...
It's not the same as stealing, it's more like someone finds an error and corrects it. To prove intent one would have to see into the mind of the buyer. We know that it's a loophole and the buyers can exploit our images, until caught, but how do you prove they did it intentionally? It gets deeper and messier and more expensive, and for what? $28?
To me it is the same as stealing.
The dozens and dozens of cases of copyright infringement (of my images) that I have discovered,
not one of them ever claimed that they actually purchased a license, not even a regular license!
Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone steals the images with intent but when I find my images on university web sites or attorney's offices, I have to drink a bunch of pitchers with relaxation tea to keep my cool.
However, (some of us,) we make a living off of selling some of our images for 25 or more cents. So whichever way they (the thieves) want to make it look like, they should just pay the proper price of the picture and be done with it.
Whoever, gets the busted users to actually purchase a license after the fact, Kudos to you but I never, ever had once somebody actually buying the license after I busted them. They just removed the image (and often replaced it with another one - go figure).
