I recommend re-reading Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture periodically as an antidote to the reasonablish arguments pouring out of the entertainment industry.
Even the very definitions of words are tribally defined, and carry implicit values. Some (not me) could make a case that wage slavery is also morally indefensible, or that private property is a form of theft from the poor. The fact that you see no distinction between copyright and theft is a perfect example of this morality-through-definition.
To use a straw-man example: Donald Trump owns the trademark to the phrase "You're fired." Am I stealing if I repeat this phrase? Now how about Amazon's 1-click, or humming "Happy Birthday"?
A hundred years ago, you could own the copyright to a book, but not claim ownership of a phrase or obvious idea. A thousand years ago, you could not effectively claim ownership of a book. Ten thousand years ago, you (probably) could not have claimed ownership of land, at least in any form we're familiar with. These are all things we made up, for better or worse.
Regardless of any person's or tribe's specific opinions on economic issues, private property, or ownership of ideas, I think it should be implicitly obvious that breaking society's copyright rules is a different act than stealing, just as manslaughter is different from first-degree murder. It doesn't justify it, it simply acknowledges that it is a different act.
Also, this particular case is laughably mild. The creator has only benefitted by sharing this free art snippet and is now internet-famous as a result. I guarantee that Jeff would remove it if asked, and also that the creator would never think to do so, given that this image is strewn across thousands of websites.
It's possible that they've only seen it as a meme, in which case they would have no idea who to credit. I for one had never heard of the original until just now.
IANAL, but since the content in question is not a trademark, I do not think that genericization applies.
Since Hyperbole and a Half is Creative Commons licensed (CC-NC-ND), it looks like its licensing requirements would be satisfied by attributing the original source ("Proper credit includes a prominent, easily visible link to the source of the material you want to use...")[1].
I think making sure that images in your blog post are properly licensed is difficult [2], but on the same level of difficulty and importance as determining a license for a software project [3].
You should balance that against the fact that the license also forbids Derivative Works (the ND in the CC-BY-NC-ND) - which likely means that the images themselves, even with attribution, are breaking the license.
No, there is no such requirement. Fair Use is judged on a four prong test, none of which involve crediting the author:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
But you cannot claim authorship. That violates 17 USC 106A rights of attribution and integrity.
Woah ... I've just re-read 106A for the first time in a few years. There've been a few additions to that section, including a mess of integrity, modification, and destruction claims.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/17/1/106A
