Philosophical problem here - any photographer has immediate copyright in even their own latent image. The original model is not being copied. The photographers is creating a new copyright work of their own authorship when the photographer makes a photograph. Photographers do not "take" anything, in this context, they "make" new copyright works of their own authorship at each click of their camera shutter release button! If a photographer were to put down their camera and construct a duplicate model ship, THAT might be copying the original model. Photographing is not copying, in this context. The premise below is wrong for non-flat (two dimensional) original works of art (art = artifact, not capital "A" "Art", meaning "expensive stuff in museums", not what we're talking about here). A photograph produces an essentially flat, two dimensional artifact, and therefore cannot reasonably be considered a "copy" of an other non-flat multi-dimensional original artifact, such as a model ship. Therefore, no photograph can be reasonably considered an infringement on whatever copyright the original non-flat artifact creator / owner may claim. Perhaps photocopying a flat two-dimensional artifact that is subject to another person's copyright is another situation, worthy of exploration in a separate thread. However, that being said, anyone can sue anyone, but that does not make them right. Anyone can also win a lawsuit, but that also does not make them right. Anyone can appeal that judgment, but that does not make them right. My advice to anyone is to do what you think is right, and then if someone sues you, decide how much you want to fight and win to protect your rights, and everyone else's rights. I do not think anyone else can tell you how much fight you have in you for this battle for photography and photographers to be equivalently, appropriately, and accurately respected by all for our free speech rights and copyrights. Let us know what you decide to do with your original photographic artifacts. It is very generous of you to consider contributing your own copyright artifacts to the commons. PS - And never forget the totally unrelated difference between '"making a photograph" and "publishing a photograph". Some people think that if they can successfully sue you for publishing a photograph, then they can also stop you from even making your own photograph in the first place, These are totally different and unrelated areas of law experience - "creating" versus "publishing". We do not have preventive laws, so we are free to make, and publish anything. But, we do have remedial laws, so if someone thinks your creating and publishing actions, after the fact, have deleteriously affected their own life, limb, or property, they may be able to persuade a commonly respected authority (a court?) to instruct you to cease, desist, pay fines and remuneration, and even arrest and imprison you! Anything preemptive, however, is censorship, and interference with everyone's free speech rights and copyright. They have a right to make an original model ship without asking anyone's permission; you have a right to make an original photograph without asking anyone's permission. However, society is complex, and it looks like considerate behavior on your part to ask before taking certain actions. Regardless of thorough and well based advice, any actions you tale may be the basis for someone else to challenge you, no matter how careful you are, whether they (or you) be right or wrong! Welcome to the free world! models of ships, which can be either be part of the documentation of a ship, along with the plans), but also in this domain. We have quite a few photographs of recent scale models like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Croiseur-Colbert-p1000458.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:LNG_tanker_model.jpg were sculptures, so there might be a strong case to consider them as original, copyrighted works of art whose photographs cannot be photographed freely. what to do with them.