I think the asinine part is copyright transferring to another medium. Its one thing to copyright the lighting installation (which is a fine thing, more power to you), but another thing to now own copyright a photo that happens to have said installation in it.
I don't understand how this could ever be enforceable. Maybe it's just a symptom of my inability to imagine how this would play out in other justice systems outside the US.
If the photo's "of" an artist's work then you probably do owe the artist. If you're photographing something that happens to have an artist's work in the background, that's going to be fair use, like the "dancing baby" video that has a bit of a Prince song in the background.
I think we are talking about a public installation like a sculpture, building, etc. No photograph, book, or film is an actual copy; but your examples are all basically trying to make a copy that can function like the original.
Couldn't a series of photos be composited to function like an original sculpture? E.g. a photosphere or VR-like presentation that allows the viewer to experience the sculpture from different angles, perhaps even in 3D?
Let me get this straight. To justify the protection of a light sculpture from photography, you create a scenario where the photographer is taking a bunch of pictures to build a "photosphere or VR-like presentation"? I shouldn't be allowed to photograph the sculpture because there is the possibility I will use these photographs to create some virtual replacement? This is how bad laws are made.
