First of all, the “view” illustrated here is not copyrighted. More to the point, the implication of your question is specious on its face.
My second point is that you mistakenly believe you have addressed the issue of copyright. In fact, you have confused the issue with TRADEMARK. They are quite different things.
Short of writing a treatise about copyright law (or trademark law), the execution of any photograph, just the same as the execution of any written text, IS copyrighted from the moment of its creation (the instant the shutter button is pressed and an image is captured on either a film substrate or a CMOS chip; doesn’t even have to be visible yet), and carries the legal protection of ownership only if it is proven to be unequivocally original AND first to have been executed; subject matter notwithstanding.
When someone tries to present oneself as an authority on copyright, with no academic bona fides to distinguish opinion from fact, it results in misleading and specious drivel like “copyright is killing photography.” That is not only insulting, it hurts peoples’ careers.
Finally, please do not also conflate, or confuse, so-called “influencers” with either commercial, editorial, or fine-art photographers. Don’t confuse them with wedding & portrait or event photographers either, who represent a separate industry from Commercial Photo altogether.