I can scream into the void and post dozens of photographers doing this but I figured I’d also attempt to make this a teachable moment and explain why this is such a huge no-no and those doing this are not only hurting the industry but also themselves.

DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING

This is the big one and what I’m going to start out with. When a photographer posts an ad using an image they did not personally create, that is deceptive advertising which is illegal.

But… but… but… no buts. Flat out, this is illegal.

I don’t care what delusions that you may suffer, if you didn’t create that image, you are not capable of recreating the quality of that image. Every artist is different. You have different training, different gear, different set ups and a different artistic eye.

Have you ever looked at Cake Wrecks and laughed yourself silly? This is exactly the same thing but with photography.

Guess what? Clients can sue over this.

PS: Saying “not my photo” or “mood board” or “inspiration only” doesn’t absolve you of this.

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

I don’t care if you say not my photo. I don’t care if you left the watermark on. I don’t care if you tagged the photographer.

If you did not get permission from the original copyright holder to use their work to advertise with you are committing copyright infringement.

As soon as an image is captured it is copyrighted to the creator (unless there is a contract in place that states otherwise). Registering the copyright only gives the owner additional penalties if they choose to pursue a lawsuit.

Lawsuit?? Yes, you can be sued for using an image that isn’t yours by the original owner.

STOCK IMAGES

Did you create that stock image? No? Then don’t use it.

Yes, there are some cases where using stock images is permissible by a photographer but why would you want to use one to represent your own work? Even still, rarely does the photographer have the correct license purchased that allows the end user to use it to represent their own body of work.

This also goes for using the stock images included with WIX templates. They are not intended to represent the photographer’s talent but rather what the website is supposed to be selling. i.e. a wedding officiant can use wedding images to convey they work in weddings, a gardener can use images of rakes to show what they do. Again, this comes down to licensing and the license doesn’t extend to allowing photographers to use this to represent THEIR work.

DEVALUING THE INDUSTRY

Why should you care if your neighbor photographer is stealing images and posting them? It doesn’t affect your business right?

Wrong.

Clients who invest in professional images are less likely to do so again when they are not happy with the end result. They are even more less likely to do it when they feel like they were swindled.

Sure, the $50 clients may not be your market but it doesn’t mean that those $50 clients aren’t going to someday be $500 clients. Or that those clients tell their 500 friends, who are not all $50 clients, about their terrible experience with a fauxtographer. Then those friends also become less likely to invest with a photographer and THOSE clients may have been your clients.

How many of us have been grilled by a client after a friend/relative/someone they know online that had a bad experience with a fauxtographer? I know I have and I’m certain I’m not alone in this. It especially rears up when a local news station has a story about a wedding couple who hired a fauxtographer who showed beautiful images and they got terrible images or the photographer ghosted them.

Bottom line. Don’t use images your company did not personally create. Ever.