Quote: "I travel many distances just to take pictures, you see. Even bad areas of the city. "
What part of a city isn't bad?
Nice work Dude.
I tried taking pictures for textures without much luck. (bad camera)
Quote: "Although it's very rare and the chances of this happening, it doesn't mean it's not possible. Multiple people can take pictures for maps at the same location"
That's what I was thinking.
There are a lot of photographers in Chicago, so I don't think it is that rare of a chance especially on a nice building.
It's not like you guys are painting your impressionist style oil painting of the building.
Of course two snapshots of the same building will look similar regardless of who took them.
Well, other than subtle difference in lighting/exposure/etc., which reflect the photographer's skills.
The building is still the same building and would look the same if Higgins photographed it.
That's why I think it is silly for people to 'copyright' a photograph of something unless they created the object.
Like the photos I see of famous people on Wikipedia that were taken at public events like awards ceremonies.
How can someone claim the rights to the image of someone else just because they pushed a button?
I think its silly.
I'm not trying to knocking what 'photographers' do, or say they shouldn't have rights to their 'work'.
I am just saying a lot of people get carried away with copyrights.
