He didn't always give attribution, that is more recent. I'm not mad at him for past transgressions, and applaud him for changing to at least giving attribution. Just correcting you on that point so you can more accurately assess the situation.

And again, as far as putting the burden on the original content creator to seek damages when the content user is making a profit without the consent and having made no effort to contact the content creator for their permission is obviously a way to roll the dice in order to make money in the hopes one doesn't get caught. Just because someone isn't aware of a crime doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. 

Some photographs are public domain, some are expressly free to be used, others are expressly determined to be never even photographed (in the case of something at a museum for example) and nearly all other photographs are automatically copyrighted unless expressly determined to be otherwise. You don't even need to put a copyright next to it, but people on the internet. Just.don't.care. Because they want to make money as quickly and easily as possible.

Your standing up for him has earned you 1700, congrats. *this further proves my point that as long as you support the whales positions you stand a greater chance to gain a financial reward* Which is not to say that I don't think it's perfectly fine to get that much for your comment. You created your comment yourself, it was useful, helpful and worthwhile. Please don't read me wrong on that account.