Lots of places work like that. You can't publish pictures of many buildings in the US without written permission or licensing fees paid to the property owners. Same goes for quite a number of places in Canada, including the very popular CN Tower.

If the property appears as a small part within a larger photograph, it's usually exempt from such restrictions, such as a cityscape containing the property in question.

When you take a photo of a person you must obtain a model release if you wish to use that image commercially and not run the risk of getting sued for compensation or worse. Someone appearing in a crowd shot doesn't generally count, even if identifiable, the subject has to be the primary focus of the image/work.

You also have to make sure that no other laws are being broken when you're taking the photo. A lot of paparazzi shots are obtained while breaking all kinds of laws, even though the images themselves may not be illegal.

An image appearing in a tabloid under the guise of "news" likely skirts model release and compensation requirements because the images are used as part of an editorial. Though the tabloid is sold commercially, the images can be argued as not being used commercially themselves. It has happened however that celebrities have secured compensation for this type of image use, so it's not impossible. Unfortunately I can't remember who it was that did this recently (like within the past 5-10 years).

Anyway, there's a ton of research material, especially for US photographers. One of the best known sources is Bert P Krages: http://www.krages.com/bpkphoto.htm