It has been a compelling conversation 😃 and valuable in all of the refined research I have been doing.
The link you shared primarily discusses the difference between commercial license and license infringement. Every point it makes is in my opinion valid and true.
In my take on the use of licensed stock photography (meaning the poster has purchased a license to use the photo), based on the ShutterStock licenses and my previous experience, receiving money from an upvote is no different that getting money from a newspaper subscription.
In either a Steemit blog or a newspaper, if one were to just post an image that was licensed from a stock photo agency without that image contributing to the topic of editorial content it would be in violation of the license.
In either a Steemit blog post or a newspaper, if one were to write editorial content about a subject and include a photo licensed from a stock photo agency that relates to that topic or enhances the content in some way the photo would NOT be in violation of the license.
In my opinion, editorial content is editorial content on Steemit or elsewhere, and an upvote is equivalent to a subscription payment or advertisement revenue that a newspaper would receive for the same editorial content.
It is true that there is some amount of grey area here, insofar as, to my knowledge this have never been tested in a court of law. The courts are the system we turn to for the final word on the meaning and intent of a legally binding document like a license agreement. Certainly the license agreements were written with the internet in mind, but not specifically Steemit as Steemit likely did not exist when they wrote their license agreements. I do believe that if it were tested, that a proper editorial post on Steemit that include licensed stock photography, would be upheld as NOT violating the terms of the license.
All fine points aside, I doubt that more than 2% of photos posted on Steemit that were not produced by the poster, were licensed in any way. Further I would bet less than 10% of the photos not produced by the poster, licensed or otherwise, are used in a valid editorial context.
Cheers,
You are 100% correct in that last paragraph. I have yet to see a proper credit line given for any stock image on here, yourself excepted. So, regardless of the usage, they are all infringing on copyright. As for listing Pinterest and Google as the source..... Stuff is easily found on Google, so it's just a matter of time before someone is wishing he/she had spent a few bucks for a license!