http://www.photopermit.org/?p=65 will get you to a short blurb on the City of Chicago trying to 'copyright' a city view. Just doesn't work.
The Disney example is a nice one but not quite accurate. If you try to use the view for commercial purposes, such as an ad, you will find you have the same limitations as you would if you come photograph my farmhouse and barn and try to use them in an ad. Disney and I can both go after you for using private property for commercial gain without a property release. For private use, giving away prints or editorial(newspaper and magazine) both Disney and I can't do a thing about it.
As for my photographing you and using the photo... as long as my use is ART, Journalism & Editorial and not defamatory there really isn't a #### thing you can do about it. The link below will get you to a very good case that discusses this one nicely.
http://www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/2006/02/philiplorca_dicorcia_lawsuit_d.html
below is a quick bit from the site/article
Reported earlier: "Philip-Lorca diCorcia is being sued by an Orthodox Jewish man that he photographed in 2001, as part of his Heads series." - as reported here, here, and here.
"A judge has dismissed an Orthodox Jew's lawsuit, finding that a photograph taken of him on a street and sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars is art - not commerce - and therefore is protected by the First Amendment, even though his religion forbids such images." (story; also see the ruling)
-------------
On the same case, another from an AP article:
Orthodox Jew's lawsuit over Times Square photo dismissed
By The Associated Press
02.14.06
NEW YORK — A judge has dismissed an Orthodox Jew's lawsuit, finding that a photograph taken of him on a street and sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars is art — not commerce — and therefore is protected by the First Amendment, even though his religion forbids such images.
Manhattan state Supreme Court Justice Judith J. Gische ruled that the photo of Emo Nussenzweig — a head shot showing him sporting a scraggly white beard, a black hat and a black coat — is art even though the photographer took it surreptitiously near Times Square in 2001 and then sold 10 prints of it at $20,000 to $30,000 each.
Philip-Lorca diCorcia's photographic show "Heads" was at the Pace Gallery in Manhattan's Chelsea area in September and October 2001, featuring shots of 17 people photographed without their knowledge in New York, Tokyo, Calcutta and Mexico City. The displayed photo of the 80-year-old Nussenzweig was about 3 feet by 4 feet.
New York's right-to-privacy laws prohibit the use of a person's likeness for commercial purposes without the person's permission. But if the likeness is deemed to be art, the commerce restrictions do not apply.
New York has been fairly liberal in its protection of what constitutes art, the judge wrote. She said New York courts have "recognized that art can be sold, at least in limited editions, and still retain its artistic character."
"First Amendment protection of art is not limited to only starving artists," the judge wrote in a decision made public yesterday. "A profit motive in itself does not necessarily compel a conclusion that art has been used for trade purposes."
Nussenzweig's lawyer, Jay Goldberg, said he was writing his appeal of the judge's decision and expected to win a reversal.
Goldberg said his client's religion forbids, and he has a deep conviction against, reproducing his image by photography or other means because of the belief in the Second Commandment's prohibition against graven images.
"It puts him in a disgraceful light within his community," Goldberg said. "It violates the tenets of the particular religious sect to which he belongs. He shouldn't be put in a position where people might think he sold out for a few bucks."
Goldberg said Nussenzweig's son saw the photograph in a catalog of diCorcia's work in a bookstore in early 2005. Nussenzweig sued in February 2005, alleging his privacy was invaded and his image was used for commerce.
Lawrence Barth, diCorcia's lawyer, said that what was at stake in the case was the right to make art in public places. Without such a right, Barth said, there would be no photo of the sailor kissing the nurse in Times Square at the end of World War II.
Another diCorcia lawyer, Kenneth Schacter, said it did not matter that Nussenzweig objected to the photo on religious grounds. "Our First Amendment rights," he said, "trump his religious beliefs."
-----------------
The case has not been overturned.
A lot of folks will tell you what you can and cannot do. Most are full of BS. Security guards are especially bad in this regard and really have no authority to do anything as long as you are not on private property. On private property they can ask and then escort you off(if it the private property they are 'protecting') but on any other property they are just another citizen hassling you and subject to the same laws for assault and battery and whatnot as any other citizen who may grab or assault you.
Like it.
But even if I didn't, I was at that point not actually on the estate but the public highway, so I would have been quite within my rights to tell him to [insert suitable expletive] off.
