Trouble is, I find myself with great sympathy towards the fight for freedom, but not when it comes to the idea of somebody using my work for free.
Displaying something isn't the same thing as offering it up for unlimited use which, in many cases, equates with abuse. Because you might take your pretty girlfriend for a walk in the park doesn't mean you are inviting everyone in the park to rape her. Would it be logical to say that you should keep her prisoner, in public disguise, as some already do? Is there something here to learn from other cultures?
I could not agree more with the first part; but things are a bit more "gray area" then.
I do not think the girlfriend example applies here: we are talking about digital content, that you can replicate it as many times as you want, and still keep the original to yourself; just because someone copies your image / song / book does not mean you can no longer use your own copy. There is a monetary loss, of course; but that is not the issue here.
Problem is we are no longer buying physical objects, we are just paying for licenses; and the licensing terms are no longer clear to the average Joe. If I buy a paper book, I know I cannot make a photocopy and pass it around; but I can lend it to a friend. However, an ebook is cryptographically attached to my reader, and I cannot lend the book unless I pass the reader. Same with digital music (hence the article): the MP3 files that I purchase are linked to my account, and will disappear when I pass along.
And then come the draconian rules, like College Books that are licensed only for the duration of the course: as soon as the semester ends, you are no longer allowed to read it; or those readers that can delete the books you purchased, just because you made something that someone did not like.
This is not about someone misusing your images, this is about citizens becoming mere consumers.