Kalamos
Level of Lemon Feather
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2003
- Messages
- 12,889
- Points
- 63
[I sincerely hope DJ is going to check his spelling. He's making me forget what little english I learnt to use so far...]
I'd like to answer ShadowTklr's question.
It is an interesting example, in theory. In practice, it is really a matter of local laws - and their interpretation and enforcement.
In some country, said street-artist might get a fine for pavement defacement. In other places, he might get a cheque for city embellishment.
It is probably a matter of economics: need and offer.
If an artist doesn't want his/her/its pictures to be shared freely, it is probably within his/her/its right to say so.
There is no way to enforce this: it rests upon the respect and trust built around said artist.
If people decide to agree, and play by the artist's rule, it is fine. If they decide to share those pics freely without the artist's permission, tough luck.
Not even copyrighted material is safe from illegal sharing - and money is involved. Freely posted pictures are way less safe.
I think regulating picture flow is detrimental to most artists; most free pics are a kind of advertisement for our paid jobs.
Under normal rules we'd be paying to show our ads. Telling people to stop sharing our ads - or tell us before they do - is probably not "cost-effective".
Either they forget and share our pics without our permission, or they eventually grow tired of warning us, and stop sharing them altogether.
This is of course my own opinion - but it does answer to your question, in a way.
While the street-artist gives a lecture about grabbing a snap, tourists happily steal away pictures of his art, under his/her/its nose.
In southern Italy they have a way of calling that kind of situation: "cornuto e mazziato" - roughly equivalent to "injured and insulted"... 😉
Still a right is a right... So if warning before sharing becomes bothersome, just stop. 😉
I'd like to answer ShadowTklr's question.
It is an interesting example, in theory. In practice, it is really a matter of local laws - and their interpretation and enforcement.
In some country, said street-artist might get a fine for pavement defacement. In other places, he might get a cheque for city embellishment.
It is probably a matter of economics: need and offer.
If an artist doesn't want his/her/its pictures to be shared freely, it is probably within his/her/its right to say so.
There is no way to enforce this: it rests upon the respect and trust built around said artist.
If people decide to agree, and play by the artist's rule, it is fine. If they decide to share those pics freely without the artist's permission, tough luck.
Not even copyrighted material is safe from illegal sharing - and money is involved. Freely posted pictures are way less safe.
I think regulating picture flow is detrimental to most artists; most free pics are a kind of advertisement for our paid jobs.
Under normal rules we'd be paying to show our ads. Telling people to stop sharing our ads - or tell us before they do - is probably not "cost-effective".
Either they forget and share our pics without our permission, or they eventually grow tired of warning us, and stop sharing them altogether.
This is of course my own opinion - but it does answer to your question, in a way.
While the street-artist gives a lecture about grabbing a snap, tourists happily steal away pictures of his art, under his/her/its nose.
In southern Italy they have a way of calling that kind of situation: "cornuto e mazziato" - roughly equivalent to "injured and insulted"... 😉
Still a right is a right... So if warning before sharing becomes bothersome, just stop. 😉