I understand the theory, and it's better to be safe than..you know.. In the context of use for glass, I don't get how someone can claim that a generic photo of a well-known area, with no other extenuating circumstances, can be theirs. If I make a piece of glass of the Eiffel Tower, with associated buildings and streets, there will be SOMEONE out there that has taken that shot.
The scene is not copyrighted. The photographer only has rights to his or her photograph - the one that he or she actually snapped or acquired the rights to in some other way. You take a photo of the same scene - you have all the rights to your actual photograph, copy it all you want and let or don't let anybody else use it.
How could you prove that you were copying your picture, and not copying someone else's?? If you could evidence that you actually visited the site and took a photo, and the scene was totally "generic", you're cool. On the other hand, if there was some detail in the other guy's snapshot, that wouldn't have been visible when your picture was taken, and it's in your depiction, you might be in the soup.
It would be a hard case to predict the result of, as judges and juries don't always see through the same filters that the rest of us do. So, take heed!!
P.S.- So if you're doing that Eifel Tower scene - It's not going to be accepted as "generic" if King Kong is swinging from the heights.
