jumpstart - I'm sure you will become aware that there is more than one type of agreement for an artist to have with a magazine (or any other legitimate periodical/website). Yes, there is a signed contract or agreement that allows the magazine to print the content - the short and skinny of it breaks down to a limited license. The COPYRIGHT still remains with the originator and anything outside the bounds of the contract is in violation of it.

Am I saying saving an image from the internet and mussing with it for personal use is right? I have no problem with it - with doing it or having it done to me - because there are so many other much worse things to worry about in life. I understand that other people are not going to agree - thus you read my comparison and I stand by them. Do I think it would be kosher to contact the original artist? Yes, of course - it all has to do with manners. Do I think we need to bring the wrath of God (or whom/whatever) upon them for not doing so? No - unless they post/sell/claim it w/o permission or proper credits.

It is idealistic and naive for us to think that image grabbing is not going to happen. There are sets of circumstances (i.e. - blatant law-breaking and inconsideration) when it is called for that a person or group be made accountable for their actions. I don't think that in djthomas' example that such a thing is required - my opinion only. As we can see, there are others who do not feel the same and now that they've made their feelings known, it is up to djthomas and those others who read this thread whether or not they'll change their way of thinking and how they do things.