Barking Mad : 無料・フリー素材/写真
Barking Mad / Pranksky
| ライセンス | クリエイティブ・コモンズ 表示-継承 2.1 |
|---|---|
| 説明 | It's controversial maybe but a well established fact that graffiti often requires protection from Guard Dogs who are properly trained to differentiate quickly between writers and artists. Not surprising that 'High Visibility' Guard Dogs are fast becoming part of the essential kit for professional crews.Despite its good intentions, many of the provisions of the Guard Dogs Act 1975 – including Sections 2, 3, 4 and 6 relating to the licensing of kennels – are not yet in force.Section 1 of the Act prohibits the use of a Guard Dog unless a handler capable of controlling the dog is present with the piece at all times, and the dog is under the strict control of the handler unless secured (and is not at liberty to 'run free'). The use of any such guard dog is prohibited unless a 'notice warning that a guard dog is present is clearly exhibited at each end of the piece'. Under Section 5 of the Act, a breach of Section 1 will result in criminal liability and a fine of up to £5,000.“Although a question of fact, it’s highly unlikely that a guard dog employed by a crew will be favourably compared with a trained police dog – and would therefore not avoid the strict liability imposed by Section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971”From a legal point of view, the requirement to have a notice at each end of a large piece, warning that guard dogs are present is an interesting one, particularly in those circumstances in which the word 'piece' has not been defined or limited. Would a work by an artist constitute a piece? From a legal point of view, it's likely that it would, but most artists seem to be oblivious to the Act and instead usually take a calculated gamble with their PR mates in Rush Green. Thanks to Zigazou76 and Sugar Pond for sending us their pics today of their high viz beast.Dave, Prank Sky Media, Barking, London |
| 撮影日 | 2011-01-05 13:47:47 |
| 撮影者 | Pranksky , United Kingdom |
| タグ | |
| 撮影地 |