Copyright and Trademark are 2 entirely different things, and fall under 2
entirely different bodies of law. In fact, copyright is is governed by
international law in many countries, and is automatic in most. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright.
Computers are excellent a a few things. One of them is copying digital
data. Another is sending digital data to other computers. What does this
say about the protection against (by your estimate) "90% of users out
there"? Well, let's talk about viruses, worms, and trojan horses. These
are digital data that nobody even wants. How are they spread? One computer
copies the data and sends it to several others. Each of these sends it to
several others. And so on.
Once something is copied, it can be distributed. So, protection from "90%
of users" isn't protection at all. In fact, if something is attractive
enough to warrant copying and re-using, it is highly likely to be both
copied *and* distributed.
You will also note that among the (few) methods I enumerated (there are
many others), only *one* of them involved viewing the source code. What
percentage of users doesn't know how to use the "File|Save As..." menu
item present in most applications, including browsers?
Again, if images and any other published material could not be copied,
there would be no need of copyright laws. Copyright laws exist to provide
redress for people *when* their material is copied. It is not
preventative.
Why people seem to understand and accept that an image in a book can be
easily copied using a copier machine, but for some reason an image on a
computer, which *is* a copying machine cannot, is beyond me.
But I do know that advising someone to do something that is useless is to
give useless advice. For example, to advise someone that they will not get
HIV if they don't have sex with prostitutes has a damaging effect, because
it encourages them to have sex with anyone that is *not* a prostitute. It
also doesn't inform them of the various other ways which they might
contract HIV.