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

[Skeptic]

@gatto

it also feels like there’s some issue around “generic-izaton”. in trademark, if something gets used as the common place term, it can lose it’s trademark. something like that should probably be acknowledged with public art and architecture. ( ie. paris and the eiffel tower. )

That would be god-awful. The mandatory protection of the mark requirements for trademarks result in all sorts of pre-emptive lawsuits because they “have” to to keep their mark. To make copyright work that way would be an utter disaster, resulting in more horrible litigation, and privileging the rights of people and corporations that place copyrighted material in public over the rights of the public.