"Regular" people usually don't know the difference, in my experience. Web designers pay more attention to the source of such images than most readers because it's their job. Maybe if your org is Gucci or BMW it matters more because such customers hone into style issues more.
I think you misunderstood what I said, and that we're in agreement on some level.
Assuming you're not working for BMW or Gucci, I believe that having no graphics at all can be much better than purchasing a bunch of royalty-free perfect-looking insincere photographs from some stock photography web site.
The same goes for special animations and perfect-looking videos. Barring a few exceptions, I don't believe those effects are necessary to make a web site useful and valuable to users.
And throwing out all those stock photographs and those unnecessary effects may actually improve the usability of a web site, not just for disabled people, but may be even for everyone (and at very little cost, since it's the effects that usually cost money, and it's the more basic web sites that usually cost less money).