The blog still uses a whited out example of an 1854 statue, yet the discussion is
supposedly about the sculptor's copyright.
Is the Swedish court trying to imply that artists and their heirs have a near indefinite
copyright period for sculpture on display in Sweden? Or is this a modern statue of a chap
who died in 1854? The blurb describes the statue as being public domain, so I suspect it
is just a misleading picture, it would be better to use a picture with a whited out statue
that is still in copyright.
Those journalists and lawyers who support this judgment will try to spin this as being
about the rights of living artists. So I'd suggest using the example of the oldest
statue you can find in the database that is still in copyright, especially if the initial
heirs are also long dead. A sentence in the blog post along the lines of "copyright
in Sweden lasts for x years after the artist dies, so some of the artworks that the court
is trying to restrict public access to are over y years old".
It might also be worth adding that Wikimedia Commons, wikimedia's main media library
operates under US law. Though individuals who add or use material also need to comply with
the law where they are.