Generally speaking, if you’re taking a picture from PUBLIC LAND (street, sidewalk, etc) then no one has any right to stop you. If some security guard attempts to detain you, that’s unlawful. If they take your camera, it’s theft. if they force you to delete a picture in lieu of detention, it’s destruction of property.

Here’s the best rule to think about when shooting buildings: If it can be seen in a public space, you can take all the pictures you want. And barring identifiable people in the picture, you can sell that picture. To use the example in the story, you could walk up to the guggenheim, take a nice picture, go home, post-process, make it B&W — and then sell that picture on your website. All legal.

I strongly suggest everyone take a look at this fantastic review of the legal rights of photographers. I always carry a copy of it in my bag.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Thanks,
-Dave

Still Photography and Permits
On US and California Public Land

By Jeff Conrad for the Large Format Page

How much more explicit can it be then the first exclusive right granted in section 106(1) of the Copyright Act?

Why do you find the third right (106(3) distribution) compelling but choose to ignore the COPY right?

I’m aware of other sections that provide defenses (fair use) or exceptions (e.g., 1008) to copying. It’s irrelevant to answering your statement.

I’ve that when presented with someone who seems to know the specific section of a law, they back down. If they don’t ask to speak to their supervisor, usually they will back down then.