If you wish to copy this photograph and use it elsewhere (although I don't know why you would), you may contact me at mrlefty at gmail.com and ask my permission. I will probably grant it. Otherwise, please don't.
UPDATE: I've removed the, frankly, unnecessary discussion of the Copyright Act 1968. This is all that really needs to be said on the subject. I didn't actually intend to prompt a copyright debate with the bat-winged monkeys, just because it was a slow news day at Blairville. (The "debate", such as it is, is still there in the comments, though. If that sort of thing thrills you.)
UPDATE #2: The original complaint was about a malicious person using an image and refusing to take it down after requests by the owner to remove it. This is completely different, obviously, from a blogger "hotlinking" to a news image, or a popular culture image, where the bandwidth involved is miniscule, and the creator of the image does not object. The former hurts the copyright holder; the latter doesn't. Obviously I wasn't condemning a fundamental part of blogging. Most of us don't mind our images or work being shared occasionally; there is a limit, however, which is what had been reached in this particular instance.
UPDATE #3: Jesus, people actually believe Tim Blair's blatantly dishonest claim that I "threaten[ed] legal action against anybody who publishes [my] cat pictures". I never did this. Blair's claim is demonstrably false. And of course Tim can't quote such a threat, so he instead quotes my mild remarks about the Copyright Act.
Oddly enough, Blairville visitors don't seem to read his posts with a critical eye, and didn't seem to notice that the most unpleasant claim wasn't actually backed up with an actual quote of where I'd said such a thing. So they're now wandering off on the web, repeating this strange story about a man who "threaten[ed] legal action against anybody who publishes [my] cat pictures".
Does the fact that it didn't happen bother them? Apparently not.