Interesting. Has something like this gone to court before regarding photography? Like, if Steemit had a paywall, as an example, and people came there to view the photos, would that change things? Does it matter if you have press credentials or not?
I also appreciate great photography, but I've hesitated to upvote content which I think might threaten Steemit as a whole. If any infringement claims do show up, would they be directed at individuals or the site itself? For me, these discussions are less about jealousy (though I'm sure there's a lot of that going around) and more about the future use, safety, and identity of Steemit and its users. If the platform encourages something which later creates legal troubles for everyone involved, that could be a nightmare.
Really glad to see you commenting here and explaining your position on the matter.
Infringement claims would have to go to the individual not the site. See Tumblr, for example. It basically exists by people sharing and reblogging content that doesn't belong to them, without any transformative activity applied to it. Now, they aren't making money, but, again, the money is coming from curation, not sales of the item, and most of these items are freely available online as it is. I do think attribution is essential, but Tumblr would've gone under by now if this was a massive legal problem.