[bigiain]

"I wonder... Does the original website from which the photo was taken had: 1. A statement that the photo was not public domain? 2. A way to contact the author with the clear purpose of license it?"

It doesn't work that way.

Just like you don't need to put a sign on your door saying "The belongings in this house belong to me. If you want to buy them call me on 5555-1234".

The _default_ is that if you dont own a photograph(/song/story/program/movie), then somebody else does - and unless they've explicitly permitted you some rights to use it, you have _no_ right to use it. (with some very specific "fair use" exceptions, which are far less well understood by just about everybody than they should be. If you're ever tempted to claim "fair use", make sure you know what it means first…)

[jorgeleo]

In theory there is no difference betweem theory and practice, but in practice there is.

I agree that in default should works the way you say, but that is theory, in practice it is not what actually happens a the OP found out. And we need to acknowledge the reality that people does not behave as theory, law, or whatever other abstract term expects (the law is so abstract that it needs a punishment machinery to be respected, it is not natural at all, and while some people will surrender their free will to goverment compliance, others will not, not even under the threat of heavy legal pain). Not realising this fact of life is naive.

You can go around beating people over their head for their wrong doings (natural or artificial), and if that makes you feel better about yourself or your position then take your measuring stick and go on your merry way.

I, on the other camp, rather attempt to figure out how people actually works, and make decisions accordingly.

Try to understand how things work vs. Do a I say or I'll beat you up. I guess that is one of the differences between tinkers and lawyers.

One book that explain tis concept better than me would be Nudge by Sunstein and Thaler.

[bigiain]

Interesting - I see the story as saying almost exactly the opposite.

Crazy lady behaved in a common-but-still-technically-wrong manner, thinking (if she thought at all) that she'd "get away with it", presumably "'cause everybody else does".

The thing is, she got caught, and none of her "but everybody _else_ does it!" defenses stand up to even the most minor scrutiny.

Note, this is a lot like speeding - (almost) everybody _does_ it, and we all try to justify ourselves with lines like "I was just keeping up with the traffic", or "the speed limit is set unreasonably low for the conditions", or "my vehicle/driving skills are significantly better than the lowest common denominator they used to calculate the safe limit" - but every now and then we get caught, and none of those justifications mean anything.

Copyright law and the DMCA might well be "wrong", but if you think so you need to lobby to get the law changed. Arbitrarily choosing the break copyright then complaining when you get caught is just like being that guy with the fast car who speeds _everywhere_ bitching about getting speeding tickets. To most (informed) people, you just became "the crazy person".

[wpietri]

It may be hard to reach you way up on your high horse there, but I don't think a "these photos are mine, all mine" disclaimer would have done a ton for him.

Take Candice as an example. She's crazier than a bucket of ferrets on meth. Even normal users don't read much of the text on websites; look at any of Jakob Nielsen's eye-tracking studies. People who are task-focused (e.g., find an image for their site they're rushing to get up) read even less. Given that, how much do you think Candice will read?

And once it's on another site, people will start stealing it from there too. Coughpinterestcough.

So as someone who also tries to look at how things work, I don't think he did anything wrong here. Suddenly everybody's a publisher, and it's going to take a while to teach them about copyright. This is part of the education process.

[jorgeleo]

Is not a matter of high or low horses, but a matter of choices.

"She's crazier than a bucket of ferrets on meth"... love it.

"how much do you think Candice will read?" A bucket of ferrets on meth... none. But that was not the only place the he found the photo.

"and it's going to take a while to teach them about copyright. This is part of the education process."... teaching, that is something that I can agree with. On the other side, in principle I cannot agree with Goya's picture "La letra con sangre entra" (Teaching by punishment, or spare the rod and spoil the child) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:La_letra_con_sangre_e...

If I am in a high horse, then then that kind of "teaching" is egocentric and self entitlement.

[wpietri]

What disappoints me about your argument here is that you're basically complaining that other people aren't doing things the way you'd like them to be done.

You mention egocentricism, but don't seem to realize that he is under no particular obligation to live up to your standards. Reasonable people can disagree on how to handle this. He apparently disagrees with you, possibly as a matter of morals, but more likely as a question of how best to solve a problem with limited resources.

If you really care about this problem, solve it yourself. Go make something that makes it easier for somebody like this to act the way you want than the way that's easy for them. Until then, you're just one more person telling the Little Red Hen how she should bake her bread.