When my picture of the kid holding her handknit iPhone was making the rounds this summer, I licensed it a few times for commercial use, and let it go for free a few times. Then one day, I ran across it on a commercial site, not only listed as Creative Commons and free for reuse, but credited to someone else.
Turns out some flickr monkey had reposted it as his own, with a wide-open CC-license. He was apologetic and took it down, and all was resolved immediately and amicably, but I can still feel the sense of outrage and violation at seeing, not just my picture, but my picture of my kid being used in a way I had no input or control of. And it was just a picture of her hand!
Which is a self-involved way of saying I can totally empathize with Dutch's still-unmollified, protective anger over Babble's unauthorized and uncredited use of one of his photos of Juniper to illustrate a story on the dangers of lead contamination.
Since posting about the incident a few days ago, the comments have filled with other people whose images were used without permission, too. Babble's editor Ada and Nerve Media publisher Rufus have chimed in repeatedly, and current and ex-Nerve employees trade conflicting accounts of standard operating procedure.
I've got too many conflicts here to count , but it seems pretty clear to me that Nerve/Babble was in the wrong--repeatedly--and as a result, they're facing a pretty unsympathetic crowd so far.
 but I'll try anyway: I was an early contributor to Babble, including pics of the back of the kid's head in Asia and France. The editor Ada is a family friend. I've known and liked Rufus since the early Silicon Alley days, when I was the only known Mormon at Nerve.com parties. I count several Babble bloggers as friends. Dutch is my online idol. Another one of the photographers whose work was ripped off is married to a former work colleague. I'm sure there's more.