If I make a photograph of the Eiffel Tower or the Vietnam War memorial or let's say a mural on the side of a building--all of which I have indeed done (see examples below)--should the artist whose work I'm recording get a cut of any income I might make? Or do you think maybe a vindictive law suit is in order? Apparently, this is how some asshole "artists" think.
I, of course, find it a completely absurd proposition. Because, well... it is!
See this (over at Bob Krist's place): Photog Fragged By Fair-Use-F**king Footprint Artist...
