hi @minismallholding of course, we can think that way, I agree. However, this is just one of the considerations. I think copyright infringements go from case to case. I took these photos some time ago (even some before Steemit / Hive existed, for example), so we can't talk about some commercial interests here, especially when we talk about crypto. Most of the world law (still) does not recognize crypto as money (and here in Hive, we have vote/likes) so here I would not talk about the purpose of exploiting authors at least in legal terms.
On the other hand, I have strictly tagged photos (I always do this if I share them) with a creative commons license which says that any sharing and use must continue to be tagged with the same license. So, if an author of a sculpture wants to demand something from me/Hive/community, he has to prove the justification by this logic that I/we really wanted to earn and collect money. This will/would be very difficult, at least in my opinion.
Well, the courts are also very inconsistent, just yesterday I read two articles about Banksy (since you probably know this street artist): in one article where he complained that some company selling pictures of some of his graffiti, the court ruled that he was not justified for part of the profit because he did street art in a public place ... in another article, another court ruled that he could protect his street art in a public place ... unfortunately I have no source here because the news was in my (Slovene) language ...
Otherwise, such debates are always interesting to me and should be continued ...