It's not theft, it's copyright infringement.

Kidding, kidding. But it's amazing how quickly people rediscover the value of copyrights when they're copyrights that you personally wouldn't violate, right?

Anyhow, journalists have a two-tiered ethical system with regards to plagiarism. There's Journalists -- you cannot plagiarize from Journalists. To do so is instantaneous career suicide. There will be no appeal and you will never work in the industry again. Then there's Sources -- you cannot plagiarize from sources, either. If you reprint their stuff verbatim, that's just Good Journalism. (TM)

Photographers thought they were Journalists. They were always Sources. For a little while, they were Sources that uniquely possessed something Journalists would pay money for.

This offensive and disgusting headline distracts from the message.

For God sakes, grow up.

Ok, call me childish but I found the title not only funny but completely appropriate for the acerbic tone of the article.

Ditto.

If this trash keeps showing up on HN, I ain't gonna stick around.

People should go be children somewhere else.

Honest question. If SOPA were to pass, could a photographer get a site like the LA Times blocked or whatever for using their picture without permission?

That's the type of question that would have to be answered by the courts, but SOPA presents a framework in which that type of request could be made.

I would have thought the DMCA would help here aswell. They are distributing copyrighted content. Why not send a take down?

This submitted title is too low and childish. Please change it. I've flagged this story.

It's a quote from the article. But I agree: it is inappropriate as it is not saying anything about the article content; instead, it is just very rude.

That dress is atrocious