September 10, 2013 at 2:03 pm #12905
Man the HDR stuff was really hard to find as it’s not listed as HDR
Check out his “commercial” photography, a real treat for HDR fans!
what do you call a 24 year old chavette? ………… Granny!
message sent to the real owner.September 10, 2013 at 5:27 pm #12911
Saw this post linked from my Flickr account and thought Id have a look. Im the photographer for this image, so no idea why its showing up on Lord whats his face or that boudoir guy who is claiming that its one of his :).
Whats the big deal with the image anyway?
DanSeptember 10, 2013 at 6:34 pm #12912
Whats the big deal with the image anyway?
Nice image. No “big deal”, except others are using your image.September 10, 2013 at 7:09 pm #12915
ah fair enough, I spoke to the guy who put it on his boudoir site, he said he bought the image from Flickr :).
Cant believe someone advertising “their” photography courses, using some elses image :),
DanSeptember 10, 2013 at 7:12 pm #12916
He bought the image from Flickr! Did they pay you anything?
Using someone else’s images to promote their photography or their courses seems fraudulent!September 10, 2013 at 9:47 pm #12918ebiMember
@dan, It’s kind of odd that he was able to purchase the photo through flickr when it’s available to license through Getty.September 10, 2013 at 10:21 pm #12919
It’s more than kind of odd. Getty have the photographer sign a contract before they turn over a photo to their customer. The rights flag is set to Creative Commons that says with attribution you can use it for free, even for advertising.
On that basis, perhaps we can’t fault those guys for using the photo, but it still feels slimy. Generally I don’t have a problem with stock photos in advertising, except when the product is photography! Using stock photos (even if there is fine print some place) will lead many to believe those photos were taken by the photographer and are the quality the customer can expect. I don’t believe either of the photographers using the photo for ads are capable of delivering that quality.September 10, 2013 at 11:45 pm #12921ebiMember
I do Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported. Otherwise shit like this happens: http://lord-parker.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/boudoir.jpg
That girl went from looking sexy and hot to a girl who needs to wax….September 11, 2013 at 11:56 am #12927
I know what you mean, but that image isn’t on Getty, It is on 500px, but it doesn’t show as a sale. Problem is, whatever you set your license to, people can steal it and you may or may not know.
I just think that claiming he can do that kind of boudoir but using someone else’s image, sounds to me like he doesn’t have any decent images of his own, so Id hate to pay for that service.
Yeah, that Lord whats his face ruined that image with the worse editing I think Ive ever seen :).September 11, 2013 at 12:26 pm #12928
Just to be clear Dan, I only mentioned your picture as it was being used by a FAUX.
And what a faux he is! He even has a page explaining his workflow, that has a huge picture of a squinting bride. I watched it for ages waiting for it to turn into the “after” shot but it never did so I guess he is happy with it.
You can also see a preview of an 100 page photo book on his information page. But he seems to have forgotten to actually add any images to it- so it’s 100 pages with a nice borders but no pics!September 11, 2013 at 12:45 pm #12931September 11, 2013 at 1:02 pm #12933fstopper89Member
Don’t use someone else’s photography to advertise your own photography. Biggest false advertising ever! If it were a resort advertising a sexy spa weekend, I’d say no big deal as long as the license made it allowable. Fauxtographers notoriously do terrible business practices, it’s like they all have a disease. They can’t spell, can’t use punctuation, can’t do graphic design.September 11, 2013 at 3:05 pm #12935nesgranMember
WCS, those were pretty disgustingSeptember 11, 2013 at 3:14 pm #12936emfMember
I’m in shock at his house – we have gone to the dogs!November 19, 2013 at 3:34 pm #15283lordparkerMember
I would like to start by addressing the point of me stealing photos.. I was looking for a few images that I could use to promote a new venture of mine to supplement the Wedding service I offer, I performed a Google Advanced Search looking for images that were Free to use, Commercially and Modify.. I found the images you have been on about, and uploaded them, thinking they were Free to use… I made an honest mistake in this case and have apologised to Dan and given him credit and posted a full apology online.
Now we come to the other stuff here…. I appreciate Worst Case Scenario that you may not like my take on HDR but it’s my take, I’m the artist and quite a lot of people like it.. but thanks for the critic 🙂
Regards where I live did you think to ask… I have a property close to my father who has Multiple Sclerosis and needs care, I also have another property which is more in keeping with what you would expect…….
I’m sorry your eyes hurt camera clicker.. maybe get down to specsavers and get some new lenses…. send me the bill perhaps!!
“Also claims to be a Lord”.. I am a Lord also a Baron, a Sir and a Dr…
Simple thing here is not to cast judgments or aspersions without being fully acquainted with the facts……………..
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.