Maybe I was just overreacting, but as far as I was aware of coprighted work without any mention about permissions means by default, I'm not allowed to use, republicate, edit or display it.
In this post OP asks if his edit on an image is enough to avoid copyright violations, while embedding the original image and linking to his edited version.
He also indirectly mentioned the author has not put this work under any explictly stated therms, so beeing just automatic copyrighted. What implyed (but here is probably the point where uncertainity made be beeing wrong) for me, him not having any explicitly granted permissions to publish this work.
This was enough urge for me to post this meta article, whichs reactions confused me.
Since I'm some one who is absolutely pendantic about copyright permissions, I'm even emailing (probably anoyed) publisher of googled example images before I'm using them here to stay conform to the CC BY-SA 3.0 license.
But that reactions now sound to me like automatic copyright means I can feel free to use the work as long not directly prohibited by the author.
Is it that way? Can I post randomly pictures of other authors publishing it under CC BY-SA 3.0 without violating copyrights as long it is not recorded in any way, that the original author prohibits this(to me)?