It's so weird to me seeing journalists complaining about copyright and people taking something they did.

The whole of journalism is taking the acts of others and repeating them, why does a journalist claim they have the rights to someone else's actions when someone simply looks at something they did and repeat it.

If no one else ever did anything, the journalist would have nothing to report, it's inherently about replicating the work and acts of others.

That’s a pretty narrow view of journalism. If you look into newspapers, it’s not just a list of events but also opinion pieces, original research, reports etc. The main infringement isn’t with the basic reporting of facts but with the original part that’s done by the writer.

> The whole of journalism is taking the acts of others and repeating them

Hilarious (and depressing) that this is what people think journalists do.

Or you could just not do illegal and/or immoral things that are worthy of reporting.

This is terribly unpersuasive