Images of buildings are frequently used in advertisements, product literature, and other marketing communications for building products. Is it appropriate to identify the building's architect?

In Australia it is not only appropriate, it is a "moral" obligation. The Royal Australian Institute of Architects and the Advertising Federation of Australia publish "Advertising Industry Guideline -- Moral Right of Attribution - Architectural Works". It cites The Copyright Amendment (Moral Rights) Act 2000 and declares, in part:

“Where a visual, spoken or written reference to a work of architecture is integral to the purpose of an advertisement, in any media, the architect for the work is to be clearly identified.”

I do not believe there is a similar law in the United States, but there may still be a moral obligation. Any attempt to legislate morality here would get tied up in a debate over when the architecture is "integral". One wonders if there is a similar obligation to identify the designer of the clothing worn by models in a photo or the company responsible for the construction craftsmanship. If the advertisement is for HVAC equipment, should the project's mechanical engineer be identified?

Without reference to morality, there is a sound business reason to identify the architects (and others) that used your product. It is a way to show respect to your customer. Their presumably successful use of your product may help other designers feel comfortable using your product.

But what if the presumption of success is inaccurate and the architect was not satisfied with its experience with your company? For example, the great looking project photo conceals problems in customer service, product failures, even pending lawsuits.

It is best to check with the architect in advance and make sure they are amenable to being identified. There is a deeper moral right - the right for a designer to refuse the use of his or her name for commercial purposes.