I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with Tainted on this one ;-)

Taking a photograph, no matter what of, makes YOU the copyright holder of the photograph, and can do what you like with it .  If the original artist/designer/architect doesn't want photo's of it, that's for his own reasons, but have nothing to do with copyright.  If you're on private land and the landowner doesn't want photo's taken, that's also their perogative, but once again it's for whatever their own reasons.

If I took a close up of the face of the statue David and turned it into an artwork like the ones I do, it doesn't mean that anyone else has a claim to it..... I certainly would fight like hell in any court to keep my work mine, and I couldn't see any court in the world failing to uphold that.  Say an artist is out at dawn one morning and is walking by a statue in a park.... he notices a perspective of the statue that everyone misses or ignores... he gets into a good position, waits a few minutes for the sun to be just right..... and gets an amazing photo, a phenominal contrast of light and shadow playing on the curves of the statue.  Is THAT the work of the original artist?  Should he REALLY have any claim at all on someone elses talent just because he has some himself?

If the design of every item that is created and seen is copyrighted, there isn't a photo in the world that doesn't breach it apart from nature shots..... we'd better throw away every photo we've ever taken that has a house, shop, car or structure in the background....... and Andy Warhol should be sued by Heinz, too........wow, that'll earn them a few quid, and knock art back 500 years..........

(",)

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