Strictly speaking, taking an image without asking permission is not theft, but it is copyright violation. Theft would be taking the original article without the intent to give back, which does not apply to digital art. But legally, regardless of whether the artist has given some generic permission, image taking without explicit authorisation is infringement of copyright. Your image has copyright whether you like it or not. That aside, this is a step in the right direction. It's relatively simple to prevent all image theft (I'm using the term loosely) except for grabbing by screen capture and cache trawling (all without the use of scripting). So this is what I'd be in favour of. Just because it would only stop 90% of image theft is no reason to simply not do anything. (Just for the record I don't care whether someone downloads my stuff as long as I get credit if it's redisplayed, but I am aware many people do care, so we should all respect this.) BTW, the argument that it's not possible to exclude 100% of image theft is nonsense. Do the people who argue this way leave their doors unlocked when they leave the house, on the premise that a locked door doesn't prevent 100% of home burglaries? Anything that reduces the liklihood of image theft should be considered. The fact that we'll never stop 100% of it is irrelevant.