I'm late to the party on this one, but all I can is if he stole my work and was displaying it in his portfolio as his own work, I go after him with extreme prejudice. $150,000 per image, for every image.

I hope these other photogs take the same approach.


----------



## MTVision (Aug 27, 2012)

StillCapture said:
			
		

> Yeah, you're probably right.  Unless Facebook supports IP detection, which I would think they would.  If they do, no fan page can be made as it won't pass through their servers.  But now he'll or they'll know not to use or even think about using images he or they find on google or wherever.  I like the comment by IByte too, I agree, should never have done it, but we have to understand so many people, and ironically photographers, dont realize the value and legalities of copyright and such.  People save pictures they find online all day, everyday, and email them, post to facebook because it's 'funny' or whatever the case may be.  The watermark issue, IDK, that one is above me, but we don't know if he was trying to claim it as his or their own work, although it does look like it, but that's off assumption and this always is a deadend.  If this guy is broke like I've read in other forums, it's a deadend, and we have to just keep vigilant eyes on the industry as a whole.



  People save pictures they find online all day, everyday, and email them, post to facebook because it's 'funny' or whatever the case may be

^^^^ this may still be technically wrong but it's completely different then what this guy did. Obviously he was claiming the work as his own - it had his watermark, it was in his portfolio mixed in with his own work....


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 27, 2012)

StillCapture said:


> Hi Megan, what I see, personally, and a few of us here in the office, that this guy was an arrogant ass, but within 2 days, realized he f'd up, and took action by taking images down and gave a public announcement of his wrong doing.



No... within 2 days he realized that people weren't as gullible and  stupid as he had hoped so he had no choice but to concede.  If everyone  said "Oooh, _they _stole from _him_.  Guess we'll leave him  alone now", do you really think if everything immediately died down  after that he would have came back a couple days later and admitted to  everything and apologized??  Hell no!



StillCapture said:


> This isn't anyone I support, but he did take action.  Also, how do we know he profited anything, reading a few other site forums, sounds like he or they didn't even perform any photo shoots, as they were new.



I would hardly think that a business that is nearly 2 years old would be considered "new" enough not to have had at least a couple of clients: http://dor.wa.gov/images/BRDImage.aspx?tra=7nW2tlK+X8a3OPzA9yfDFk7sCZRUQfzy&rsp=


----------



## IByte (Aug 27, 2012)

StillCapture said:
			
		

> Yeah, you're probably right.  Unless Facebook supports IP detection, which I would think they would.  If they do, no fan page can be made as it won't pass through their servers.  But now he'll or they'll know not to use or even think about using images he or they find on google or wherever.  I like the comment by IByte too, I agree, should never have done it, but we have to understand so many people, and ironically photographers, dont realize the value and legalities of copyright and such.  People save pictures they find online all day, everyday, and email them, post to facebook because it's 'funny' or whatever the case may be.  The watermark issue, IDK, that one is above me, but we don't know if he was trying to claim it as his or their own work, although it does look like it, but that's off assumption and this always is a deadend.  If this guy is broke li I've read in other forums, it's a deadend, and we have to just keep vigilant eyes on the industry as a whole.



People may save images to recreate them fine, trying to sell yourself with other people's work I'd throw book at them.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 27, 2012)

StillCapture said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > StillCapture said:
> ...


 WE DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS TRYING TO CLAIM THEM AS HIS OWN???? REALLY? First they are in HIS portfolio section of HIS website. Not in something that says "photographers we admire" 
Second He REMOVED someone watermark and replaced it with his own. Last I knew there was no "remove watermark" preset for Lightroom. That took conscious effort to remove. 

Pull you head out of the sand.


----------



## StillCapture (Aug 27, 2012)

Jamesbjenkins, you'd be spinning your wheels and money on a deadend.  Nothing else to say about that.  We have to remember, invest in your craft, not chasing someone that made things right after being beaten ahaha.  I'm all about protecting one's own property most certainly, but this isn't a car, not house theft.  It was someone that went online, found pictures they liked, displayed them, and then was an arrogant ass at first when told to remove them.  Copyright and/or trademark violation is a civil case, it is fines only, and the fines are ONLY if the party has the capital.  This is a photographer that is small time, probably just out of school, or just bought a camera and portrayed to be doing good when in fact they were just like most photographers, counting beans.  Mleek, I'm not too keen on how IP detection works, but I've been under the impression that if 1 account was terminated that used an in common with other accounts IP address, they'd all be shut down.  Good chance I'm wrong as I don't know this, just what I've been under the impression of.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 27, 2012)

That would be pretty tough seeing how there are so many who are using library computers or logging on in cafe's which give different IP's...


----------



## MTVision (Aug 27, 2012)

StillCapture said:
			
		

> Jamesbjenkins, you'd be spinning your wheels and money on a deadend.  Nothing else to say about that.  We have to remember, invest in your craft, not chasing someone that made things right after being beaten ahaha.  I'm all about protecting one's own property most certainly, but this isn't a car, not house theft.  It was someone that went online, found pictures they liked, displayed them, and then was an arrogant ass at first when told to remove them.  Copyright and/or trademark violation is a civil case, it is fines only, and the fines are ONLY if the party has the capital.  This is a photographer that is small time, probably just out of school, or just bought a camera and portrayed to be doing good when in fact they were just like most photographers, counting beans.  Mleek, I'm not too keen on how IP detection works, but I've been under the impression that if 1 account was terminated that used an in common with other accounts IP address, they'd all be shut down.  Good chance I'm wrong as I don't know this, just what I've been under the impression of.



I'm not 100% sure I believe that fines are only if the party has the capital. That'd be nice if te world ran that way but I highly doubt it. 

Also - do you realize that you can also sue? In small claims court if you sue you aren't guaranteed the money but there are steps you can take such as putting a lien on your property or - get this - you can even get a court order to garnish someone's wages. 

And I'm sorry but stealing is stealing. Just because it wasn't physical property doesn't make it less wrong. And maybe to you it's not a big deal but I'm sure it is to the people who were stolen from. 

He made things right after being beaten?? LOL

I believe he said "Thank you to all the haters.....you got us 60 fans in 24 hours. Please keep talking trash like the garbage man....calling us "thieves" of images....it helps and we love the publicity." 

Sounds like he was beaten and abused huh? more like he got caught and wasn't man enough to admit it. 

Stealing is stealing is stealing.


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 27, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> I know I'm late to the party on this one, but all I can is if he stole my work and was displaying it in his portfolio as his own work, I go after him with extreme prejudice. $150,000 per image, for every image.
> 
> I hope these other photogs take the same approach.



And how much are you willing to spend for whatever the minimal return you'll realize would be?

Because odds are that Dude's not kicking around with $150 large to pay you with...


----------



## StillCapture (Aug 27, 2012)

Steve5D is right on the money!  @MJHoward, I'm not seeing what you're seeing...and I'm in the database (I work here at the SanFran Licensing Dept., we have access to the entire US database).  He/she/they licensed just 4 months ago (April, 2012).  This topic is over with.  I understand and respect MLeeks thoughts on all this, good points, but this topic is blown far out of proportion.  People are talking about small claims court...you cannot file small claims court for a copyright/trademark topic.  It's a fact.  Ask any attorney that currently practices law.  Out of curiousity, I just did a google search, and found 1000's and 1000's of images for wedding and others.  99% are unwatermarked .  I even came by 3 I seen them use.  Point is, they f'd up, and I'd bet my level 7 paycheck they learned a lesson better than any community service or fine would teach.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Aug 27, 2012)

Steve5D said:
			
		

> And how much are you willing to spend for whatever the minimal return you'll realize would be?
> 
> Because odds are that Dude's not kicking around with $150 large to pay you with...



If the guy's a photographer, then the minimum I would get is whatever ALL of his gear is worth. He's not a full-timer so the "livelihood" argument is void. The cost for retaining counsel long enough to scare the crap out of him and get a good settlement would completely be worth it. That's if I decided to be kind enough to not go for the throat with max damages.

Seriously Steve, you seem like a pretty resourceful guy. Shouldn't be too hard for you to figure out.


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 27, 2012)

StillCapture said:


> Steve5D is right on the money!  @MJHoward, I'm not seeing what you're seeing...and I'm in the database (I work here at the SanFran Licensing Dept., we have access to the entire US database).  He/she/they licensed just 4 months ago (April, 2012).  This topic is over with.  I understand and respect MLeeks thoughts on all this, good points, but this topic is blown far out of proportion.  People are talking about small claims court...you cannot file small claims court for a copyright/trademark topic.  It's a fact.  Ask any attorney that currently practices law.  Out of curiousity, I just did a google search, and found 1000's and 1000's of images for wedding and others.  99% are unwatermarked .  I even came by 3 I seen them use.  Point is, they f'd up, and I'd bet my level 7 paycheck they learned a lesson better than any community service or fine would teach.




All you have to do is click the link, it is their business registration information through Washington state secretary.  Their BUSINESS, not their website, was registered 1/1/2011.  You're looking in the wrong place fool.  Just so we're all clear... you joined this forum (and based on a previous comment, other forums) to comment on this thread to DEFEND a thief and a low life and then, when it becomes clear that everyone isn't going to jump on your bullsh!t bandwagon, you declare that the thread is now over?!  AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!  You really were born yesterday.  I just gotta say StillCapture AKA "Benjamin Ramalho", you are screwed!  Even if you don't get sued, your integrity and reputation are ruined.


----------



## IByte (Aug 27, 2012)

Steve5D said:
			
		

> And how much are you willing to spend for whatever the minimal return you'll realize would be?
> 
> Because odds are that Dude's not kicking around with $150 large to pay you with...



But if he goes bankrupt will send a nice friendly reminder not to steal peoples hard work.


----------



## StillCapture (Aug 27, 2012)

I'm being called a guy again?  This is so bizarre.  It's not about standing up for anyone.  Forums are for expression, freedom of thoughts, opinions and such.  Not sure how me not seeing it like mjhoward makes me a guy, let alone the guy he's talking about.  Interesting way of thinking I suppose?  Back to topic at hand, which really is yesterdays news, for any legal counsel to be retained would cost more than anyone would get in return, if anything were issued by the courts at all.  Williams case from 2011 resulted in community service (was taken to court for fines, none issued).  Williams case was for 10x the pictures, 100x the arrogance, 1000x more hated.  Look on the map, I'm next door to SanFran's county courts, and blocks from the Federal Court.  We hear cases all day, everyday.  I'm no attorney, but something like this, would be a waste of money and most preciously, time.  This guy appears to not even be able to pay for a decent site.  Seriously, are you guys seeing something the rest of us are not?  He advertised on craigslist (free), no search engines.  This guy, guys, gal, gals, are broke.  Probably still has dial up connection ahahaha.

Everyone has an opinion, but if we slow down and really look at the picture, this topic and s/he/they are out of biz.  Back to the unemployment line ahahahahaha.


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 27, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am.

And I'm also smart enough to realize when something is a waste of time and money. Suing the guy for $150,000.00, for every violation, is a complete and utter waste of time. Have you seen the number of shots he claims ownership to? How many millions of dollars does that add up to?

Suing his to make a point is fine, I suppose, if you have some unwavering need to make a point and "win", but you're going to spend quite a bit of money doing that and, oh, guess what? You won't recover that, either and, even if you got what all his gear is worth, it won't make a dent. I also don't know what gives you the idea the guy is a working photographer. Truth be told, all I see is him working at stealing other people's photos.

Scaring him? Whooooo... yeah, this is a guy who's laid claim to a picture taken on the moon. You're not gonna' shake him up to much, because he _really _doesn't care. He'll thumb his nose at you, and you wanna' know why? Because he knows you'll never see the money from a lawsuit if you win, and he's probably got spare little to "settle" with. Max damages?? You want to "go for the throat and go for max damages"? Please explain how that's going to benefit you. 

YOU WON'T GET A DIME.

I'm not defending the guy at all. I'm merely pointing out the fruitless result of any action against him.

He's exposed. He's a laughing stock. 

That's as much as you're likely to ever get...


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 27, 2012)

IByte said:


> But if he goes bankrupt will send a nice friendly reminder not to steal peoples hard work.



Hell, these days, bankruptcy is commonplace. I'm sure, even if there was a chance it would happen, it wouldn't bother him.

In fact, if he claims bankruptcy, all these people who want to "go for the throat" won't get a dime.

Good thinkin'...


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Aug 27, 2012)

Stillcapture, your rowboat has lots of holes in it and you're way out in the middle of the deep blue ocean. We can save you, but you have to stop acting like this idiot doesn't deserve everything that he's going to get. 

Nothing would make me happier than reading a follow-up to this article in one year and seeing he was taken to court and sued to bankruptcy .


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Aug 27, 2012)

Note that at the bottom of the tumblr page the author was smart enough to include the following page tags:



24/7 Protography
Benjamin Ramalho
Tacoma
Washington
thief
website
facebook
craigslist


So for the rest of his life, when an employer, client, friend, colleague, acquaintance Google's his name, a top result will be that blog entry on his *photo stealing*.  Some sweet justice right there. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=Benjamin+Ramalho&aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 27, 2012)

IByte said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bankruptcy is awesome!


----------



## IByte (Aug 27, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:
			
		

> Bankruptcy is awesome!



Hell yeah I wanna piece of that action!  Damaged credit for a decade whooo hooo!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 27, 2012)

IByte said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Pfft! 

I filed.

 Turned around and bought a car a year later. Bought a house, FHA, no money down a year after that. 
It's really not a big deal. 
11 years later, aside from the house, business excluded, I am debt free and have a credit score of 760.


----------



## IByte (Aug 27, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:
			
		

> Pfft!
> 
> I filed.
> 
> ...



You get all that with bankruptcy damn! I'm doing the s$&& the hard way lol.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 28, 2012)

When donations open up for the legal fund to sue the ass off this guy-I'll drop in my $50 and so will a WHOLE LOT of other people just the same as has been done before and will be done after this idiot.


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 28, 2012)

The guy, clearly, is an idiot. This really can't be argued.

But, hey, show of hands here: How many people here _honestly _believe that suing the guy, for $150,000.00 per infraction, would _truly _be worth both the time and expense required to successfully secure a judgement against him?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 28, 2012)

IByte said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I got a fresh start with bankruptcy, and I still had to work hard to get all that I have.

Had gay marriage been legal, I would have filed for divorce, and been able to handle the situation, the money I put into a house, a different way.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Aug 28, 2012)

This conversation would be a lot easier if the mods would quit deleting posts.

Damn, people.


----------



## IByte (Aug 28, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:
			
		

> I got a fresh start with bankruptcy, and I still had to work hard to get all that I have.
> 
> Had gay marriage been legal, I would have filed for divorce, and been able to handle the situation, the money I put into a house, a different way.



Lol gotcha so I take it was much needed reboot.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 28, 2012)

IByte said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes.
I was carrying dept on something I was no longer apart of, and could never recoup on the expendature, yet would have to carry that debt, at someone elses gain. I didn't take the decision lightly, but it turned out to be the best option, and the best decision to make. It would have cost a lot more to file a suit against the ex, and very difficult to win, since people of my ilk lack the same protections of the rest of society.

I was really scared of filing. But it really isn't that big of a deal.
That's my point, in relation to this thread. If the guy in this thread is sued, and they win, he can file bankruptcy. And doing so isn't such a big deal, and won't "ruin" him for the future.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 28, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> IByte said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...



Hopefully half of the injured parties will wait till right after his bankruptcy is discharged to file suit.


----------



## StillCapture (Aug 28, 2012)

BULLSEYE for Steve5D & Bitter Jeweler. I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but the time put forth to pursue this particular guy, without a doubt would be a waste. Time is the most important thing we have. Money wasted can be repaired. Time wasted cannot. Even if time weren't an issue, the courts won't and wouldn't bleed a 'stone'. Although was an ass, s/he/they took action of removal within a day or two. We all wish it were never done in first place, and wish for no attitude. However, the images were removed and a public apology was given. You can only push further if you can prove s/he/they monetarily gained from the images, which it doesn't look like s/he/they did as there was no work apparently s/he/they did. I agree, we aren't happy with this person(s), but they are small beans and like Bitter Jeweler and Steve5D are pointing out, no gains will be made other than bragging rights, which in this case, would make us no better than them. We live in a litigious era, to contribute to that instead of our passion, adds to the "none of this makes sense" when it comes down to no gains to be met.


----------



## jowensphoto (Aug 28, 2012)

I can't understand stealing photos from school portrait companies (a lot of stolen images were from Prestige). Run of the mill, boring photography. At least steal something amazing. lol

ETA: didn't see it mentioned, I could have missed it, but his website is now down.


----------

