I think if the Steemit post just links to the original content, rather than re-posting it, it is ok. Because then the link is driving traffic to the original content, rather than profiting directly off of it without permission from the original creator.
How do you explain Tumblr, then? It is a site that is nearly 100% driven by the sharing and reblogging of material that is not transformed or owned by the people sharing and reblogging it. Obviously, the difference is the curation reward, but, again, you're being rewarded for curating freely available stuff that you can already see, for free, on the internet. I think attribution is essential and key, but I'm not sure if it's actually stealing money from the original creator when they're giving it away to begin with.
The article that @masteryoda linked to above addressed Tumblr specifically: "The one exception to this rule are images you’ve re-blogged or copied on sites like Tumblr and Pinterest. These websites’ terms of service grants the site the right to copy and distribute the work and for other subscribers to the site to do so, as well. That means that if someone has posted an image on Tumblr or Pinterest, that image is fair game. However, it’s important to make sure that the original poster was not posting a copyrighted photo that belonged to someone else without express permission, because that would constitute infringement." (my emphasis)
Wrong. Having work available online is not the same as having it freely available. Strictly speaking most stuff on Tumblr is illegal - it is not pursued because no money is changing hands. I don't think you understand how the system works at all.
I think if the Steemit post just links to the original content, rather than re-posting it, it is ok. Because then the link is driving traffic to the original content, rather than profiting directly off of it without permission from the original creator.
How do you explain Tumblr, then? It is a site that is nearly 100% driven by the sharing and reblogging of material that is not transformed or owned by the people sharing and reblogging it. Obviously, the difference is the curation reward, but, again, you're being rewarded for curating freely available stuff that you can already see, for free, on the internet. I think attribution is essential and key, but I'm not sure if it's actually stealing money from the original creator when they're giving it away to begin with.
The article that @masteryoda linked to above addressed Tumblr specifically: "The one exception to this rule are images you’ve re-blogged or copied on sites like Tumblr and Pinterest. These websites’ terms of service grants the site the right to copy and distribute the work and for other subscribers to the site to do so, as well. That means that if someone has posted an image on Tumblr or Pinterest, that image is fair game. However, it’s important to make sure that the original poster was not posting a copyrighted photo that belonged to someone else without express permission, because that would constitute infringement." (my emphasis)
Wrong. Having work available online is not the same as having it freely available. Strictly speaking most stuff on Tumblr is illegal - it is not pursued because no money is changing hands. I don't think you understand how the system works at all.