The fact that the photos remain where they were is completely irrelevant — I never said that they didn't.

When we say "Great artists steal," we do not mean that great artists remove things from their previous location. We mean that they copy other artists' ideas and techniques. But we say "steal."

When we talk about one culture appropriating elements of another, we do not mean that they stamp out those elements in the original culture. We mean that they copy those things. But we say "appropriate."

When somebody steals my identity, I actually still have my identity, but he's using it too, and in ways that I don't approve of. But it's still called "identity theft."

The distinction between theft and copying is relevant in legal matters and some practical matters, but in colloquial use the two are often the same thing. Banging on about this every time anyone uses the word is annoying and, more importantly, contextually incorrect.

I've read it online, I don't use it. Great artists are inspired by other artists just as in science we use the term "standing on the shoulders of giants". What precisely Picasso meant is it seems lost to us.

The blunt reading however is a damaging blurring of a legal and moral distinction - artists need to understand how copyright affects them and affects the cultural landscape. Making the adoption of important cultural works in to ones own work sound unlawful/immoral is harmful to a healthy society IMO.

However the concept behind this phrase is that "all artists use others work without worrying about copyright infringement" and that this is how the art world works, reflects culture and feeds society.

Or maybe Picasso meant "own it", make your version so much better that people think of you - undoubtedly the line-drawing of a dove wasn't a new idea when Picasso made his version.

>"we talk about one culture appropriating elements of another" //

Loose language, got you. When a culture is inspired or affected by another they don't appropriate the other cultures assets; this is kind of a key distinction when considering the way memes move; how cultural artefacts are created.

Parent's appropriate the slang of their children.

Word choice matters.

>But it's still called "identity theft." //

Actually this is far more in the middle ground - you don't get to use your identity [to the fullness you'd expect]. It's not copyright infringement, or at least that's not the important aspect. It really is like you've had your legal identity stolen (and often you've had things stolen as part of the process). "Identity theft" works IMO.

>The distinction between theft and copying is relevant in legal matters and some practical matters, but in colloquial use the two are often the same thing. //

The distinction is made in normal conversation.

>Banging on about this every time anyone uses the word is annoying and, more importantly, contextually incorrect. //

Deliberately attempting to ignore this important distinction and conflate the separate ideas of theft and copyright infringement is also annoying, intellectually dishonest and in this conversation concerning copyright infringement couldn't be more "contextually incorrect".