Yes, but from the creators point of view you can make similar arguments which conflict with yours. Say your an artist; if you make a painting with acrylic and paper or oil paints and canvas, it's yours and anyone copying it using similar materials cannot pass if off as their own, or another genuine copy of your art. Just because you use a stylus and digitiser and a computer screen, why should the rules be any different when you post a copy for people to see?
If the artist posts that art in the public street facing window of their shop, they have entered it into the public way by choice in a manner that would allow for capture and potential reproduction. The artist still owns the rights to the original item. If they had alternatively chosen to display it in a gallery with restrictive photographic rules, that is their choice as well.
Note in my examples that it is the content owner's rights to decide IF they place something in a public space, there are expectations of incidental and direct capture and potential re-use. There are other special rules around re-use and fair-use in the physical world. One is that citations that link to the original are encouraged. Another is basically that people should not try to re-sell other people's stuff.
But, the rules of the physical world can still be applied to the digital. What the artist places for public view, in the resolution they present, should be expected to be captured and or referenced, positively or negatively, by a broad public audience not under the artist's control.