"LuLa isn’t a sweetie farm, we don’t live in a chrysalis nor cocoon of cotton wool nor even one of milk and honey, and whether copying somebody else’s work to that extent falls within the remit of ‘fair use’ is a legalistic fine distinction concept that might save a few necks but still makes the hair on mine bristle. You may remember somebody else (?) on another part of the Forum doing exactly the same thing with another photographer’s work with rooms and furnishings; when challenged, he had the decency to remove the shots and refer to the original snapper’s site instead."
I'd have imagined that within the context of the same sentence the meaning of 'sweetie farm" would have been rendered plain. I can promise there was no allusion to any secret society nor, for that matter, Orwellian nightmare; I was quite unaware that those two words had already been spoken for by other interests! Soon there'll be nothing left in the language that we can use without payment. Oh, who was it that chipped in about free speech? Lawyers have been having a field day on this one for decades.