These two statements from the Czech store owner are particularly telling:

"Mario Bertuccio, who owns the Grazie store in Prague, said the photo was from the Internet."

He says that it was "from the Internet".  I guess he feels that anything on the Internet is free for the taking!  Unfortunately, I think that this is a common feeling among the general population.

"Details were sparse, but he said he thought it was computer-generated."

How could anyone think that this image was computer generated???

Not nuts, just unaware.

My sister did a similar thing with a family shot. She didn't even know she could resize a picture, has never used Photoshop or any editing program, and certainly never thought the picture could have any value to anyone else. I got her to take it down and 'educated' her.

Uploading to social sites has become too easy!

I don't believe that blaming the victim is appropriate.

We should all be able to leave our windows open to get some fresh air without having someone trespass and steal everything.  And if someone does come in and steal something, then we shouldn't be blaming the victim for leaving the windows open.  We should blame the thief (since they are the ones that actually did something wrong).

People should be able to post their family photos on the Internet (to share with friends and family) without someone stealing them and using them for profit.  This photo was used in a marketing campaign to increase sales.  The company should have at least asked for permission (and preferably offered a small amount of money for usage).

Hey, she lives right around me somewhere.

It 's all about MISINFORMATION, really.
I read even in consumer product magazines where some established writer actually mentions , "royalty free" means download for free. This was an article on films, etc.. which of course, if you were the average reader, you would also take it from this "expert" that IS,SS,etc.. "royalty free" images are free to use.
Secondly, there are many people who are seeing the world as one safe place to open the windows to let anyone in. Unfortunately, this leads some to realise the world is not that safe.
Example being, one of my oldest contact on flickr, had some of the most impressive photos . She uploaded them in full size . That was until she found one of those images of her adopted sister being used by a porn site. When I found that out, I instantly emailed her to tell her she should stop uploading full size to her flickr.She did better, she blocked everyone except her family . Still, it was a lesson too late.
Thirdly, we all know that facebook ,flickr,etc... can use your images "if they choose to". So I warn my friends about this. Yet, they still upload all their images
on their facebook for all the world to see. Everything , including the most revealing and some even embarassing shots.

So, really. Why do they do it, even after being warned ?
It 's much like the same for smokers. We all think it'll only be the other fella
who will get cancer, not us. Same mentality goes for putting all those large images of high res on the web.  That being said, not many of these people know how to use Photoshop,etc. So they upload the full size image that came from their camera. Lots of people with more money to buy those expensive cameras, you know? That's why none of them are microstockers. They don't need the money

I should!  My wife knows her from Mom's Club.

Sorry for my language, but what idiot is putting full res images of anything online if it isn't for selling it? Why would anyone upload huge 5-10 MP snapshots in the first place?

I know a lot of people who choose their cameras for the pixel size.  Many of those are my fellow engineer colleagues.  They have no clue that they don't need those pixels and bigger memory cards.  And they are attracted by the big numbers (more megapixels must mean better photos!)

Many more people have no idea they can downsize their images, nor see a need for this (especially with broadband connection), and they certainly have no idea how they can do it.

I also see in SP newbies with some cash in hand that buy DSLRs but they know nothing about photography and they seem to think a good camera has to do everything.  

I think that one who needs to be asked about all this is the person who isolated those people over yellow background and made the poster.  He/she should know some things about privacy and abuse of photos.

There's a story on PDN about how it got from the professional photographer who took it to the billboard:

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/06/how-did-this-familys-facebook-picture-end-up-on-a-czech-poster.html#more

Those of us who spend a ton of time around computers, photography, etc. forget that there are many people who just don't know much about how things run under the hood. My kids' schools do almost everything via e-mail and web sites (except for those wretched forms that need signatures which I fill out over and over... but I digress!) and I live in a pretty high-tech savvy area (Seattle) but last year I offered another kids' mother a JPEG of something I made for school so she could print copies herself. She had no idea what a JPEG image was.

I think that for the photographer who sold the family the digital image, having some clearer language (and a small size image along with the full res one) about only the small size can be posted online would make sense. Like the size restriction in the stock agencies' TOS. Spelling out the details can't hurt.

And you know what is amazing? The image is still at the site PDN shows.  I have just done the search for "happy family" images in Google Images, and, if I wanted, I could have saved the 8MPix image that is still on Danielle Smith's site.  I could not find the image by navigating on her site - everywhere a login/password is required.  However, the image is reachable through the results page of Google Images, and in theory the person who sees it can not be considered a thief. 

Ok, I know that not knowing the legal aspects is no excuse, but you know what I mean. There is a certain established idea that things in the internet are available, and most of the ordinary people don't have any idea about copyright. I only think that someone getting an image or whatever for commercial purposes should be more careful.

And you know what is amazing? The image is still at the site PDN shows.  I have just done the search for "happy family" images in Google Images, and, if I wanted, I could have saved the 8MPix image that is still on Danielle Smith's site.  I could not find the image by navigating on her site - everywhere a login/password is required.  However, the image is reachable through the results page of Google Images, and in theory the person who sees it can not be considered a thief.

If the profile on the social network site is private, no way the Google bots can address the full-size picture. It's gone now but you can fine some other "happy families" unwatermarked on Google images, and as Tineye shows, it's a stock image.

If the profile on the social network site is private, no way the Google bots can address the full-size picture. It's gone now but you can fine some other "happy families" unwatermarked on Google images, and as Tineye shows, it's a stock image.

I agree it should be so, but the image is hidden somewhere.  It must be in the server, but not linked anywhere visible.

The image is here:
http://api.ning.com/files/k2OnrFYvN8RZlS9PI8gH9WMhdXhI2cpE97FzfoMpmzolkeb0yGkq20FWgBUXh54nBM7wURI8WPsNj8MjVbY9fmLlyDtl6Qxw/IMG_1052.jpg

And I can't find it by navigating in the mother's site:
http://www.twittermoms.com/photo/photo/listForContributor?screenName=ExtraordinaryMommy
because I'm asked to log on.