"Not at all. Where did you get this idea from? Downloading an image for personal pleasure doesn't even give you a "fair use" defense. It's like saying that stealing 1,000 is OK as long as you don't spend it." um, no. what a horrible example. stealing $1,000 would deprive someone - wether an individual or company - of that money, since currency is finite. downloading an image does not deprive the owner of the image, it merely makes a copy. if you insist on using the money argument, then use it properly: counterfeiting $1,000 would be somewhat of a better example, although still inaccurate. so what youre saying is, that during my last visit to an art gallery when i photographed a variety of sculptures and paintings, ive committed a copyright infringement? and ive also somehow 'deprived' those artists of their work? when an artist creates a work and submits it to a gallery - wether digital or traditional - they are not simply 'contributing' to their viewers, its a give & take situation. they provide the art, the viewers provide the feedback, recognition, fame, money, etc etc for it. to treat them like unruly children and remove their ability to save the work for non-profit, later personal viewing is disrespectful and ungrateful. if someone is so against it, then they should refrain from posting their art in public galleries and just paint it and keep it locked up in a safe at home where noone can ever see it. (ack had to wait 9 hrs to post this, damn power outages)