> The 'Cloud Gate' in Chicago has a bunch of bullshit around it re licensing and photography permission.

I'm all too willing to believe this, but Wikipedia doesn't know of anyone getting in trouble but the NRA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_Gate#In_popular_culture . (Not that it's OK if only one group is subject to onerous restrictions, or that other groups couldn't be targeted, or if others have just been pre-emptively stopped from even trying.) Do you have a reference?

I'd be shocked if Anish Kapoor doesn't have ridiculous restrictions like that on Cloud Gate. You know about what he did with Vantablack?

I found this, not sure how reliable it is but it mentions a photographer being extorted $350.

https://www.sculpture.org/documents/scmag05/may_05/webspecs/...

The Atomium in Brussels is the same... It became so ridiculous that lawmakers introduced a Freedom of Panorama Bill here in Belgium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomium#Worldwide_copyright_cl...

That is true for IP rights of many pieces of fine artwork. If you look for Cloudgate in particular on getty images or similar you will only see editorial rights for sale because the artist kept licensing rights to their creation, even though it is in a public place.