Blogger/photographers are especially confident when the lighting is good, the scenery is amazing, and the camera adequately reflects those variables. Yet, the world of commerce jealously protects creative works, including architectural and design works, really including anything that marks a commercial enterprise. Many bloggers have one eye toward personal expression and another eye toward monetizing that expression at some future point.
And trip planners like myself only have maps and other people’s pictures to go by, until the trip is underway. Two challenges exist for photographers: 1) liking and wanting to use other people’s pictures and 2) planning to take original pictures once the trip is underway.
As for the first point, it is prudent to scour every page looking for a copyright signal from the author. Open source photography is the general rule for sources of shareable images; additionally a derivative photo-sharer must pay particular attention to whatever disclaimers appear on the Wikipedia images (where one should tread lightly because anyone can claim they own something on the page) or other open source page.
As for the second point, well, it might not be sufficient to take the tourist picture using ones own camera, either!
Search terms: tourist pictures of pictures and copyright
Top result: http://blog.kenkaminesky.com/photography-copyright-and-the-law/
Second top result says:
Most photographers (and licensees) think property releases are required for publishing photos of buildings because of a slight misunderstanding of a key aspect of copyright and trademark law: the mistaken assumption that what applies to photos of people, applies to copyrighted or trademarked works, like buildings.
The source of this misunderstanding is the copyright: buildings are made from architectural designs, and such designs are copyrighted by definition, exactly the same way photos are. Also like photos, architectural drawings don’t have to necessarily be registered to be protected. So, technically, items such as buildings are protected by copyright protection, as any other item would be. The part that’s misunderstood, is that “any” use of a photo of a copyrighted item does not itself constitute a violation of that copyright.
The protections that copyrights provide usually come down to some economic measurement: is the display of a photo somehow having an economic effect on the copyright owner’s ability to sell his product? Does it diminish its value? Similarly, is the use of the photo somehow enabling the user to benefit economically? That is, just as the “good will” of a well-recognized logo may help with the perceived value of a product that bears it, a “good design” (regardless of whether it’s recognized) can have a positive economic effect on the user’s ability to sell his wares. The question of whether any given use violates a copyright is judged on how closely one can attribute the use of the photo of the item in question with any of the hypothetical effects listed above.