Unauthorized use, copyright infringement, etc., etc. Whatever the case may be. My point is, apparently, being missed.
I was speaking of
intent to scam customer/s. Honesty, in that the depicted animal is not the one for sale (or does not belong to them),
vs. stating that the depicted animal is the exact one for sale. Having something for sale, showing a photo
as an example, and sending a specimen of that species
vs. not sending anything after receiving payment (and never having had the intent to send anything). Could keep going with examples.
While there may, certainly, be an infringement, unauthorized use, monetary gain via commercial use of photo (which is legally actionable), etc., it does not mean that every person (subject person, of this thread aside), who uses another creator's/owner's photo (which is wrong in, and of, itself), has/had every
intent to rob, or "bait & switch", their customer. That is all I meant.
Guess this will be the last post, on this specific matter (in this thread), for me. Either it is understood or it is not.
