Tuesday, December 9, 2008

UPDATED: The Curious Case of Fink Photography

(updates exif revelations illustrating validity of claim of infringement - image at end of the post)
I get a great deal out of my reading of the various photography organization listservs. Todays gem came from Chicago photographer Joe Pobereskin on APAnet*. It wasn't curious because Joe was reporting that he'd found a food photographer in New York City willing to do 30 dishes, four portraits, five interior/exterior shots, and 2 CD's for $1,500. Sadly, that's the extent to which people will under-value their work. Joe remarked "This has got to be the worst example of under-pricing I've ever
seen. Anyone know these guys?" Well, it didn't take long for someone on the opposite side of the planet to respond. Only the response wasn't what I expected. James Lauritz, of Melbourne, responded: "Well well, the plot thickens." James wrote:

"I am an Australian photographer and all (bar 3) of the photographs on their entire site were taken by me about 2 years ago for Convent Bakery http://www.conventbakery.com here in Melbourne (for a lot more than they would quote)."
Indeed, James, the plot thickens.
(Continued after the Jump)

So, we did some research. First, we went to the ConventHouse bakery site, and had a look around. Sure enough, the photos on the Convent House site are the same.

Here's the "samples" section of the NY Food Photography site, that is alledged to be all (but 3) of James' photos:


Here's a closeup of the samples:


Then, we had a closer look:


A closer look at this example shows that the icing and lighting highlight are identical. Check this link to see the Convent image large.

In fact, the image from their home page is a tight crop of one of the berry cheesecakes from the Australian bakery too.
So, where did the other 3 images come from? Here's one that wasn't from the bakery:



The above image is one of three non-dessert images. The other two are shrimp and a beef dish that are on the sample page. So, we entered the URL of the above image into TinEye, and here's what TinEye returned:

Thus, there were 122 other TinEye-located uses out there, several of them royalty-free CD editions. While I could not locate the other two with TinEye, a safe bet would be that the other two came from the same source as the one above.

So, we've established that the images that are on a New Jersey photographers website, purported to be samples of his work, are, as evidenced by the URL from a photographer in Australia, from an assignment for an Australian bakery. Curious indeed.

So, who IS "New York Food Photography"? to start with, we did a WHOIS search, and found the owner, Fink Studios, in Rockaway New Jersey. According to the contact page, where Dave and Alon are listed, Alon Finkelstein is the owner. So, who is he? We located his myspace page here, where we learn that he's 20 years old, and he identifies himself as a pro photographer. He writes, of himself:
I have a love for photography, art and an even greater love for creating it. My passion for people, art, and the creative process consistently comes to life thru my work...I have begun to create work from the talent that I have grown into through both exposure and experience. I want to make yours as well as my photographic visions come true. With our creativity and the help of my professional staff our visual dreams can be realized. Our connection with some of the top professionals in the industry allows us to create pictures that are certainly worth more than a thousand words.

I work my very hard and it shows in my work. I love what I do and I will continue to do what I love. There is no stopping me now. I have been published about hundreds of times in the U.S. and Overseas in places like People Magazine, Us weekly, Ok, Star, In Touch weekly, and perezhilton.com the New York Post and many others. I now strive to continue into the future and prove to my self that i can do it.
Which got me to thinking - celebrities too? Then, further down the page, he lists that he's currently a freelace photographer for Star Tracks photo agency, which is in New York City. So we looked him up on Star Tracks, and found that he has done street photography of celebrities like Sarah Michelle Gellar here, and Debra Messing here, and yet, he goes by Noah Fink on Star Tracks? Here, he matches himself up with the nom de photograph as both Alon and Noah.

Also on his myspace page he indicates he is co-owner of the website "NY CELEBS." A visit to that site - www.NYCelebs.com - has an ad which contained a headshot of another photographer in it. While we had that ad here and were commenting on it, it turns out that even that headshot wasn't theirs, and it's been taken down. As such, while we had it posted here for commentary, we too are removing it, so it's no longer in this piece.

The above ad lists a phone #, and offers - "$100 gets you 50-100 pictures on a DVD...no waiting - you leave with your DVD - bring 3 Friends who buy headshots and gets yours free." That phone # matches the phone # on the food site, so Dave must be the other co-owner.


How to Stop This?

James, as laid out here, by all appearances is the actual copyright holder of the images, unless he transferred copyright to the bakery, who, in turn, licensed them to a clip-art disk, and then, Alon/Noah/Dave bought that disk and are now representing the images as samples of their photography. Possible? Not really.

There are a number of solutions. In determining your best course of action (and remember, I am by no means a lawyer), you need to determine what you can expect from your efforts. Alon/Noah/Dave are likely judgement proof, so the best you can hope for is to get the images taken down. A 20 year-old and his pal from Rockaway New Jersey are not about to be writing checks for copyright infringement.

To do that, first find out who owns the place where the images are hosted. In this case, that can be found on Network Solutions, here, and it's Go Daddy. Next, head to the Library of Congress' online service providers listings, here. This is what the listing is all about:
The following service providers have filed designations of agents for notification of claims of infringement pursuant to Section 512(c) of the Copyright Act. The Copyright Office’s current directory of agents consists of this list, with links to copies, in PDF format, of the designations filed on behalf of service providers.


Clicking the "G", scroll down to Go Daddy's information, linked here. In it, you'll find the name and e-mail address to submit a copyright infringement claim. This is you sending the company that hosts their site a "take down notice", and provided they comply, the hosting service almost always cannot be found liable for infringements.

Most service providers request you submit a claim to them in a specific manner. You usually can find the information on how/where on the "legal" page that every hosting provider has somewhere, in small type. Here's Go Daddy's page on how they want the claims to be submitted via e-mail.

This site is an example of alleged copyright infringements and a wholesale lapse in ethical behavior. What started as an example of the reasonable outrage at the rate that was being charged for the amount work being done has turned into much more. The lessons learned here are: 1) do not steal other peoples' work; 2) do not then take that stolen intellectual property and represent it as your own; and 3) charge reasonably for your work.


UPDATE: It has been suggested by those purported to be the owners of the nyfoodphotography.com website in the comments below that they own the rights to the photos. Yet an asute observer found that not to be the case. Below you will see a screen grab (click to make it larger) showing the image of a strawberry chocolate mouse cake, as it appears on the nyfoodphotography.com website. That page is in the background, and the image is viewed in Photoshop in the foreground with the EXIF metadata viewed, showing that the image they have on their site is Lauritzs' image. That's pretty damning evidence against them. Further, they didn't even bother to re-name the file. It's the same "strwaberry-white-chocolate-mousse.jpg", as you can see, both have the "a" missing from strawberry.

Right about now would be a good time for Lauritz to file that paperwork (as explained above) with GoDaddy, and for the owners of nyfoodphotography.com to give up, wipe their site from the face of the internet, and move on to some other business. Whomever does it first, that site should be without food images (or the entire site) pretty soon.


Note: we got Joe's and James' permission to use their posts from APAnet here.

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

62 comments:

Joe P. said...

John... I moved to Chicago. Wanna buy a Senate seat? ...Joe

John Harrington said...

Thanks Joe! I had you in NJ/NYC since your site lists it that way! I've updated it.

-- John

James Lauritz said...

Hi John

Good work! Hopefully it'll expose him for the 'fink' he is and warn any potential customers.

I guess I owe it to everyone to pursue him to at least remove the images but I can't see much point in wasting time and energy trying to prosecute.

Eric said...

Great post.
At least I'd know what to do if It ever happens to me some day.

Anonymous said...

Quote: "James, as laid out here, by all appearances is the actual copyright holder of the images, unless he transferred copyright to the bakery, who, in turn, licensed them to a clip-art disk, and then, Alon/Noah/Dave bought that disk and are now representing the images as samples of their photography. Possible? Not really."

If i buy royalty free images can't I resell them or at least misrepresent original creation? Pretty generic shots folks. Couldn't you hear an attorney for Fink Studios saying, "Well at the top of his web page Mr. Finkelstein has a link for clients, couldn't anyone contact these clients for references?"

That's really the sticking point here.

I'd make sure that that is not the case before we start slinging © infringement claims. This Fink dude is either a criminal or very clever, or both, but can the bakery prove ownership?
That's why I always state NO THIRD PARTY TRANSFERS on my invoices. Of course one can't do that in the employ of others with a work for hire agreement. Let's do our home work on this folks. to me the jury is still out....

John Harrington said...

Anonymous --

>>>If i buy royalty free images can't I resell them or at least misrepresent original creation?

No to both cases, that's in the licensing agreements. You can't buy 50 RF discs, re-package them onto a single DVD, and then re-sell those.

>>>before we start slinging © infringement claims.

That would be why I used the word "alledgedly" , and "Possible? Not really."

>>>Pretty generic shots folks.

Generic or not, they are the exact same photos, right down to the raspberry swirl on top of the cheesecake and the topping (as highlighted above) on the berry dish. This isn't about someone being inspired by a style or even copying a style, this is about someone stealing an image.

>>> to me the jury is still out....

Wow. THAT is curious, indeed! Anonymous, your real name isn't Alon, is it?

-- John

Francis Vachon said...

"With over 20 years of food photography experience"?
From his myspace photo, I would say he is barely 20...

Eric Zepeda said...

This guy is right now trolling NY Craigslist looking for sales people, offering 500.00 per job commission.

[url]http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/crg/951184587.html[/url]

And I thought the 34.00/per images was low, that was before the 500.00 commission payout. That drops it to 24.00/image.

Absolutely appalling.

Anonymous said...

Ok, let's go a little further here. What if I buy royalty free art, and use it on my website to generate business, even though my business is actually producing photography? Really, since the cake shots are generic, small product, food on white background, why can't I show them as a proximity to what the final product would be? Can you complain when you go into a Chinese restaurant that has a menu over the cash register with pictures of General Tso's chicken and when you get your food it looks nothing like the picture?
Seems like harmless misrepresentation to me.

Also did you verify for sure that the original shots were not sold as RF images? I know this is wrong but at some point the sheer volume of similar images of pedestrian products has to have an effect on the uniqueness element.
Again Mr. Finkelstein has a client list available for review, does this not give fair warning to the customer to check his references? I'm not Alon by the way, just someone who admires his ingenuity.

Anonymous said...

Hmm, I've long sought an antonym to Chase Jarvis's macho repetition of "Rock Steady." And The North Jersey Fink provides it: Sand Shifty!

Anonymous said...

You made a mistake in identifying the website host as Go Daddy. A whois lookup tells you that Go Daddy is the company that the domain *name* is registered with. A whois lookup doesn't tell you who hosts the domain website, for that you need to "trace" the route to the actual web server. The last server in the trace results will be the server hosting (or proxying or relaying, if the actual web server is behind a firewall) the content, and will be the company responsible for the web server and the contents on the web server. The beginning of a traceroute varies depending on where you are tracing from (your location) but for most sites (most single-hosted sites) it will end at the same location. Here is a trace from my location (first few hops removed for privacy):

traceroute www.nyfoodphotography.com
traceroute to nyfoodphotography.com (72.167.232.81), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets

5 bb1-g3-0.pltnca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.43.54) 22.104 ms 12.593 ms 24.445 ms
6 ex1-p9-1.eqsjca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.190.14) 13.582 ms 36.477 ms 22.411 ms
7 151.164.250.230 (151.164.250.230) 26.066 ms 36.143 ms 90.682 ms
8 snj-core-02.inet.qwest.net (205.171.214.45) 102.175 ms 172.124 ms 38.534 ms
9 phn-core-01.inet.qwest.net (67.14.19.30) 33.675 ms 33.234 ms phn-core-02.inet.qwest.net (67.14.19.34) 47.500 ms
10 scd-edge-01.inet.qwest.net (205.171.12.42) 264.914 ms scd-edge-01.inet.qwest.net (205.171.12.46) 90.228 ms 127.095 ms
11 63.227.225.70 (63.227.225.70) 149.896 ms 38.030 ms 39.656 ms
12 ip-208-109-113-153.ip.secureserver.net (208.109.113.153) 36.392 ms 42.643 ms 60.473 ms
13 ip-208-109-113-158.ip.secureserver.net (208.109.113.158) 34.702 ms 49.804 ms 64.250 ms
14 ip-208-109-112-134.ip.secureserver.net (208.109.112.134) 90.943 ms 126.685 ms 211.020 ms
15 ip-216-69-188-77.ip.secureserver.net (216.69.188.77) 326.070 ms 35.420 ms 34.563 ms
16 ip-208-109-112-98.ip.secureserver.net (208.109.112.98) 36.673 ms 32.949 ms 33.480 ms
17 * * *


As you can see when you trace to www.nyfoodphotography.com, the actual website is not hosted with Go Daddy, the website with its content (and photos) is hosted by secureserver.net aka wwdomains.com aka Wild West Domains. Here is the whois info for secureserver.net:

Registrant:
Wild West Domains, Inc.

14455 N Hayden Rd #219
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

Registered through: WWDomains.com
Domain Name: SECURESERVER.NET
Created on: 30-Mar-98
Expires on: 28-Mar-17
Last Updated on: 29-Aug-08

Administrative Contact:
Wild West Domains, Inc., Wild West Domains, Inc. dns@jomax.net
Wild West Domains, Inc.
14455 N Hayden Rd #219
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
4806242500 Fax -- 4805058844

Technical Contact:
Wild West Domains, Inc., Wild West Domains, Inc. dns@jomax.net
Wild West Domains, Inc.
14455 N Hayden Rd #219
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
4806242500 Fax -- 4805058844

Domain servers in listed order:
CNS1.SECURESERVER.NET
CNS2.SECURESERVER.NET

Here is Wild West Domain's Copyright/Trademark infringement page.

Joe said...

Wild West is GoDaddy's private label side. If you buy a reseller plan through godaddy, wild west is listed as the contact

Giulio Sciorio said...

Right on John!

Heather said...

You admire his ingenuity? He's stealing images and lying about his experience and undercutting tons of photographers. What on earth is there to admire? Perosnally I find it much more admirable to come up with creative ways to make money/market yourself that DON'T involve breaking laws and infringing on peoples rights..

but thats just me..

Heather said...

Also, its rather ironic that you mention the menu thing yet on his website he states:

"Imagine when a customer asks about a menu item if you could show them a true to life picture of that exact item, the menu upsells would be much higher and the customer satisfaction through the roof.

How many times have you heard "It's not what I thought it would be" or "I thought it would be bigger" in your own restaurant.

With our services, customers are able to see every dish on the menu before they order to ensure complete satisfaction. "

So he's encouraging people to have photos of the actual food by showing them the exact 'representational' photos that he DOESN'T want them to use? I don't think it would be difficult to convince a court that he is trying to represent the photos as his own.

Brad Garner said...

great detective work. undercutting price is bad enough, but copyright infringement on top of it just goes to show that fink has no respect at all for photographers (I originally wrote fellow photographers, but I doubt he would be a fellow of any legitimate photographer).

Anonymous said...

If you go to nyfoodphotography.com and click on CLIENTS you get "Due to abuse by several NY based food photographers calling previous clientsts and trying to resell food photography services to them, we have had to remove our client list.
Sorry for the inconvenience.

We do this to protect our past clients from harassment from less then professional photographers."

Rick Lewis said...

Great job John!! Where do you find the time to do all this? Keep up the good work.

Rick
www.ricklewisphotography.com

Anonymous said...

We've booked 17 jobs in the last 4 days and now have a 11 person sales staff.

That is 17 jobs total.

7 of them were for 30 dishes.
5 were for 50+ dishes.
4 are jobs for over $6,000.
1 job is an entire menu and coffee cup deal as well as every dish in the restaurant for a very well amount.

Don't get mad because you have no work. Don't cry and whine about not having money. We are not your buddies, this is a business. We are here to make money not be your friends. This christmas will be good for us, guess it will be the usual ramen noodles for all of you.

Manhattan alone has over 10,000 restaurants and you are correct, we are about to sweep many many many of them.

You have no idea who our partners are. You have no idea who our photographers are. Yes Alon is one of our photographers, but he does not shoot dishes, he shoots location pictures, ie: the outside of the restaurant. His name is on the whois because his friend designed the website.

Sit here and cry and whine about a 20 year old photographer.

Well, I'm 54. I work for Getty/Wired and used to work for National Geographic.

I swing a 1ds Mark III and shoot phase 1 backs.

I am personal friends with Herman from B+H Photo. You know... the OWNER?

Are we here to stay?

Yep.

John Harrington said...

Well, well, look what the cat dragged in.

Nice if you to join in the discussion. Let's take a look at what you've written (and not written).

1 - "Staff" means they work for you as staff. If craigslist is your resource for those 11 people, best of luck. They'll run around and around and around and they'll not get booked, and they'll become disillusioned. These are people hoping to earn $500, and if we do some simple math, 4 days for each sales person and they each get 1.5 jobs - that's like $150 a day for a sales person in NYC, that won't last for long.

2 - Your net after deducting for your sales staff commissions is less than you think, and will take longer than you think.

3 - There are nowhere near 10k restaurants in NYC. There are fewer than 5k, and those with the most money don't serve Thunderbird, they serve Johnnie Walker Blue, and they won't want the photographic version of Thunderbird, so good luck.

4 - No ones crying or whining about having no business, they're critical of your business model because they know it's doomed to fail, but not before you wreak havoc on the business.

5 - It won't be long before people at Getty will figure out who you are and they'll realize you (alledgedly) stole someone elses' work. Good luck on keeping that relationship.

6 - I highly doubt you used to work for NGS. HIGHLY DOUBT IT.

7 - "I swing a..." ? What are we discussing here - cameras, or a male appendage that you're worried is a bit under-sized?

8 - Way to mis-associate yourself with B&H, I am sure Herman appreciate it. They're having enough time battling Adorama. With friends like you've represented yourself as, well, you know the rest.

9 -Are you here to stay? No, doubtful.

10 - You've not addressed the elephant in the room - that being, that you allegedly infringed every pastry photograph on your site, and mis-represented the three other dishes as your own samples.

11 - Anyone who's capable of putting someone elses' photos on their website and represent them as their own, I have a hard time believing much else of you've written.

12 - You did get one thing right - "this is a business", but when you write "Are we here to stay? Yep.", I can pretty much assure you that that conclusion is, at best, flawed, and most likely, a pipe dream from the get-go.

Let me do a bit of research, I'll get right back to you....

---John

Anonymous said...

Though a gifted writer you may be, a gifted photographer you are not.

Definition of Amusing:

People here trashing me not even knowing it is me and then emailing me this story for my take on it.

You doubt I worked for National Geographic?

Why, because you could never get a job with them?

Once again, don't get mad, don't get angry, just get a job.


You are sitting here looking at my licensing for every image I own?

Nope. So you are making not even an educated guess.

hey... here is the point. I am working, you are not. Quite simple. End of story.

Anonymous said...

1ds Mark III swinger: I am not impressed by your equipment or your friends.

Based on the comment above, seems like someone is saying that he is worth suing.

But it still hasn't been explained how the images ended up on an RF disc or how they ended up on this website (and of course, he doesn't owe us an explanation). If these images were properly obtained through a RF disc, it might not be copyright infringement at all. If it is a violation of the terms of the RF disc, that's breach of contract with the RF provider. You would have to read the terms and conditions of that specific RF collection. Regardless, it would be an agreement b/t the user and the provider of the disc (who probably could care less).

If the photographer never gave permission for the images to be on an RF disc, then he has a big claim against the RF disc company and the user. The user would then have a huge problem. He would do well to give up the flame battle and drop a friendly note to the original photographer.

You can still be liable for copyright violation even if you didn't know that you were infringing. Copyright violation is "strict liability." (but again, I haven't really read that there was no permission, only that someone else took the photos).

Fraudulent misrepresentation of a business is another matter. Several states' attorney general offices have been pursuing photographers who use other photographer's work claiming it is their own (and various other fraudulent acts by "photographers").

But that complaint would "probably" be based on unhappy clients, not unhappy other photographers. We don't know if there are any unhappy clients.

This is certainly a complicated situation that warrants advise from a real attorney. (that means you too, swinger- I hope you included that in your CDB).

It's SO much easier just to use your own work.

Anonymous said...

^^


Good thing we can actually afford real attorneys right?

You do know what attorneys are correct?

Do not think even for one second your elementary education on copyright law is anything but.

NY food photographers are running scared, you know it, John knows it.


I know it.

Anonymous said...

You have no idea what kind of education I have.

John Harrington said...

Well, well, the cat did, in fact, drag *something* in, and Google's search tools have done a fine job. A look-see at Alon's website shows that he's gotten to be good friends and collaborating with one "David Stodghill", a photographer who shoots in/around New York. Perhaps he's our mystery poster? That's a fairly unique name, and one that becomes even more unique amongst photographers and then again, in New York. So, what can we learn online about Mr. Stodghill? What does Alon know? Does he know David's history? Methinks maybe not. A safe guess is that they met on the street shooting celebs, and Stodghills history with websites made him good at convincing Alon, as he notes above " Yes Alon is one of our photographers...His name is on the whois because his friend designed the website." Or, perhaps, given what we learn below, it's to avoid having your name on a Domain ownership record, or a record with GoDaddy?

First - a look at http://www.davidstodghill.com . WHOA? Really? A few worthwhile excerpts of the allegations laid at the feet of Alon's friend Dave:

"David Stodghill has made a living from defrauding webmasters...dozens of webmasters have come forth to share their experiences with this professional con artist. Many of his scams involve website content and hosting....it's not just webmasters he is targeting either...Stodghill tried to pass himself as a wedding photographer and cameraman, advertising has over 15 years experience on Craigslist...[and]...is attack's on Julianna Rose Mauriello, and his actual stalking, and photographing her in New York."

Well, when it comes to allegedly defrauding people when it comes to web content, we've got exhibit A in the Food Photography website for review and consideration. Then there's the common craigslist use, albeit somewhat varied.

According to his myspace page: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=356915108 he is either 35 or 36, and his myspace page lists his url as - myspace.com/nycelebs, interestingly enough, the same as the http://www.nycelebs.com listed in the original posting, with Dave's phone #. Further, photos there show him using Nikons, not Canons, as well the "I'm 54" is out the window.

A search of Getty's site shows no photos he's credited with having shot, nor any Wired credits anywhere on the 'net.

Phase backs and NGS? Again, methinks not.

Perhaps, Dave, you'd like to address the allegations on the link above about other crimes?

Alon - were you aware of all of this? Perhaps so, perhaps you were taken in. Then again, perhaps we have a different Dave Stodghill that is friends with Alon that is a photographer in the NYC area. Or, well, maybe not.

Anonymous said...

Interesting but not me.

Keep on diggin!

Anonymous said...

Thanks for engaging me, I'm the one who's fascinated with the ingenuity, I'll stick with that term at play here. No autopsy no foul so far. I'll agree that in the long run it may be less of a hassle to just use original photography. But, Mr. Finkelstein has shown, at least to me, that when photography is reduced down to a entity that can be sold for a dollar and royalty free, let's assume the cake shots were on a disc, no one has come forward and proven otherwise, that it seems rather difficult to disproportionally defend the misuse of something worth pennies. John, great tenacious energy! We'll just start having to call you Hercule.

Gregg said...

Ladies, remain calm.
Can I get you anything? Coffee? Tea?
Perhaps a saucer of milk?

What used to be an intelligent blog has sunk to the level of a women's room cat fight.

John, re-raise the bar and return to good solid business suggestions which you used to do so well.

Anonymous said...

Bang!!!!

Here we have two back to back photographer critiques. This one and the previous "Brides to Bitches".

In one, it is intimitated that her neighborhood is less than representative of a professional photographer. Her website doesn't hold up under the scrutiny of most proabably hundreds of viewers at one time bla, bla, bla.

The other, most proabably is dripping in gold watches,jewelry, expensive clothes, expensive cars, a beautiful home and the always popular.......wait for it....NEW YORK CITY BUSINESS ADDRESS!!!!!

A truely wonderful dicatomy of photographic interlude.....cue the music, START rolling, sound check....and ACTION!

Integrity, professionalism, and just plain old compassion is not embraced by everyone. Nor is it mutually exclusive based on socital status. It is a burning desire to be a good person no matter who you are or your family is.

No matter how much money you have and no matter who the exclusive list of friends or sponsors you splash all over your website to substantiate your own self worth or for the effectual impact you wish others to have by doing so.

In this life, which was so eloquintly stated by another poster in another post here stated " Time will catch up with all of us and a life worth living is far more important than battling demons of the industry."

I dissagree with the last few words.

You do great work John and you represent photographers as they should be represented. I urge you to explore that aspect and put something together that the multitudes can sign on with.

Just don't forget that it isn't the trappings of life that define ones level of success, its what kind of person they are.

No one needs to expose that. They always show it plainly in their own actions.

Cash is not king and knowledge is not power. imho

Thank you for what you do!
Kenny

John Harrington said...

Kenny --

Thanks for your note. It's worth noting that everyone has a perspective about what's important, and what the direction of PBN is. When there's a lot of news or information to report on Getty, I do so, and people think we're all Getty all the time. When there's a lot going on about Orphan Works, we write about it.

Of late, we've talked about marketing, and then the Leno show happens and we get a great example of (in my opinion) a bad marketing campaign, worth holding up for people to think about.

Then, we have an example of alleged image theft, and then the plot thickens even further, and we write about them as an illustration of how not to breach ethical (and possibly legal) boundaries, as a cautionary tale.

I will disagree with one of your last remarks "knowledge is not power" - sorry to say but that's not really true. Knowledge is power.

As to the previous commenter about sinking/re-raising - we generally take the high road whenever possible, but are not adverse to getting down in the trenches, rolling up our sleeves, and taking on whomever resides there. When done, we shall dust ourselves off, and resume the mission of what we do here - inform and educate on the business of photography, and provide a forum for discourse (even when it goes off-course) on the same.

-- John

Anonymous said...

imho. Photographers are not represented well. They are mostly still, and in growing numbers, the lambs that are led to slaughter by those that seek only to profit from their creative,intellectual efforts and love of vocation.

Even many of their own peers and mentors read...idols, hold them out to abuse. Young photographers are taught to be so reticent for fear of being blacklisted that they learn to and allow others to take advantage of them at a wholesale level.

Those that don't have the substance to take advantage of expensive workshops or training much less the social/business skills to survive are populating this industry in record numbers.

They may not be the most intellegent/sophisticated people but they can smell honesty a mile away and integrity is taught on the street level.

What they are blind to is the wolf in sheeps clothing. Hopefully you agree there are many of those in this business.

We see with regularity, top professionals, working for magazines that have been the pinacle of what many photographers strive to be published in and work for, show nothing but distain towards lesser accomplished individuals in their field.

If you played a flute for example and aspired to play for the Atlanta Symphony. Can you imagine if their website contained posts where one of their floutists ridiculed and demeaned a wannabe floutist because he was less talented.

imho, John. You have so much to offer to so many and you do it with honesty and impartiality to the "system" if you will. Stop wasting time with these latest digressions.

There is a finite amount of time we are all given and talent should never be wasted. Help us, organize us.

This may not be the appropriate place for this discussion so my appologies.

Anonymous said...

It Quite pathetic that all of you
spend hours on this website trashing other individuals on Information taken from other sites when you don't even know if there info true

I mean really if these images are truly royalty free? Then from what everything I have read on the web about these guys


they have really done nothing wrong but under cut prices

Anonymous said...

That this supposed canon swinger has taken the time to engage and taunt John shows that a nerve has indeed been struck.

And as for: "they have really done nothing wrong but under cut prices"

Is misrepresenting another's photo work as your own not wrong? Even if they ARE royalty free, NY Food Photographer has apparently not shown (or removed, in the case of the client list) any evidence that he can in fact deliver what he promises. Also, I find it very hard to believe that a company with 20 years of food photo experience can dig up any photos that they've actually shot. Anyone who "admires his ingenuity" here is admiring plain fraud.

Anonymous said...

Oops, I meant that I find it hard to believe that they CAN'T dig up a food photo that they've actually shot.

Anonymous said...

Actually, no one here has any idea who is posting to this site. Were our two heroes ever here?

No one knows.

Jonathan Levin said...

It's so annoying that people are going by "Anonymous".

Please state your name(s). I believe this will help keep the conversation civilized, mature, credible, and most importantly, educational.

We're all here for the same reason, to live and learn.

Carry on.

Jonathan

Anonymous said...

My name is
Paul Markham
I am a regular photographer for hustler, playboy, vogue, and a few others

Look me up on google once
"Dave" showed me this blog "dave" is a alias for a well know photographer located in NYC and Prague.

My alias is "Charlie" Markham aliases are important
Due to websites just like this

Paprazzi photographers all have aliases

Photography is a passion, a love for art.
No one who is a professional would ever use or demean or libel or give towards slander another photographer based on there skills or pricing

I have shot many events for free
Just out of good will

I know "dave" and have worked with him extensively.

I have no doubt what so ever that any images used on his website are contract legal.

Quite simpley "dave" has photographed in relm of at least 50,000 stock images many of which are used pon stock image websites crediting not "dave" but other photographers and companies.

Insted of throwing insults back and forth and posting on a blog because you have nothing better to do let's get back to what great blog this is. Let's just spread our knowledge of photography.

John,
I do enjoy reading you blog but making insinuating posts about a fellow photographer that I have worked with for 23 years is not something I expected

This entire posting should be removed to continue the credability of ths blog.

James Lauritz said...

Hi Paul

Quote: I have no doubt what so ever that any images used on his website are contract legal.

Hate to shatter your confidence but the photos that appear on the website are not legal. THEY ARE MY IMAGES and were never licensed to anyone except the bakery they were shot for here in Melbourne, Australia.

I even double-checked with the bakery yesterday to confirm they didn't inadvertently give permission for any other use beyond the original license.

Your rabid defense of "Dave" and high-falluting claims of success in the photography industry seem highly incompatible with the facts as we see them.

Who do you think you're kidding?

Heather said...

Paul-

And it doesn't bother you that "Dave" is misrepresenting his work? Even if the images are -legal- that doesn't make it ethical. Just because you may not be able to be put in jail for it doesn't make it RIGHT. that is why this subject has come under such fire. The utter lack of business ethics.

As for the Anonymous poster who is apparently from NYfoodphotography.com.. why do you automatically assume that no one here has any work but you? I could be a millionare and I would STILL be morally and ethically offended by the actions that you have taken with your website. This is not an issue of jealousy. This is an issue of photographic and professional integrity. The fact that you have yet to do anything but misrepresent your work and pass around petty insults and assumptions further proves that you have no idea what integrity actually is. The ends do not justify the means. Saying "I have business and your just jealous" is not an argument that proves you are correct. It's a deflection of the issue.

I would rather be stone cold broke then have millions of dollars made by completely throwing away personal and professional ethics and integrity by misrepresenting my work and taking actions that only serve to make photographers less respected as a profession.

Good day.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone seen the ad on craigslist.org...
http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/crg/953957344.html

from the ad: "If interested, please send an email to contact@nyfoodphoto graphy.com and include a picture of yourself as well as a resume. "

I believe requesting a photo with a resume is illegal as it is easier to discriminate. Taking a photo at the interview is not. Shouldn't this be brought to the attn of the NY and/or NJ labor relations board and or the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
New York District Office
Location: 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: 1-800-669-4000
Fax: 212-336-3790
TTY: 1-800-669-6820
Director: Spencer H. Lewis, Jr.
Regional Attorney: Elizabeth Grossman
Office Hours: The New York District Office is open Monday-Friday from 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Intake hours are Monday - Friday, from 8:30am to 3:00 pm. We encourage you to call our 800 number listed above for information, and pre-screening by an intake information representative before you visit our office.

Arye P. Rubenstein

Anonymous said...

I'm pretty sure "Paul" is only here to drive traffic to his porn sites. I don't think he even knows the people in question.

David said...

John,

Ignore these people telling you to ignore these kind of incidents and not write about them.

People NEED to know about this kind of thing and who is doing it. It MUST be stopped.

Kelly said...

As the photographer whose copyrights are violated, I also would consider filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau. They handle complaints "which includes, among others, misleading advertising, improper selling practices..."


Even if James Lauritz had licensed the images, an ethical photographer would never use stock images to represent his work. Never.

I believe there is value to this post. Many clients are not savvy and will not perform reference checks. They will rely on representations made on a web site. Accordingly, we have a responsibility to self-police to protect clients from unscrupulous actions.

Nor am I impressed when an individual boasts about what he "swings." I have swung a Canon EOS 1DS Mark III as well as a paper hatbox pinhole camera and created professional, sellable images in both instances.

If Lauritz's statements are factual, then Finkelstein's behavior is abhorrent and does a disservice to our profession.

Finkelstein, tell us you created those images instead of posting juvenile comments regarding the employment status of other photographers. My colleagues and I spend thousands each year on seminars, professional certifications, etc. to provide the best service and product to our clients. Their patronage is greatly valued. In my opinion, your actions are deplorable.

Kelly

Jason Drumm said...

As long as his phone number is right here, perhaps it would be fun for all of us to call Alon. You know - just to say Hi.

Andre Friedmann said...

This topic has clearly gotten under lots of folks' skin.

But the rampant anonymity makes it impossible for skilled and literate readers to follow the threads in this topic. I encourage anonymous posters to adopt a pseudonym, instead.

Fred Gonzales said...

Has anyone but me noticed that they have not claimed ownership or copyright on any of the images anywhere on there site

nor do they take credit as these samples are there own production


what are we really complaining about

that other than some possible misrepresentation all though their
website never claims ownership of the images so you cant even really call it that can you



QUOTE Arye P. Rubenstein

"I believe requesting a photo with a resume is illegal as it is easier to discriminate. Taking a photo at the interview is not. Shouldn't this be brought to the attn of the NY and/or NJ labor relations board and or the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)"


I can't even believe someone posted this comment

for example: I am starting a company I post an add looking for sale reps the add states please send us you resume and a current photo. Lets just say i get 75 applicants. Now we look through the 75 or so resumes and weed it down to 35. I now have to set up
interviews with these 35 people. I can now use the photos to identify who we are meeting on what day. and keep a photo with there file to help us remember them in the future the photos are not use to higher the client. due to the fact that,it would be discrimination , but otherwise as a form of organization

On top of that it is another form of security as to have a photo of you employee on hand in your locked office files.


QUOTE Arye P. Rubenstein

"I believe requesting a photo with a resume is illegal as it is easier to discriminate."

Arye I have one question
"as it is easier to discriminate."

Unless the photo is use in the direct process of hiring it not really discrimination is it


I mean do you really think they put all of the photos on the table

and say well she no good she to tall or hes to fat or he she or it cant be hired for some cockamamie reason


If this is the case i hope you get caught but I understand that there are some perfectly legal reason to ask for a photo

I hope everyone can take a little bit out of my posting

Anonymous said...

Hey Mr. Food Photographer stop rebutting on this blog; isn't it about time you get on your scooter and pedal your way to your next shooting, that is if there's any rubber left on the soles of the those sneekers because of how busy you've been.

Wow, we finally meet someone who has a swinging Canon; the problem is that the camera must of whacked you in your head a couple of times.

It must be difficult to go through life so full of bravado and stupidity; but so far you seem to excel at it.

It's too bad your business acumen and your photo work are really shitty because there might be something deep inside you that might be worth saving; but chances are you've already flushed your toilet.

Heather said...

Fred-

"that other than some possible misrepresentation all though their
website never claims ownership of the images so you cant even really call it that can you "


Yes... you can. No client is going to go to a website and assume those are not his images. All will assume he took those pictures. Seeing as he did not, it is reasonable to say that he is misrepresenting himself.

Besides, that's not all we're dealing with. He also stole them. That's a whole 'nother enchilada.. and definitely illegal.

Anonymous said...

Now let's look at this scenario through another Prism. The Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act.

Anonymous said...

The list of clients can be found on a cached copy of the page here - http://216.239.59.132/search?q=cache:_1a-c3eOy3YJ:www.nyfoodphotography.com/clients.html+http://www.nyfoodphotography.com/clients.html&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

* Aroma
* Blue Water Grill
* Buffalo Roadhouse Grill
* Bull McCabes
* 964 Jumbo Pizza Coffee Shop
* Amici Miei
* Cafe Amore Pizza Restaurant
* Cafe Fonduta
* Downtown Pizza
* Bamboo House
* Annie's
* Cafe Habana
* Apolo Restaurant
* Empire Szechuan Valley
* Botanica Bar
* Andreas Brick Oven Ristorante
* Cactus Cafe
* Acqua
* Hang Lung Chinese Restaurant
* Taqueria Downtown
* 809 Bar & Grill
* Fresh Taco
* 88 Chinese Restaurant
* Solo Pizza
* Beijing Pavilion Restaraunt
* Bo Ky
* Chinatown Chinese Restaurant
* Congee Village Inc
* DO Hwa
* Golden Dragon Express Inc

Anonymous said...

Fred Gonzales

You are wrong, a photo of yourself has nothing to do with the qualifications and performance of most any job, therefore it can only be used for other purposes i.e. discrimination. Just as it is inappropriate to ask about any disabilities except those that may interfere with the performance of the job, i.e. if you are blind than you cant drive a truck but if you look ugly that is discrimination. Taking a pic at the interview can help the interviewer remember you but your name is all that is really needed. Just like using an alias is not illegal except if used to defraud or commit other illegal acts. Using an alias as part of a job interview or in the performance of a legitimate job to hide or promote ethnicity or a hard to pronounce name is not illegal.

the point is these guys at nyfoodphotography.com are NOT ETHICAL!

dare to be wise,

Arye P Rubenstein

Anonymous said...

>>Yes... you can. No client is going to go to a website and assume those are not his images. All will assume he took those pictures. Seeing as he did not, it is reasonable to say that he is misrepresenting himself.<<

Why not just ask them who took the images!

I sent an e-mail inquiring about their services, pricing, and the portfolio images on their website. Their response was that the images were taken by Dave and Alon personally. No room for error, no mis-interpertation, stated as a matter of fact.

I've captured all the e-mail exchanges, and advised James Lauritz via a direct e-mail that I have them should they be useful to him.

I can't believe the total lack of ethics on their part. If they choose to undercut, so be it, its business. There will always be a Wal-Mart photographer regardless of how many high end photographers are out there. Different markets.

But to totally mis-represent someones images as your own? Why? And with the clients they had listed, why do they not have images of their own to show? Inferior? Or have they even shot any food? If yes, why not show them? If not, well, that explains it.

Anonymous said...

I will tell you I just found this blog after hiring and using the services of NYFoodPhotography. I wanted to show my clients their website and google popped this site up.

At any rate, we hired NYFoodPhotography, they came, were very professional, had very professional gear, took the pictures and left. 3 days later we had our cds with our images.

They were simply stunning. The food looked great and will increase our sales in food productes quite easily and quickly.

I will not look at all the finger pointing or name calling here on this blog except to say this: They delivered and very professionaly.

Anyone who has posted on this website should be ashamed of themselves.

Disagree with me?

I'm Alex, the owner of Tenjune nightclub in NYC.

Anonymous said...

Nice try, Stodghill.

信次 said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,約定金生,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,約定金生,情趣網站,跳蛋, 約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,約定金生,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,約定金生,潮吹,高潮,後庭,約定金生,情色論譠,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,約定金生,音樂下載, 約定金生,約定金生,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套, 約定金生,約定金生,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,約定金生,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車, 約定金生,手機,來電答鈴, 約定金生,週年慶,美食,約定金生,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計, 約定金生,室內設計, 約定金生,靈異照片,約定金生,同志,約定金生,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解,av女優, 約定金生,小說,約定金生,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,約定金生,討論區,痴漢,懷孕, 約定金生,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,約定金生,免費影片,醫學美容, 約定金生,免費算命,算命,約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學,約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲, 約定金生,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,約定金生,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,約定金生,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片, 約定金生,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表, 約定金生,線上電視,約定金生,線上a片,約定金生,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,約定金生,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車, 約定金生,約定金生,法拍屋,約定金生,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, 約定金生, G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,約定金生,後庭,情色論譠,約定金生,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,約定金生,軟體下載,約定金生,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,約定金生,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片, 約定金生,同志,聊天室,約定金生,運動彩券,,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,約定金生,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢, 約定金生,懷孕,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av ,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,約定金生,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命, 約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學, 約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,約定金生,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視, 約定金生,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯, 約定金生,購物車,身分證製造機,約定金生,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網, 約定金生,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,約定金生,六合彩,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,

Anonymous said...

The head shot picture was stolen from here: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3776024832/nm1597235

Anonymous said...

Quote: "I'm Alex, the owner of Tenjune nightclub in NYC."


Hahaha...

Alex is the doorman, not the owner... Stodgehill, if you're going to google a random name to use as a fake reference, at least take the time to read the names and places in context.

Anonymous said...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^

徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,

Anonymous said...

^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^

徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 離婚, 離婚,

徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信

Web Designer said...

Really nice post.
Thanks for this great article.

cvxv said...

看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮,儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA,PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,日式料理, 台北居酒屋,日本料理,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,台北結婚,場地,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,造型系列,學位,SEO,婚宴,捷運,學區,美髮,儀器,髮型,看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,房子,捷運,學區,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,學位,碩士學位,進修,在職進修, 課程,教育,學位,證照,mba,文憑,學分班,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,場地,結婚,場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,場地,居酒屋,燒烤,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,小套房,小套房,進修,在職進修,留學,證照,MBA,EMBA,留學,MBA,EMBA,留學,進修,在職進修,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,关键词排名,网络营销,網路行銷,關鍵字排名,关键词排名,网络营销,PMP,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,PMP,證照,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,EMBA,MBA,PMP
,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學,EMBA,MBA,PMP
,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學,EMBA,MBA,PMP,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學,婚宴,婚宴,婚宴,婚宴,漢高資訊,漢高資訊,比利時,比利時聯合商學院

住宿,民宿,飯宿,住宿,民宿,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,室內設計,室內設計,室內設計,室內設計,室內設計,漢高資訊,在職進修,漢高資訊,在職進修,漢高資訊,在職進修,漢高資訊,在職進修,漢高資訊,在職進修,住宿,民宿,飯店,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,林志玲,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,林志玲,羅志祥,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,比利時聯合商學院,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,比利時聯合商學院,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,漢高資訊

Anonymous said...

Dave Stodghill has a long criminal history and recently got snuffed by the town he was living in for trying to make a fake fire safety movie. I guess he's moved from fake still shots to fake movies. I feel sorry for the 20 year old who is dumb enough to hang with this loser. Though according to daves criminal records this 20 year old is the wrong gender and way to old for daves tastes. This guy needs put away and forgotten-

Newer Post Older Post