Your photo might be in use without permission.

Actually, Thomas Stanworth is an excellent and well renowned photographer, with a significant body of work shot in Afghanistan. Very few people on this site will have anything close to a comparable photographic portfolio.

Is he a street photographer? If not, it's like a painter criticising a songwriter.

I don't particularly care for a lot of those street images and agree with a lot of his criticisms, but one should be careful throwing stones. And always attribute people's work.
 
Actually, Thomas Stanworth is an excellent and well renowned photographer, with a significant body of work shot in Afghanistan. Very few people on this site will have anything close to a comparable photographic portfolio.

Who cares.
He is the thief from some of this site photographers. Some of the pictures your hero has stolen went on exhibition.

... He labeled himself as a "war photographer" back in the day and did make some good images in Afganistan, but of the effects of war, not the actual war itself. I can't recall what he did after that. I think he gave up photography a few years ago...
 
This has been happening with wedding, portrait and event photography since the development of the internet. I once asked my mentor Monte Zucker about it and the conversation went something like this:

I asked, “Monte what are you going to do when others copy your photographs displayed on the internet?”

He said, “I’m not wasting my time chasing after them. Too busy. Don’t want lawyers involved. If mine get copied and then some one else shows them as their work, then they will be in trouble when a client finds out. They won’t be able to make photographs like mine or yours. They eventually fade away.”

Fade away all you plagiarists! Here today gone tomorrow.
 
Some just don't get it that photography is art and there is no single recipe for doing good or bad art.
I'd much rather he showed his photos and wrote about them, that would be interesting.
 
Back
Top