Thanks for the questions. I have a few of my own.

If someone commissions @klye for pay, as an example, to create a custom piece of art for their post and then someone else uses that same png image in a different post for free (while again, giving @klye credit, though not previously getting permission) is that just how things go?

How would a contract between you and Kyle create an obligation on someone else to not use their own scarce, rivalrous resource (a computer) for the purpose of copying a non-scarce, non-rivalrous resource (bits)? How would your decision to pay Kyle for content which can be copied without further labor or capital investment by either you or Kyle make it incumbent on others to pay you for the use of their own physical property for purposes of copying? Why does the creation of a non-scarce, non-rivalrous resource give you or Kyle a better claim to the scarce, rivalrous resources of others?

Was anyone harmed or wronged at all?

Can anyone demonstrate damages to property or body that aren't hypothetical?

Is that just on @klye for not using a medium which can't be copied?

Could such a medium exist given that anyone could just grab a screen capture? Absent keeping content secret, how would copying be prevented or punished without the initiation of physical force?

Is there any valid sense of "Hey, you shouldn't have done that. Show some respect to the original creator of that idea."

Why shouldn't people use their own scarce, rivalrous resources how they see fit? What's the definition of respect? How respectful is it of a content creator to lay claim over the scarce, rivalrous resources of people with whom they've no agreements to prevent them from using their tangible, physical property how they see fit?

Or is that concept an outdated one imprinted on us by government that we should all just get over?

Yes. As Kinsella points out in the work cited in your article, "intellectual property protection" has its origins in what are called "monopoly laws" and could never exist absent a central monopoly on force. The imposition of IP creates unagreed upon positive obligations to pay "royalties" to others for the use of one's own scarce, rivalrous resources, which is a violation of the non-aggression principle.