This situation is slightly different IMO. I'm not saying ignorance is an excuse, but the "Keep Calm..." ads are manufacturing the offensive product.
That company was actively engaged plagiarism and product is the trite rehash. The FB company wasn't selling the image per-se, but merely appropriating it for their service. If they were selling copies of Rehtaeh Parsons' image as a product itself rather than an uncredited and, as far as they're concerned, anonymous image of a girl to help them push the service, then they would be comparable.
> I think the lesson is, if your business model MUST involve pulling stuff from the Internet arbitrarily, it is no less your responsibility as if you had crafted it yourself if you intend to commercially repurpose it.
I totally agree. If your actions result in something tasteless or harmful, then it is your fault that you haven't foreseen those consequences.
I'm reminded of these t-shirts with "Keep Calm And..." slogans that were allegedly generated automatically (presumably culled from web searches) and sold on Amazon without human intervention: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21640347
I think the lesson is, if your business model MUST involve pulling stuff from the Internet arbitrarily, it is no less your responsibility as if you had crafted it yourself if you intend to commercially repurpose it.