Keeping people from taking pictures of highly advertised, postcarded tourist attractions is silly. I did agree with my dad a couple years ago when my mom wanted him to take pictures in the Munich subway two weeks after the London 7/7 attacks, and pointed out that small brown men taking pictures of major infrastructure were not currently popular in Europe.

One of my journalism students asked me about whether photography of infrastructure (bridges, etc.) could be restricted; my off-the-cuff reply was that anything visible to the public probably couldn't be banned from photography, but the city might legally require people to obtain permits.

DiCorcia did NOT set precedent--precedent only flows "downhill", the original decision was at the level of a trial court and has nothing below it. The appeal recently dismissed could have set precedent for New York at least, but didn't--the appeal was dismissed on statute-of-limitations grounds and the Constitutional issues were only discussed in non-binding dicta.

It's also worth noting that defending a case like this is expensive even if you're right. DiCorcia may have "won" but it still cost him, his gallery, and his publisher a lot of money.

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying, Roger.