Gripe

Recently I have had some back dated posts removed, artist in question will remain unnamed (hopefully to avoid having my further unnecessary emails) re 'infringements' of copyright...
I had no idea these images were 'protected'

The person in question I believe does not understand the generally gist of visual blogs, or indeed the nature of my blog. I do not gain financially nor in any other profitable way form posting images etc..The only reason the work featured was because of it's strength in the visual history of, dare i say it, photography.
It is a way to spread the word about great visionaries not to rip them off. If the artist was not credited alongside the work, then this is a different matter. To set the record straight the artist in this instance was credited.
I wish to promote art, photography, music etc...

I find it absurd that only one 'site' is allowed to be the sole place these images can be showcased, what about when it featured in exhibitions, catalogues? - I suppose the answer remains they passed some sort of copyright law.

In response I affirm my previous point - the purpose of this blog site is to provide a wider audience for artists, this in turn may even in some cryptic fashion inspire people to buy a book of even print of the artist in question's work. What is the harm in that?