I believe that is that is the case in the US. However, it is not so in some other countries. I seem to recall that Italy and France, for example, are more restrictive about this that you actually need government permission to use photos of some buildings. Perhaps someone from Europe can clarify.
Also, while there appears to be no specific law in the US requiring a property release, there is also the matter of copyright. In a very limited number of cases, you would need the permission of the architect (or whoever holds the copyright if the architect does not). However, this only applies to buildings built after 12/1/90 that cannot be viewed from a public space.
There might also be an issue with a few buildings that are trademarks, such as the Transamerica pyramid, though I think that only applies when the building is clearly the subject of the photo.
Yes, I think Europe is different, but from what I have read, because more items can be copyrighted. For instance, structures can not be copyrighted in France (I believe) but lighting designs can. This means that a picture of the Eiffel Tower during the day is no big deal; at night though, you could run into problems.
Insofar as copyrighting buildings (or lighting designs) in the USA, I am nearly certain this is not allowed regardless if you can see it or not from a public space. By US copyright law, you can not copyright anything that is utilitarian in nature. A building is a utility, therefore it can not be copyrighted. Nether can fonts; I know because I designed a font and I was denied copyright of it. Same thing with any type of clothing; the Mardi Gras Indians have tried to copyright their costumes over the years and have always been denied.
Now building plans, they can be copyrighted and, since no building can be built without plans on record (by law), you can't rebuild a building without violating the copyright of the original architect's plans.
Insofar as trademarking a building, I believe this was settled with the Rock & Roll Hall of Frame case years back, at least in the USA.
PS. I found this on an intellectual property attorney's website relating to utilitarian objects. "The United States Copyright Office has generally refused to register claims to copyright costume design on the ground that costumes are useful articles that ordinarily contain no artistic authorship separable from their overall utilitarian shape. However, where a costume design contains a separable pictorial or sculptural authorship, copyright protection is available. The “separable authorship” means that the portion of the costume claimed to be protectable must be physically separable (the work can be physically removed from the costume), or conceptually separable (the work is independently recognizable and capable of existence apart from the overall utilitarian shape of the useful article)."
