Hmmm. this is all getting interesting.

From what I read about the Eiffel Tower, that is just plain stupidity - number one, it only applies at night.  I'm sure if I was going to use the Eiffel Tower in an 'inappropriate' picture I could do more with a lit picture during the day anyways ;-)  On top of that, the representative claims in the link that really, they imply that they actually condone abuse of the copyright law... "he assured me that SNTE wasn't interested in prohibiting the publication of amateur photography on personal Web sites. "It is really just a way to manage commercial use of the image, so that it isn't used in ways we don't approve," said Mr. Dieu. "  Copyright is copyright, No?  What if I make an amateur image that they don't approve of?!?  I've got a quote saying it's OK to do it in an amateurish way!!! YAY!!!!  There's my defence......

Ok, buildings..... I take a photo of my car in front of a landmark and advertise my car for sale in a magazine.... what do I care about the landmark?  Can that REALLY be a breach of copyright when I didn't even intend it to be in the image?  Now what about Ford?  I've used a picture of their vehicle (of which I'm sure the design is copyrighted) and used it for a commercial purpose!!!

Image theft is one thing - unaltered, people may mistake it for the real thing.  But a photo of a sculpture can't be mistaked for the real thing - it's a lot flatter for a start, and a bit more boring around the back.

Like political correctness, copyright has wandered into a strange land where it'll never be sorted out and ultimately some technically illegal things will be completely ignored - either that or silly boundaries will be re-inforced one day that it would be unfeasable to police effectively.  Writing this, I'm thinking of an example of prosecuting someone for taking a photo of a building.

(",)

When you starve with a tiger, the tiger starves last.