[Animats]

"I anticipate all sorts of crazy digital-rights management battles ahead for 3D objects like this - including art."

A 3D scan of an existing object does not create a new copyrighted work under US law. See Meshwerks vs. Toyota. This follows Bridgeman vs. Corel (2D photos don't create a new copyrighted work), which follows the famous Supreme Court decision Feist vs. Rural Telephone (which allowed loading phone directories into databases.).

[DenisM]

It hinges on the "creativity" aspect. Where discretion and creativity are present, the image is copyrightable. An exact replica is not.

[knughit]

The question is also whether you are allowed to publish a digital copy of a copyrighted sculpture

Also, how does Bridgeman square with the reality that photographs are certainly copyrighted (Getty, etc)?

[detaro]

Bridgeman is only about "exact photographic copies", like a 1:1 photograph of a painting. Trying to be as exact as possible doesn't count as creative work and therefore isn't copyrightable, even if it requires time and skill.