Home Forums Main YANAP Discussion Forum Scary new breed of fauxtographers.

Viewing 11 posts - 31 through 41 (of 41 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #10551
    fstopper89
    Participant

    I don’t know. I’m wondering if what he’s doing is actually illegal, or just bordering on it. I’m not well-versed in the statutes. Since he’s around the police quite a bit, wearing what he wears, doing what he does, and they’re obviously not arresting him for it.

    He was sent a cease-and-decist letter a few years ago when he ran for Mayor of Sheboygan, apparently. A few months ago when his page went viral on FB I read through many of the comments by others, and many said he ran for Mayor and was doing things such as sending fake emails to people, posing as the incumbent challenger, and writing very vulgar emails. I found a news report with a video of someone interviewing him, and he admitted to sending the emails and said he was “young and naiive” or something like that, and that he was wrong for doing it. Just shows the type of character he possesses. He does anger me enough because I just hate seeing very unethical people getting away with serious crap.

    Honestly, I’d say more publicly about him but I can’t. A firefighter who is marrying one of my good friends is the one in the engagement photo, and I’m shooting their wedding in a few months. I don’t want to ruffle any more feathers with the groom because he was mad at ME for telling Asher that he was violating my copyright. On the page under where I had commented, the groom posted “If this is going to be a big deal I’ll find another photographer for my wedding.” Asher commented “We’d be glad to help you find photographers here who support firefighters and who don’t charge an arm and a leg.” TOTALLY pissed me off. It’s not Asher’s business what I’m charging them… which is actually quite a deal due to the bride being a good friend. And, insinuating that I don’t support firefighters, just because I wanted to enforce my copyright of my image. Apparently they’re friends, kind of. I don’ t know why. My friend, the bride, talked to me and was irked herself that Asher posted the photo in the first place because she doesn’t even know him. She smoothed things over with her fiance.

    #10552
    iliketag
    Participant

    Hopefully you’re friend isn’t marrying a loose cannon. I’m not saying he’s a bad guy but he might be a little touchy if he got upset with you about you doing something completely legal in terms of your business – which contributes to your livelihood. Hopefully she’ll be a good influence on him enough to get him away from that psychopath.

    For the groom to publically say something like that, under those conditions, is wildly out of line. If it weren’t for a good friend of yours being the Bride, I would hope you would fire the client. Don’t let people treat you like that 🙁
    Again, I’m not saying he’s a bad guy. BUT if something of the sort happens again with anyone else you don’t have a connection to, don’t stand for it.

    Clearly though, Asher is a con man. He flies the banner of being supportive of the men and women of public service but is only using them for his own gain. He’s a ruthless hack but he will get what’s coming to him. He may get away with it and leave a trail of severe damage… but he’ll be brought to justice the minute he steps into illegal territory. I imagine law enforcement there is just waiting….

    #10554
    fstopper89
    Participant

    I agree with you 100%. If not for the personal connection, that comment right there probably would have been the dealbreaker. We haven’t even gotten together yet to sign contracts and for them to pay the deposit. I was waiting on finding out if I could get a 2nd shooter and I just did, so we delayed the contract a little. Fortunately my friend, the bride, is understanding. I don’t know the groom very well, but from what I do know, he is a good guy… but occasionally has temper problems. Originally, I had messaged him, before messaging Asher and before posting that publicly on his page. (it’s not there because he deleted it of course). After seeing that the groom saw my message (FB tells you that now) and waiting several hours for him to respond, he did not. My message was polite, and just a reminder that even though Asher may have asked and the groom said it was ok, that he really cannot do that per the copyright and that it is ok if he wants to “share” it. I didn’t want to get snippy and throw “it’s in your contract that you signed” at him, because I thought that might come off as matter-of-factly, and them being past and future clients, I was trying to not ruffle feathers, yet still stand up for myself. Well I messaged Asher as well, and didn’t get a response, so I posted it on his page.

    The thing is, if let’s say, the groom’s mom/aunt/grandma downloaded the photo and posted it on her own FB page or something. While that is technically against the copyright, I wouldn’t even ask that she take it down or really even care. It’s a family member, and average consumers don’t always understand the importance of copyrights for such things. Even if the fire department he works for had a FB page, and they downloaded it and re-uploaded to their page, I probably wouldn’t care. I might message them and just ask that they post a link or at least credit in the caption. But being Asher’s page, given the extreme amount of negativity coming from it, the fact that he was rude to me in the past, and the fact that he touts that he wants to protect his own intellectual property, it was a major slap in the face and quite possibly done on purpose.

    I can’t wait to see that guy get arrested for something either after all of this.

    #10555
    fstopper89
    Participant
    #10588
    Thomas
    Participant

    Just scrolling through his FB newsfeed… I think this guy has some kind of God complex. He almost refers to himself in the 3rd person….strange fellow.

    #10639
    PhotoDon
    Participant

    Second prize in the contest is two dinners with him. 😉

    FYI, I got blocked from his Incident Response page, so I can’t comment or “like” anything (as if he had anything I wanted to like). He also deleted my comment on his cheesy badge.

    #10654
    fstopper89
    Participant

    Haha, I saw that Don! I sent you a pm on Facebook regarding the image of mine. He took down the one he stole and re-uploaded and shared the original instead. While I don’t really like it, it’s legal.

    #10682
    jrob
    Participant

    Surprisingly, he has neither deleted my comment, nor blocked me . . . . .

    As for the dinner – I have never been known as one to be speechless, but that did it.  What a load!

    #11021
    fstopper89
    Participant

    Looks like his new badge came in! https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=475492412528175&set=a.349644398446311.83076.327972200613531&type=1&theater

    This guy must have way too much time on his hands, as he just created yet ANOTHER Facebook page and accompanying website called Wisconsin Public Safety. It’s got all the same stuff as Incident Response. Weird!

    #11023
    jrob
    Participant

    But notice that the badge is not the same one as in the original photo.  It does not say “Public Safety”, not does it have legal. medical. etc blasons in the center. . . . .  hmmmmmmm . . . . . did he get the message?

    #11026
    jrob
    Participant

    BTW, did you notic that the new “Wisconsin Public Safety” page claims it is a non-profit organistion?  Wow, that could cause some problems.  NPO is defined by Wisc Stat 108.02(19) as “an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the internal revenue code which is exempt from federal income tax under s. 501 (a) of the internal revenue code.”  IRS 501 (c)(3) states

    “To be organized exclusively for a charitable purpose, the organization must be a corporation (or unincorporated association), community chest, fund, or foundation. A charitable trust is a fund or foundation and will qualify. However, an individual will not qualify. The organizing documents must limit the organization’s purposes to exempt purposes in section 501(c)(3) and must not expressly empower it to engage, other than as an insubstantial part of its activities, in activities that are not in furtherance of one or more of those purposes.  This requirement may be met if the purposes stated in the organizing documents are limited by reference to section 501(c)(3).

    In addition, an organization’s assets must be permanently dedicated to an exempt purpose.  This means that if an organization dissolves, its assets must be distributed for an exempt purpose, to the federal government, or to a state or local government for a public purpose.  To establish that an organization’s assets will be permanently dedicated to an exempt purpose, its organizing documents should contain a provision ensuring their distribution for an exempt purpose in the event of dissolution.  If a specific organization is designated to receive the organization’s assets upon dissolution, the organizing document must state that the named organization must be a section 501(c)(3) organization when the assets are distributed.  Although reliance may in some cases be placed upon state law to establish permanent dedication of assets for exempt purposes, an organization’s application can be processed by the IRS more rapidly if its organizing documents include a provision ensuring permanent dedication of assets for exempt purposes.  For examples of provisions that meet these requirements, see Charity – Required Provisions for Organizing Documents.”

     

    I bet he has NO idea the can of worms he’s opened . . . . .  (BTW – a check of the Wisc Non Profit Database give a 0 return for “Wisconsin Public Safety” or for “Incident Response”)

Viewing 11 posts - 31 through 41 (of 41 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.