It's absolutely outrageous that, of all places for the original article to appear, it shows up under the NY Times banner, supposedly the epitome of journalistic integrity (not even close IMHO). It's a sad day when they even bring up the issue and take a questionable-at-best legal position. WHat has happened to our world.
As to the issue of the web, and particularly Flickr, I have a Flickr site. I don't mind if strangers look at my images. But no one has access to my full-size files but me. I simply don't upload printable files. It's sad, because it would be nice to share full-size images with fellow photogs/artists, but there is no control over where the images go. I limit my resolution to something that would only look okay on screen. If someone wants something bigger-higher quality, they can pay for it. I sell 4x6's and up; why the heck would I give them for free to the world? And any contest where they want high-quality photos had better have some integrity (like an established magazine or organization) or be giving away an Aston Martin with odds no worse than 1-in-2.
The sad truth is that people have very little integrity. Look at the popularity of Napster/kazaa/Limewire. People would much rather get it for free whether it's legal or not. We need to take precautions to prevent this from happening. Thanks, Mark, for bringing up the issue for discussion.
