TXPhotog wrote:

Hey, call Kelly and ask her.  You can ask me privately for her phone number (which I'm sure you don't have.)  That is the answer you gave us, isn't it?

Once again, I don't have a tear from it.  I wasn't the photographer.  They are just my client.  All I have to show for it is a check stub.  Which is more than you have.

Ohhh you mean this Kelly?

155 Sixth Avenue
15th Floor
212 343 9889

Yea guess what i know who she is ill ring her.
btw, this is a modeling chat, you claim to be a photog and claim CK is a client of yours, so whos doing something wrong here? I never claimed anything of the sort, you did and ur full of shit.

Shyly wrote:
81 from the peanut gallery.

What's this mean?  I see it often.  I are silly.

lll wrote:
Hey, doesn't matter.  I am still interested in the Canon award.  How do I enter?  I shoot Canon. 

heres one of their contests and you can do the pro shooters contest in Feb it will be on the canon usa site. hope that helps.

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/NFL/i … otocontest

Kali Doom wrote:

What's this mean?  I see it often.  I are silly.

software bug.  The forums choke on every 40 posts and will not generate a new page for the 40th post until a 41st post is created

Shiree wrote:
btw, this is a modeling chat, you claim to be a photog and claim CK is a client of yours, so whos doing something wrong here?

Certainly not me.  I am a photographer, and I have made it clear three times now that I was not a photographer for CK, but that they were my client in my other capacity.  The fact that I am also a photographer is irrelevant.

If you see me making any claims to shooting for CK, or claiming "shared copyright" with them, THEN you can say I'm doing something wrong.  But I'm not doing those things.  You are.

Shiree wrote:
I never claimed anything of the sort,

Sure you did.  You put up pictures on your portfolio and claimed CK, RL and Polo had a copyright on them.  The only way that could be true is if they had purchased it from you, which they did not do.

Shiree wrote:
you claim to be a photog and claim CK is a client of yours, so whos doing something wrong here? I never claimed anything of the sort, you did and ur full of shit.

By assigning copyright credit to CK, you have claimed that you worked directly for them.

At the very least, it's misleading and disingenuous.  At worst, it's outright fraud.

Jim Ball wrote:

software bug.  The forums choke on every 40 posts and will not generate a new page for the 40th post until a 41st post is created

Paldies

TXPhotog wrote:

Shiree wrote:
btw, this is a modeling chat, you claim to be a photog and claim CK is a client of yours, so whos doing something wrong here?

Certainly not me.  I am a photographer, and I have made it clear three times now that I was not a photographer for CK, but that they were my client in my other capacity.  The fact that I am also a photographer is irrelevant.

If you see me making any claims to shooting for CKJ, or claiming "shared copyright" with them, THEN you can say I'm doing something wrong.  But I'm not doing those things.  You are.


Sure you did.  You put up pictures on your portfolio and claimed CK, RL and Polo had a copyright on them.  The only way that could be true is if they had purchased it from you, which they did not do.

well lets see if those images were sent to those companies in raw format for their use, id say that gives them copyright and if i shot them and they havent paid my for my rights, id say that gives me rights, and seeing as thats SHARED RIGHTS, id say your about 3 gears shy of a ten speed this time slappy.

And btw, the official CK deal with you is what exactly? you claim them to be a client because you did what? cuz i have a reciept from american airlines does that mean they are my client? I have a check from AT&T does that make them my client? i have a rebate check from Verizon wireless sooo your saying they are my client!! wow!!!

Shiree wrote:
make ur calls and take a pill

With 250,000+ images on the internet and in print, I'd think you'd have a pretty massive "Google footprint" - but all I find is a few musecube, OMP, and MM profiles. Hmmmm, there's a richshiree.com website but it's either a gag or a placeholder; it sure doesn't look like a noteworthy professional photographer's cyber-roost.

I guess what I'm saying is, are you sure you're a bigshot?

mjr.

Shiree wrote:
Ohhh you mean this Kelly?

I found that address and phone number in WorkBook.  It's Kelly's rep.  Pretty public info.

http://www.artpartner.com/

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

With 250,000+ images on the internet and in print, I'd think you'd have a pretty massive "Google footprint" - but all I find is a few musecube, OMP, and MM profiles. Hmmmm, there's a richshiree.com website but it's either a gag or a placeholder; it sure doesn't look like a noteworthy professional photographer's cyber-roost.

I guess what I'm saying is, are you sure you're a bigshot?

mjr.

You would probably be right if i were an Internet GWC trying to get naked models for my labido, however images that are in a gallery dont normally make google,lol.
Funny thing is if your gonna say something say it, ive never made one single claim in here that i havent backed up and yet on and on it goes. ahh well its a good thing i have a sense of humor and enjoy the contraversy

Shiree wrote:
well lets see if those images were sent to those companies in raw format for their use, id say that gives them copyright

No, it does not, and anyone who knows the first thing about IP licensing knows that.  Only a complete rube in the business would think that, certainly not a world-famous fashion photographer.

Shiree wrote:
and if i shot them and they havent paid my for my rights, id say that gives me rights, and seeing as thats SHARED RIGHTS,

That's just silly, and no professional who sells images and understands copyright would say anything of the sort.

Shiree wrote:
And btw, the official CK deal with you is what exactly? you claim them to be a client because you did what? cuz i have a reciept from american airlines does that mean they are my client? I have a check from AT&T does that make them my client? i have a rebate check from Verizon wireless sooo your saying they are my client!! wow!!!

CK is my client.  Feel free to post a check stub from any of the designers you claim, or a tearsheet.

TXPhotog wrote:

Shiree wrote:
well lets see if those images were sent to those companies in raw format for their use, id say that gives them copyright

No, it does not, and anyone who knows the first thing about IP licensing knows that.  Only a complete rube in the business would think that, certainly not a world-famous fashion photographer.

Shiree wrote:
and if i shot them and they havent paid my for my rights, id say that gives me rights, and seeing as thats SHARED RIGHTS,

That's just silly, and no professional who sells images and understands copyright would say anything of the sort.




CK is my client.  Feel free to post a check stub from any of the designers you claim, or a tearsheet.

and thats a what??? looks like a retail reciept for goods sold, lemme guess, you sell underwear? cuz Ck said they dont have a Photog or Servicer in Texas, odd isnt it?

Shiree wrote:
Ohhh you mean this Kelly?

155 Sixth Avenue
15th Floor
212 343 9889

Can't even get that right.  I said HER phone number, not her rep's.  That is not her phone number, nor her business address.

Shiree wrote:
and thats a what??? looks like a retail reciept for goods sold, lemme guess, you sell underwear? cuz Ck said they dont have a Photog or Servicer in Texas, odd isnt it?

CK said nothing of the sort.  But it wouldn't matter, since I was in New York at the time.  And they wouldn't send me a check for "selling underwear",  it would be the other way around.  Can't you get ANYTHING right?

Please note the check is from the advertising agency (a concept unfamiliar to you, I guess) and CK is the account.  That should tell anyone what it is about.

TXPhotog wrote:

Can't even get that right.  I said HER phone number, not her rep's.  That is not her phone number, nor her business address.

umm you put in here the RL number and not Davids personal cell number, would you like to have it, because ive got 100 bucks says you dont have it. so whats your point? that makes you a nobody? lemme guess ur name dropping and accusing me of the same? roflmnao get a life dude, r u sure you are a shooter?

Shiree wrote:
umm you put in here the RL number and not Davids personal cell number, would you like to have it, because ive got 100 bucks says you dont have it.

I didn't claim to have it.  I made the claim I made.  So far I'm proving my claims, you aren't.  Want to pony up some proof?

TXPhotog wrote:

CK said nothing of the sort.  But it wouldn't matter, since I was in New York at the time.  And they wouldn't send me a check for "selling underwear",  it would be the other way around.  Can't you get ANYTHING right?

Please note the check is from the advertising agency (a concept unfamiliar to you, I guess) and CK is the account.  That should tell anyone what it is about.

Actually CK buys some of their Underwear from other companies and adds their logo so ummm yes youd have a check. Insults insults, my goodness who pissed in your lighting box? lmao.

Shiree wrote:
You would probably be right if i were an Internet GWC trying to get naked models for my labido, however images that are in a gallery dont normally make google,lol.

That's not true. Virtually every gallery I know of has some kind of online show listing that gets indexed by google. It's pretty hard to escape the search engines, unless you are under the radar screen because you actually are a nobody.

Shiree wrote:
Funny thing is if your gonna say something say it

Never been afraid to. You sound like a blowhard, to me.

So of your "quarter million photos online and in print" what percentage, approximately, are in print, and what percentage are online?  I ask this because most of the search engines spider copyright notices, too, so if you were in any of the big stock databases I'd expect 100,000+ hits on your name.

Tell me about your website, big shot.

mjr.

TXPhotog wrote:

I didn't claim to have it.  I made the claim I made.  So far I'm proving my claims, you aren't.  Want to pony up some proof?

ROFLMAO , OK  gimme something ive said here that you wish me to back up. and i shall do my best, and then after i do, this will be over?

Iona Lynn wrote:
Ok done your profile states that you have over a .25 images online and in print you have 20 slots I want to see
10 scanned printed tear sheets from print publications and 10 screan shots to online images.

i claimed 20 tears? not sure when i did that, so sorry try again, i said something i claimed here ill proove. Tough huh?

as for printed images ie "in print" i have cases. mostly now i do digital tho.

Shiree wrote:
i claimed 20 tears? not sure when i did that, so sorry try again, i said something i claimed here ill proove. Tough huh?

as for printed images ie "in print" i have cases. mostly now i do digital tho.

From your MM profile:

Shiree wrote:
World Renowned and award winning Fashion/Art photographer

Can you name me a "world renowned fashion photographer" who does not have ten fashion tear sheets?

Well, there's you, of course.  Any others?

Shiree wrote:
i said something i claimed here ill proove. Tough huh?

Well, let's see.  Your claim to have all those hundreds of thousands of images online and in print would be nice to prove.

Your claim to all those pictures hanging in galleries would be nice to prove. 

Your claim to being a "fashion photographer" would be nice to prove.  So far the only thing you have seemed to claim, when pressed, is that you sent some pictures to designers, although they didn't ask you to, and they didn't buy them.  But you gave them copyright anyway, even though they don't ask for it.

Oh yeah . . . you "have paid work for models all the time" but hardly shoot at all.

Yeah, I can see how that would be hard to prove.

TXPhotog wrote:

Shiree wrote:
i claimed 20 tears? not sure when i did that, so sorry try again, i said something i claimed here ill proove. Tough huh?

as for printed images ie "in print" i have cases. mostly now i do digital tho.

From your MM profile:


Can you name me a "world renowned fashion photographer" who does not have ten fashion tear sheets?

Well, there's you, of course.  Any others?

Which is why I'd never play poker with you.