Interesting - I see the story as saying almost exactly the opposite.

Crazy lady behaved in a common-but-still-technically-wrong manner, thinking (if she thought at all) that she'd "get away with it", presumably "'cause everybody else does".

The thing is, she got caught, and none of her "but everybody _else_ does it!" defenses stand up to even the most minor scrutiny.

Note, this is a lot like speeding - (almost) everybody _does_ it, and we all try to justify ourselves with lines like "I was just keeping up with the traffic", or "the speed limit is set unreasonably low for the conditions", or "my vehicle/driving skills are significantly better than the lowest common denominator they used to calculate the safe limit" - but every now and then we get caught, and none of those justifications mean anything.

Copyright law and the DMCA might well be "wrong", but if you think so you need to lobby to get the law changed. Arbitrarily choosing the break copyright then complaining when you get caught is just like being that guy with the fast car who speeds _everywhere_ bitching about getting speeding tickets. To most (informed) people, you just became "the crazy person".

It may be hard to reach you way up on your high horse there, but I don't think a "these photos are mine, all mine" disclaimer would have done a ton for him.

Take Candice as an example. She's crazier than a bucket of ferrets on meth. Even normal users don't read much of the text on websites; look at any of Jakob Nielsen's eye-tracking studies. People who are task-focused (e.g., find an image for their site they're rushing to get up) read even less. Given that, how much do you think Candice will read?

And once it's on another site, people will start stealing it from there too. Coughpinterestcough.

So as someone who also tries to look at how things work, I don't think he did anything wrong here. Suddenly everybody's a publisher, and it's going to take a while to teach them about copyright. This is part of the education process.