In reply to timjones:
> (In reply to Marek)
> [...]
>
> Sorry I slightly misworded my post.
>
> I've had pictures used on websites without consent and not been bothered by it. Your post implied that I should have challenged it for the benefit of photographers who seek to profit from their pictures. Is it really my job to pursue a principle for the benefit of the pro's?
No, not really. I'm making a somewhat more esoteric argument - perhaps just for the sake of it - that societies define rights (protected by law), usually to protect some weaker party against a more powerful one (including itself). Those rights are deemed to be important in preserving the values of that society. For this to work, everyone - or at least a significant majority of the members of that society - have to work to stop those rights being abused, eroded or generally ignored, even when a particular right is of no obvious immediate benefit to the majority of the individuals. Copyright is just such a right, designed to give the creator of some art protection from having that art exploited by others without some recompense. Art is considered valuable in this society.
What I was proposing was that it is dangerous for members of a society to ignore the erosion of rights just because they are not immediately relevant to them at that time. If everyone does that, then much of what defines 'society' gets overrun by political and commercial interests. Personally, I don't like the sound of that!
There's an old statement which sums it up quite well (although in somewhat mre serious circumstances)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...