I read the thread on Rangefinder Forum - one thing I think everyone is missing about copyright is that the sculptor's copyright begins and ends at the object itself. The sculptor has a right to the sculpture itself - if I were to start making 1/100th scale models of "the bean" without paying a licensing fee, then Mr. Kapoor would have the right to pursue me in court. Copyright for a work of art covers the commercial use of an image/object itself, and the intellectual content thereof. If I take a photograph that majorly and substantively uses and/or copies the elements of someone else's image in such a way that it is reasonable to confuse the one work for the other, then I have violated their copyright. Taking a photograph of an object like the bean is a new work of art, regardless of commercial or personal intent, because in taking my photograph of the bean, I have chosen a particular way to interpret the sculpture - the time of day, the angle of the light, the presence or lack thereof of people in and around it, etc. I would think that photographing the bean would in some ways be analogous to making a parody of an existing artwork - Marcel Duchamp's LHOOQ, for example, or Andy Warhol's Campbells Soup Can.