I am a law prof and know a little about this, but have not read the article, so I can only comment on photographing buildings. Last time I looked at this, I remember that there was a revision to the copyright law that allows photographing buildings, even for commercial purposes. You can copyright the design and appearance of a building, but that only prevents people from building the building, not photographing it. You cannot trespass to get the pictures, however.
The ROCK N' ROLL HALL OF FAME case was not about copyright but trademark, a distinction only a lawyer would make.:-) The photographer used the caption, "ROCK N' ROLL HALL OF FAME, which the plaintiff claimed was trademarked so he could not use it. The plaintiff also claimed that the design of the building was so distinctive and so will known that it was also a trademark that could not be used without permission. The court disagreed, finding that the building had not been used as a trademark and that using the name of the building was a fair use of the copyright. See: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc. v. Gentile Productions, 134 F.3d 749, 45 U.S.P.Q.2d 1412, 1998 Fed.App. 0020P (6th Cir.(Ohio) Jan 20, 1998) and Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc. v. Gentile Productions, 71 F.Supp.2d 755 (N.D.Ohio Sep 02, 1999)
People are different from buildings - they have a right to control their publicity. The lighthouse does not make sense to me - the federal government does not have copyright in anything it does or owns, so they cannot charge you to use the images.
Want to worry about something? How do all of those wonderful street photographs square with new state privacy laws? This becomes especially troublesome when they are on the Internet. Did Winograd get releases? Could someone in one of his famous pictures block its sale or display? All of the court cases are about news and reporters, not fine art. Some of us are working on this problem and would welcome comments.