Erica said
 
>I know there is some HTML code that ... will pop up a window that says
>something like, "I'm sorry, these pictures are copyrighted, please don't
>take them."
 
And BIG commented
> " ... search on the web for the code and see if you can steal it for
>your own use!  ;-)
 
No need to steal; there are a lot of free resources for getting scripts
(not to mention free graphics, buttons, etc!)
 
Matt's Script Archive is a classic http://www.scriptarchive.com/
Then there's the aptly named http://www.webstuff4free.com/
also check out webmonkey.com.
 
What you can do is, when you find a picture that is protected, look at
the source code.  There will probably be a copyright or attribution
notice at the beginning of the code; you can then search to see if
that's a free script.  Or write the owner of the page; if the script is
open-source they will probably be happy to let you know where it came
from.
 
Also, if you really like a picture on someone's site, ask if you can
*link* to it.  No need to steal (download) it.  You can show pictures on
your page that are actually on someone else's page, and it's just as
simple as making a link.  But you are obviously not claiming authorship
or ownership of the picture, and the owner still retains complete control
of the image.  Many webmasters will allow this even when they won't give
permission to actually copy the graphic.
 
It really isn't much trouble to use something legitimately.
 
BTW, I belong to an artists association, and the question came up whether
a portrait painted from a supplied photograph was "original" or a copy.
The bottom line seemed to be that if the composition of the portrait
was dictated by the photograph, then no, the painting was not really
original, in the sense that it did not reflect an original vision by the
artist.  However, if the supplied photo or photos were merely used as
reference material, and the artist was free to pursue his or her own
vision, then the portrait was as original as it would be with the subject
sitting for the portrait.
 
With discussions like this occurring, it's obvious that changing a
few pixels is not enough (at least ethically; we can leave it to the
intellectual property lawyers to argue about exactly what constitues
'enough' change.  When we get into legalistics, though, remember that
there are many different legal systems throughout the world).
 
--Claire
(and Sam and Frankie and Missy, who are utterly bored by this.  "Gimme
more of those tractor-riding adventures!" "Can we get a tractor too,
mom?")
 
[Moderator's note: As Claire points out, please ASK before linking to an
image.  Even though linking may not violate copyright laws if may be a
big pain in the butt for the site you are linking to: sites typically pay
for the internet bandwidth they use and lots of links to their site can
end up costing money and/or cause them to exceed limits they may have,
not to mention affect the overall responsiveness of their site.  BIG]
[Posted in FML issue 4118]