Here is a comprehensive list with their restrictions: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/known-image-r...
I must admit I don't. I cannot bring myself to see the Eiffel tower being copyrighted at night as anything but absurd, even for selling photos.
Not everything needs to be profitable or have a price tag. I think we should agree upfront as a society that you shouldn't expect to make money from photos of the exterior of your public building.
Copyrights are hard. Even if you look at public domain works like Sherlock Holmes, whose original stories are in the public domain, you can run into issues by giving him personality traits that are associated with derivative works that are still under copyright.
Whether the pattern of light hitting a building is copyrightable is likely to be an under-explored area of case law. E.g. in the UK it would probably have to be a work of 'artistic craftsmanship' which is not defined in the statute. But the Eiffel tower is in France. So now you have two slightly differing sets of copyright law.
In the end many IP cases come down to bluffing because the actual class of question has never been settled by a judge.
On the other hand you have other cases like Banksy today loosing a case on trademarking one of his paintings. Which was dumb because he'd have got further with copyright infringement.
It might sound unfair, but as an artist, creating a iconic piece of art that will be around for generations should really be worth more than money. Perhaps governments around the world could set up a fund to compensate/honor artists who achieve this.
B) Lots of people find the current rules to be unfair. An enterprising fellow could build a massive structure in NYC and claim royalty rights over any photograph which may contain it.
You might be a-okay with that, but I take it to the extreme and think about what would happen if every building owner in NYC asserted copyrights over images of their building. Then every photo taken in the city would be subject to royalty/licensing requirements. YouTube's content scanners would automatically flag any video with shots of the city, etc.
That's quite insightful in understanding how the concept of intellectual property works in practice. I see, it's about making a claim to convince the other party of its legal ownership.
Whether the actual legality of the claim is proven in court or not, it may not matter if the claim is convincing enough, or too costly to contest.
If it's just part of a crowded the background, though, as in this case, it doesn't make sense. You can't put in the sky an object visible from everywhere and then ask people to pay (or even just ask permission) to use pictures that include it.
The thing with the influencer is, that s/he does that for commercial purposes. The list published by Adobe give you a hint what is allowed and what not. I don't know if the list is a complete list and I didn't verified the details. But it gives you something.
The same thing they would do if you didn't want to pay them: you sue them. For abusive occupation of your pictures.
I am being paradoxical, but the point I want to make is that if you want to make profits or claim any rights on the image you project in a public space (admitted that it should even be allowed, since you didn't pay for said space) then you must also accept the liabilities deriving by the same. You should not be allowed to claim the rights and disown the liabilities.
This would be a great super-villain idea for a fun/dumb movie.
Or that having a trademark in the background of something is implying an endorsement and necessitates payment.
What about taking a picture of a copyrighted text?
No amount of pictures of a building will reproduce it.
Also, if they want to claim ownership of the recording of something clearly visible in public, they should take responsibility and make payment for everyone that views it against their will. Yea, that latter half of that sounds ridiculous. The first half should as well.