Court case seeks to clarify that photographers don't need permission to publish pictures that incidentally capture public works of art

[Skeptic]

@RickMycroft

With corporations, imagine a company putting up a big f-ing billboard, and then expecting payments for use of “their” chunk of the skyline.

In France, commercial photography of the Eiffel Tower is prohibited at night because the lighting is copyrighted. The lighting! :-/

In the US, some films edited the TransAmerica Pyramid out of the San Francisco skyline because it is trademarked by TransAmerica and their Errors and Omissions insurance required them to play it safe.

And, of course, there are the various artists claiming that people can’t take photos of public art installations paid for in full by government, eg. Chigago’s “Cloud Gate” bean-shaped sculputre.

So, yeah, that kind of shit is totally plausible and possible under copyright laws in the US and around the world.