Copy/right?

(photo from
http://flickr.com/photos/search/tags:cloud+gate/tagmode:any/)
I was so appalled by stories coming out of Chicago about the ban on photographs of Anish Kapoor's "Bean" or "Cloud Gate", that I was knocked speechless for a few days.
Now the word on the streets is that Christo is trying to get away with the same nonsense with his The Gates (TM) (n.b. that C is claiming to have trademarked even the title- Hello?????) in NYC.
What, I steamed, is behind all of this? After all, these sculptures were put in public spaces, maintained with public money. I thought the law said that even people in public spaces were fair game for photography, etc. Isn't that what paparazzi are all about?
But according to the info published at the Chicagoist website http://www.chicagoist.com/archives/2005/02/17/millennium_park_photography_the_official_scoop.php the city isn't really at fault here. The situation is just this... The city issues permits to get some grip on scheduling the flow pf photoshoots. They have nothing to do with copyright or control of content. The copyright doesn't become an issue unless someone tries to publish their pix- and then it's between the photographer and the owner of the copyright. Got that?
But I'm still flummoxed. Art in public places is public art and as such is public property. And since you're selling a photograph, or a representation of an art object, you're not selling the object itself, but your interpretation of it, does copyright apply?
The latest from the Christo camp says the Fabric Furher thinks it does.
From the website injusticebusters.com: "Christo's publisher claims a vast new degree of copyright and trademark protection. They claim they will prosecute anyone who sells their own original photos of The Gates; who makes and sells a drawing of The Gates or who even uses the words, The Gates, without their permission....They also claim to have an agreement with the media that media sources may only use news photos of the gates for the period the installation is up. That after that the media will only be allowed to use "official" photos of The Gates.
It used to be that arts lawyers were concerned with protecting free expression. Now the corp-art guys are busy shutting it down in the name of "art".
Answers???