@Roman:
not quite, I think.
The point here is a bit narrower: when you take an architectural photo these days, you are taking a photo that in a meaningful sense already existed of a deliberate, specific work of art; the architect could see what they were designing on a screen, and you really are recording their artistic vision, to a greater extent than, say, a landscape or garden view (even a Capability Brown/Decimus Burton landscape), and to a greater extent than flowers or animals, unless you subscribe to a particularly direct view of Creation.
Whether this is at all a problem for photography, or challenges the artistic nature of the work, I don’t know; your judgement is as good as anyone’s on that. But I would say that if the copyright office could get involved (and in some of these cases, it perhaps could) then the photographer’s claim to artistry is somewhat smaller.
Awesome photos, though; I’d love to have this level of observational skill and precision in my work.
Started out doing photography at the age of 6 using an uncle's old 1940 kodak brownie box camera. At 15 years of age, I decided to buy my very own 1975 Praktica SLR camera. I now shoot with a Nikon D850. I do unpaid TFP and commercial paid work.