Interesting question.

Artists do (and are free to) take liberties with adapting information from factual sources (photos, eyewitness accounts, biographies, history) in creating works of art. That freedom needs to be a 'given' or art will end up in chains. I'd be interested to know whether the sculptor was given instructions to interpret the photograph thus, or whether he simply went by his own feelings.

The question of political interference is a more difficult one. My view on the motives here is that I can see why such a decision was made, but having made it, it would have been more appropriate not to use poses taken from the original factual photograph, to respect the firemen who were actually in the photograph. A wiser choice would have just been to sculpt a generic image, purely as a symbol, and a metaphor if you like for America's burgeoning diversity. Either that or sculpt an image exactly as per the photograph, with the original firemen portrayed as they were. But they have tried to 'do both' and I fear will run the risk of needless controversy that will do no one credit.

Great photographs are of course art in themselves, including photographs taken at key moments. I think now of the famous photograph of the Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima and the eternally poignant photograph from the Oklahoma City bombing of the fireman carrying the infant in his arms.

Perhaps something more purely symbolic in the abstract would have been a better choice, (a bird of peace, a phoenix motif etc) and the image from the original photograph left to stand in factual accuracy on its own.

On the question in general, artists should be allowed to interpret in whatever means they see fit (within the boundaries of ethical consideration). They should not be pushed into rebelling either against 'political correctness' nor be bound by it.

Methinks this particular controversy will end up being far more about politics than about art.