Is post-processing allowed, for example? If yes, everything including light spikes could be claimed to be artificially added, not resulting from using different equipment. If pictures are required to be straight from the camera—well, there still are inevitable pre-production and (more importantly) RAW conversion steps.
There's a need for more complex regulations here.
I'm not sure about that. The general "don't be a dickhead" rule and the resulting public stink for those who don't follow seem to work ok in this case.
> Well, there still are inevitable pre-production and (more importantly) RAW conversion steps.
Sure, but there is a standard procedure to get a photo out of your camera and onto your Facebook page, and that's pretty much the standard amount of processing necessary. I'm more interested to see what the photo would look like if I made it with their camera, than what a professional photographer with a DSLR and a Photoshop license can do with it.
You can say what you want about Apple, but they did it right. Unretouched photos. Full-res available for download.
That fur looks pretty sharp to me.
 http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/h3d-1.htm: “For those of us in the press (Ken), we laughed when we looked at the EXIF data of Nikon's PR photos of the D3. They were shot in a studio, so of course Nikon had them shot with an appropriate camera: a $30,000 Phase One P45 back.” Anecdotal evidence, but I'm unable to find another source, so take it with a grain of salt.
If on the other hand the pictures are about showing what kind of results the camera can produce then I very much doubt they'd risk faking it by using a different camera.
Though will we consider a deceit if the camera used is the same P&S model, but lighting is set up? And then there's extensive post-processing, which is possible and may alter shots significantly.