As MartinCron pointed out, it is important to know the source of your images when farming out work. This article is a topical demonstration of that principal. It will cause some embarrassment. It is also a great way, in this soundbite culture, to dismiss a person without having to actually go through the motions of a debate. This same thing can happen to your startup. Imagine some designer not liking your business and slipping in a photo of a serial killer on your site. Or if you're running an amusement park and a photo of a child molester is on your site.

Given all the things that can happen with stock photos, I believe folks should probably hire a photographer or get the photos from staff that swears they took them themselves. Get some releases signed if people are in the photos and be done with it.

Why? It's one thing if it can be framed as something you intentionally did, but as long as it's deniable, there's lots of folks for whom there's no such thing as bad publicity. As a politician trying to stay in the limelight Santorum qualifies.

"As long as its deniable" "no such thing as bad publicity"

Neither of those are actually true in politics. Any slip, any misstatement, any gaffe can be used multiple times in short soundbites. Bad publicity sinks campaigns and denials are not often heard. If you aren't well liked by the press expect the incident on page 1 and explanation to be buried in the home and garden section. Heck, look at all the total BS we have heard about birth certificates and Mormonism. People catch the soundbite and believe this crap.