A photo is much more than the subject getting photographed. It's also about the creative exposure used (lights, shadows, colors, implying or stopping motion) and about the composition done (the angle, the distance). These elements are used to express or induce a feeling or send a message or make the subject memorable (even though it's quite a boring subject).
photographers who take photos of building are stealing
the architects designs?
Copyright is about protecting the expression of a concept/idea.
Protecting buildings from photographers with copyright is stretching it, but it depends on the context. Also depending on the context, it is also an issue of free speech.
I don't really think so(though I am pretty sure I am wrong legally). One is highly transformitive. A picture of a house can't be lived in like a house can be lived in. A picture transformed in to a slightly different picture isn't all that different.
Interestingly enough, the New Museum tends to feature heavily in Maisel's personal photos (albeit quite zoomed in - he does like his telephotos..). To be fair, it is just down the street from him..
As I understand it (IANAL), this is a somewhat controversial point of IP law. However, in the interests of playing it safe, a lot of stock photo agencies do require property releases for certain iconic structures such as the Sydney Opera House. This is in the same vein as model releases however. it's not copyright but the use of a likeness for commercial purposes.
I can take a picture of you on the street and use it for any editorial purpose. (Subject to not defaming you in some way.) But if I want to use that picture in an ad, I'd better have a model release.
Isn't it the same thing?