Straw man.

I said "check" not "contract" for a reason. Specifically, because it creates an obligation to pay that does not require a separate contract. Copyright law works in the same way, in that it creates an obligation to pay that does not depend on an additional contract between parties.

Obviously, there are exceptions to this rule. That is to say, copies that can be made without triggering a corresponding obligation. These are gathered under the Fair Use provision of the law.

There are also criminal and civil violations within copyright. But the larger point is that refusing to pay money owed is very much a form of deprivation.

I'm trying to inform you as to why you received downvotes. Perhaps regurgitating descriptions of logical fallacies makes you feel better, but unfortunately it doesn't improve your argument.

Theft has a specific meaning which you should learn before you make broad, sweeping, incorrect statements about it.

Even if your analogy had any relevance to this copyright dispute, it doesn't follow that theft has occurred. Giving a bad cheque is not theft. Giving a bad cheque with a certain intention may amount to fraud.

His argument isn't based on contractual relations. He's quite right; Buzzfeed has kept the money they should have paid him in licensing fees for using his picture, so they have it and he doesn't.

The law is a contract between you and the state.