I disagree that the credit for this photograph belongs to the sculptor. sure their sculpture is nice but they deserve credit for their sculpture. I deserve credit for seeing the sculpture at this angle, choosing the film i did. the time of day i did, the list goes on. The real credit for this image belongs to me the photographer who took it. Its like saying anyone who photographs a nice image of the Pyramids or the Taj Mahal Doesn't deserve any credit because they didn't build the structure in the image. Quite offensive to a photographers ability.
I disagree that the credit for this photograph belongs to the sculptor. sure their sculpture is nice but they deserve credit for their sculpture. I deserve credit for seeing the sculpture at this angle, choosing the film i did. the time of day i did, the list goes on. The real credit for this image belongs to me the photographer who took it. Its like saying anyone who photographs a nice image of the Pyramids or the Taj Mahal Doesn't deserve any credit because they didn't build the structure in the image. Quite offensive to a photographers ability.
Of course, crazy judges may think otherwise. Remember the case of Jeff Koons and his "String of Puppies" sculpture based on a B&W photo of someone else? It is in a sense the opposite or mirror image of your example here, but I really had to laugh reading Koons was convicted, since I think it highly unlike that this sculpture would ever infringe on any financial interests of the photographer, but that is just my personal view... of course, copyright is not just about finances, but I have a really hard time to understand why one unique sculpture would infringe on any form of interest of the photographer, even if it is a more or less direct 3D copy of the original photo. It is not that the sculpture gets "published" in its original 3D form in a hundred thousand magazines. Would like to see the first offset printer capable of that . Quite offensive to a sculptor's ability