Say what you will about the art institute, but they disagree. "You may not reproduce the Art Institute of Chicago’s logo or building image, which are also trade

Say what you will about the art institute, but they disagree. "You may not reproduce the Art Institute of Chicago’s logo or building image, which are also trademarks, without an express license from the Art Institute of Chicago." Why would people ever need such a thing as a http://www.google.com/search?&q=photography+release+form http://www.google.com/search?&q=photography+release+form if it's not copying someone's likeness? The "moment in time" argument is clearly weak when you compare it to copying from your neighbor's physics final. "No one could copy Feynman's sophomore year final exam! He's dead. It was a performance such as the world will never see again." I agree with you, photography is art. There is a huge amount of talent luck and preparation required to get that shot. I'm just saying your defense of photography seems weak. It's pretty trivial to create derivative work with photography (hence the releases and licenses). The reason we're never "forced" to agree, in a math problem sense, is the line between original and derivative is so subjective. A photo of a person is derivative. A photo of a crowd is unique. A photo of this building is a trademark violation, no matter how artfully done. The most pedestrian photo of the building across the street is fine. Fuzzy, ambiguous rules kinda piss me off.