Photo Stealers

Link:  http://tomswoope.com/ or http://www.on3images.com/
Google Page:  https://plus.google.com/112286953875739171750/about?gl=us&hl=en
You Tube:  http://www.youtube.com/user/tomswoopetv 
Smugmug: http://tomswoope.smugmug.com/

On3 Images by Tom Swoope has been caught red handed not only stealing photographs but also stealing text as well.  By the time I was contacted, he was quickly removing the stolen goods but the internet learns quickly and people have been screen capturing and sending it along to me.  When confronted, Tom alleged that the Web Designer did it (of course) but it doesn’t explain how the watermarks got removed.  There is also the problem with the fact that he claims he does web design so one would think even if he didn’t do his own that he would have been combing over things with a fine toothed comb if he outsourced it.  Beyond that, the images that were stolen had the SAME NAME as the source where they were stolen from, that’s kind of too much of a coincidence. 

Before going further, I suggest you watch this You Tube video is from one of the people he stole from outlining all of the things that were stolen and the sources.  UPDATE: You Tube removed the video for “bullying” wtf?  It’s now reuploaded to Facebook. 

Now onto the pictures…

The original images and blog post on Natalie Franke Photography.

The stolen image on the On3 Images website’s wedding gallery.

Seen again on his website under the Investment page as well. 

Another image on the same blog post from Natalie Franke Photography.

Seen here again on On3 Images website. 

The original images on Jake Holt Photography’s website.

 Seen on On3 Images website.

The Google Place page for On3 Images.  As you will see, Natalie Franke’s image is the main image for this page, which we’ve shown as stolen above.  

Another stolen image on the google page from Raw Photo Design.

Yet another image stolen on the Google Place page from Raw Photo Design. 

Another set of images stolen from Jay Premack Photography as seen on the Google Place page. 

A sample of what was on his Facebook Page before it was taken down by Facebook, as you can see, there were more stolen images with his watermark on them.  

Update 9/25:

Now that my wedding edit from Saturday is exporting I decided to check out and see how much of the word content on On3 Images site was stolen.  It didn’t take long to find the answer to that. 

The bio on La Dolce Vita’s website. 

The intro to the wedding section on On3 Images site - looks familiar, yes?

I also found his Smugmug Gallery, which also has stolen goods.  

This image on Chloe Moore Photography is on a blog post of a bunch of fun photo booth pictures.  

Here is the image on On3’s Smugmug gallery as a sample from the photo booth.   Before I hear the requisite “oh that’s a sample Smugmug left” I want to nip that in the bud.  Here you will see this image used for the local Fox Best of Competition.  Here they are using the image on their Yelp Page.  He’s also using it on his LinkedIn Profile.   

UPDATE 9/26

Tom Swoope has finally emerged with his apology, of sorts.  In summary, he’s blaming his web designer whom told him he was purchasing the images and Tom innocently assumed that he did because he wanted to appear to a more mutlicultral demographic because he claims the area he is from is very segregated.   

Here’s the thing, he’s in my market and it is NOT very segregated.  I’ve shot a ton of various cultures in this area and never have had an issue with that aspect of my career.  Furthermore, if indeed he DID purchase these images for his new online presence, how did these images make it over to his multiple online accounts that are separated from his website including Facebook, Yelp, LinkedIn and Smugmug?  I’m calling BS.  Apologize and leave it at that.

Beyond that, I’ve yet to see or hear of ANYONE referring to his race or any sort of slander and I’ve got quite a few emails going with the people whom have been affected. If this is happening, it is a shame but it’s not from any of the sources that I have been in contact whom were directly involved with the theft of their copyrighted works.  

Let this be a lesson to anyone and everyone: if it is not your image that you took with your own camera DO NOT ALLOW IT TO BE USED ON YOUR WEBSITE IF YOU ARE A PHOTOGRAPHER.  Simple as that.  Even if the above reasoning is true, I can’t imagine why any photographer would want to display works that were not theirs on their website.  Beyond the fact that it is morally wrong, what do you tell your clients when they notice their images do not look like the ones you are displaying?  There is NO good that can come from this.  At all.