Be real careful on what you submit-

I'd say be careful on how not what you submit.

loads of us have to submit a property release even for things from our own imagination... would a reviewer let a (non-editorial) shot like this pass without one? 

I think this is ridiculous:

In 1999, he filed suit against the Seattle Symphony Orchestra for using photos of the Dance Steps in its promotional material. That case went to trail, where Mackie was victorious and the Symphony was forced to pay $1,000 in restitution.

So he actually took it to court, won and only got $1000? You can sure hope his attorney's costs were covered as well but still...

Here is an interesting take on the whole topic from TechDirt: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110702/01433514945/another-fair-use-debacle-photographer-settles-bogus-copyright-threat-artist.shtml

Basically, they think this was clearly "fair use" and it is only the fear of being hit with some large damage claim that makes ordinary people pay up.

Steve

OK, let's start the battle:

IMO, the creator of this public artwork is Jack Mackie who wants to protect his rights. At this point nothing wrong with that but it has to be clarified who indeed holds the rights to license images of the artwork.

As with the Sydney Opera House it's not up to the architect Jørn Utzon who needs to be asked for permission to film/record images for commercial purposes, it's the company that runs the place that has to be contacted for authorization. They clearly state on their web site that:

... These revenues include revenue from sponsorship and licensing.  The image of Sydney Opera House is an internationally well recognised and valuable brand. ...

http://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/about/filmingpolicy.aspx

So once it's established who holds the rights to allow third parties to make money off of that protected property, one would know who to contact first.

Just to take images of any artwork of any kind in any place and simply uploading it to a stock agency without doing any sort of research is not smart (trying to be polite here).

While many pieces of public artwork can be used commercially, it should be clarified before uploading if you are even entitled to do so.

This public artwork itself does not endorse any product or service and could be so-to-speak interpreted as neutral.

But if a photographer uploads it for commercial purposes and uses it in ways the artist never wanted his work to be associated with, someone has to step on the brakes.

I can understand the artist's reaction and I think he is right.

I assume the photographer did NOT offer it as editorial. I was under the impression that it was under a commercial license. Therefore the photographer should have inquired for permission upfront.

If it's editorial, the photographer should not be held liable. But ultimately it is the photographer who sets the license and he has to know if he owns all rights (for commercial purposes).