I mean, I can see a case for copyrighting such a setup as an art-piece. Although it's still silly if used for anything other than discouraging others from making money off it (e.g. selling photos).
> I mean, I can see a case for copyrighting such a setup as an art-piece.
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.
I just don't understand how you can restrict photography of something that's in the public view. I'd expect that while most public sculptures etc are copyrighted, this restricts reproductions of the sculptures themselves, not images of them. The creative work here is the lighting system, and I don't feel an image of that actually copies that.
