I'm still waiting for Canon to release a tool to scrub pictures of the buildings I own. What makes people believe they can just post photos of my buildings? I purchased the rights to that architecture.
The main difference in the above analogy is probably that a photo is not a primary intended way for the architecture to be consumed whereas it is for a song.
Also some music may be/is intended to be heard live. So the recording/model analogy can certainly fit.
Sure, I agree with this.
>Hearing a piece of music is the same as hearing the piece of music.
Gonna disagree there; in the same way that looking at a picture of something isn't the same as looking at something, hearing a recording of a performance is not the same as being present for the performance.
The Treachery of Images, as Magritte called it.
In the US though, architecture copyrights don't protect against people photographing building exteriors.
That said, if your building was covered in a mural or some artistic façade that you held the copyright to, then one can assert copyright against people posting videos of the building on YouTube. Of course, there's exemptions for various forms of fair use like critique.
This is way overly reductionist. Hearing a few notes of a piece of music in the background with crappy quality is not the same as hearing the full ucompressed piece with top of the line equipment. It is remarkably analogous to seeing a picture of building.