The Stephen Orabec photo is much better than the Cochran Images photo.
I think you are trying to say: “I was being nice and took this photographer out for some steel wool spinning. Now, after I used his picture with watermark still showing, he is telling his Facebook Fans I stole his images. This fauxtog did absolutely nothing but take pictures of ME spinning the steel wool off a local bridge. I think this guy deserves a place on the front page.”
I’m not sure how or why you “used his picture with watermark still showing”. Some uses (critique for instance) are perfectly legal and are covered under Fair Use. Other uses are illegal.
The way this site uses the word “Fauxtographer” the image creator has to meet a couple of criteria:
Photos are below a standard which has been set pretty low; and,
Photography services are advertised, seeking paid work.
So, a bridge with burning steel wool, no matter how poorly exposed, or composed, does not make a Fauxtographer, unless someone has hired him/her, in advance, to photograph the bridge. Generally, the title applies to wedding and portrait photographers that are clueless. To truly earn the title, almost all photos should fall below the bar, not just one or two out of hundreds.
Looking at the rest of the FB page, there are lots of distressing photos. The woman in under garments in front of the Christmas tree, for instance. Or the senior’s portraits with neon grass. I think I have seen these photos before so a link was posted somewhere!