Looking at the example,
(from an attribution perspective) @masteryoda did credit Avax, however I think he should make it clearer that the whole post (including the text) was an excerpt of the Avax article. This isn't obvious from reading the post. I wasn't aware of that fact before, so thank you for bringing it up.
(from a copyright infringement perspective) again, it would be for Avax, to lodge a complaint about his use of extracts from their article was a breach of their copyright. As well as possibly the whoever owns the copyright in the photos raising a complaint.
Except for a couple of things. Steemit.com is not the New York Times or YouTube.com. Nobody at Avax is aware of Steemit.com yet. And none are aware that their article is being profited from. Someone here could have contacted Avax and said, "Hey did you know...", but nobody did that. We brought it to the attention of the fellow community member and let them know that what they were doing was not kosher and that they should do their due diligence of contacting the source and getting permission. He elected to hide behind "If they contact me, we will resolve it", of course knowing full well they would not agree to it if they were aware.
I really hope that @masteryoda can know in my heart that I wish no ill will and that even though it must feel like everyone is jumping on him, it's understandable why you felt it was ok to do what you did and nobody is blaming you for it. It's just that now that you know it's not appropriate, to just change your procedure to one that is more time consuming.
If you don't want to do it the right way, we all can understand. After all, if it was as easy to do as what you were doing.... everyone would be doing it.
Agreed. I would say generally there is not a huge issue at the moment from a copyright perspective because attribution is being given (although it is probably a grey area).