I do recall that when I was photographing misericordes in some church in Belgium, a very agitated young man (well after I had photographed a bunch) told me that these carvings were "private property." I wanted to say, "So what?" but restrained myself. I politely pointed out that the church was open and so was the area in which the misricordes were located. I continued my photographing and he finally gave up. And I had to dodge guards to get the Santa Fina photographs mentioned in a previous mail. The "excuse" is that flash photography harms the colors. Perhaps. But flash doesn't harm marble. And flashless photography harms nothing. I suspect a combination of money matters and utter confusion about the law are at work here. I offered to pay a photography fee at the Palazzo Reale in Genova but was informed that the building and the art work therein contained were "private." Again, so what? I suppose an owner may impose ridiculous rules in his own place but copyright surely can't have anything to do with it. Gordon raised an interesting point: are things in plain view somehow protected from being photographed, disseminated and perhaps used in a publication? What about photographers who go about photographing interesting faces of ordinary people? Does s/he have to get permission from every one of them for inclusion in a publication? What if I take a picture of Notre-Dame with a crowd of people in front of it? And on and on... One thing that is reiterated in the above referenced law is that the photographer holds the copyright of a photograph. I find it hard to believe that one may copyright a building or a sculpture or window, etc thereof.