I don't deny that buildings can be copyrighted. I do deny that a photograph of a building is a copy of the building.
If you're sued for making commercial use of a photo of the building I strongly doubt that it because of a copyright violation. -- Cheers, Bob > >A photograph is not a copy of either a building or a person, > >consequently a photograph of a building or a person wouldn't (or > >shouldn't) violate copyright. > > Architecture, as a creative work, can be protected by > copyright. Some famous buildings are indeed so protected. You > can certainly photograph them but you can't make commercial > use of those photographs without violating copyright and > experiencing undesirable interaction with members of the > legal profession.
