6 ms·
Charging Bull sculptor says New York's Fearless Girl statue violates his rights
- hhjkjhkjhhlkj 10y agoThe bull artist does seem to be quite immature.
- rhapsodic 10y ago"Bull artist" indeed.
- 542458 10y ago> accusing New York City of violating his legal rights by allowing the “Fearless Girl” statue to be installed facing the bronze beast, without his permission. > Di Modica called the statue an “advertising trick” A mite ironic, seeing as "Charging Bull" was initially an advertising trick installed without the city's permission... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charging_Bull#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charging_Bull#History That said, I am a tiny bit sympathetic to the Charging Bull artist who had the stated meaning of his art subverted a bit - I get it, you didn't mean it as a "male power!" thing and it sucks to have your work treated that way. At the same time though, I do feel that this sort of subversion is important artistically, and allowing copyright to stifle it would be unfortunate. Furthermore, I can't help but feel that the idea that you could be able to control the context of an artistic work (not the art itself, but the environment around it) with copyright a little silly, especially for art as public and symbolic as "Charging Bull". All-in-all, an interesting case.
- morganvachon 10y agoI'm not normally one for Schadenfreude, but I sincerely hope he loses this case. It's okay for him to stick his sculpture in the square without a permit, but no one else can, even with a permit? He doesn't own the street, and he needs to learn that firmly and promptly.
- rz2k 10y ago"firmly and promptly"?? However it goes, I hope it doesn't involve one side or the other saying the other had no business even having their opinion on the matter. Both artists seem to have had positive intents, yet the two together are incompatible with the first artist's intent. While satire typically allows both works to exist in their original contexts, the Charging Bull becomes a menace here, no longer able to be interpreted as a symbol of economic optimism. The Fearless Girl has value, too, but it is not without critics either, so there is at least a valid discussion to be had.
- morganvachon 10y ago> "The Fearless Girl has value, too, but it is not without critics either, so there is at least a valid discussion to be had." I'm all for discussion, but from what little information we have to go on, it appears the bull's sculptor is seeking to stifle discussion and simply have the girl removed despite a valid permit and public interest. That's what I take issue with; he doesn't get to dictate what is placed on a public street any more than the girl's sculptor does (which she isn't).
- anigbrowl 10y agoHis copyright interest won't give him any protection. The space around his work is not part of the work, and copyright law offers no protection from proximate artworks that comment upon or even mock the original.
- hluska 10y agoAl Jazeera's article is a good second source: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/bull-sculptor-fearless-girl-removed-170413044032365.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/bull-sculptor-fearless...
- rhcom2 10y agoEither I'm misunderstanding copyright or he is... what "artistic copyright" applies here?
- 542458 10y agoI can't speak for US law, but in Canada at least the holder of the artistic copyright is allowed to control/restrict modifications to their art. For example, the Eaton's center placed temporary Christmas bows on a sculpture they were displaying. The artist objected, and won in court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_v_Eaton_Centre_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_v_Eaton_Centre_Ltd That said, I can't speak to how US law will see it, or how the law works in regards to adjacent art installations.
- gerbilly 10y agoI believe these are called 'moral rights." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
- dragonwriter 10y agoInstallation of another work near his art doesn't affect the integrity of his work, even if it does create a new composite work in which his, with complete integrity, is subsumed. Moreover, it's important to note that the federal copyright exceptions regarding satire and other forms of commentary, even though some of them are also reflected in statutory fair use, are of constitutional dimension, and would therefore similarly limit application of any state-law restriction on a new work as they do federal copyright law.
- pdabbadabba 10y agoThere is a body of quasi-copyright principles that apply to artistic works called 'moral rights.' This framework recognizes a "right of integrity" which prevents unauthorized modifications of the work. This approach seem pretty strange to those used to the American system of copyright law and U.S. law does not fully recognize them. But, being Italian, this framework is probably informing the artist's views here. Here is a brief write-up: https://cyber.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html https://cyber.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html
- diamonis 10y agoThe 'little girl statue' is the artistic equivalent of painting a black mustache on the Mona Lisa with a marker. Pure artistic vandalism.
- csours 10y agoWhat?? No. It is the artistic equivalent of putting a mustache sculpture in front of the Mona Lisa.
- chadgeidel 10y agoI have no idea how you could make that comparison. The original artwork was neither destroyed, changed, or touched in any way. It's not in any way like "painting a black mustache on the Mona Lisa with a marker".
- diamonis 10y agoMashups are fine and I support them, fwiw. But putting 'her' in front of the charging bull is a deliberate attempt to change the meaning of his art. It is the attempt of a second rate artist to ride the coat tails of a superior artist. She gets instant notoriety for her work by, not so coincidentally, trashing somebody elses.
- anigbrowl 10y agoChanging the meaning of an existing piece of art isn't vandalism, it is pure art. As an artist myself I reject your claim that Di Modica is somehow a 'superior artist' just because he happened to have his work there first. Kristen Visbal came up with something everyone who sees it reacts to without needing an intermediaries to draw attention to or explain the semantics of her artistic statement, which is precisely the goal of art.
- Chris2048 10y ago> Kristen Visbal came up with something everyone who sees it reacts to without needing an intermediaries to draw attention to or explain the semantics of her artistic statement, which is precisely the goal of art. So a swastika on a war memorial is also "art"?
- JohnLeTigre 10y agoThe addition of the girl makes it look like the bull intends to go after her, that's kind of a troubling thought and it does not respect the initial artistic intent of the bull statue. "financial resilience" becomes "confronting women"? wow.
- strictnein 10y agoMaybe it's just because I'm from the midwest and have spent time on farms, but when I saw that statue my first thought was "Does she want to die?"
- anigbrowl 10y agoGood. That's what makes Fearless Girl a successful piece of art. You are now thinking about the world slightly differently than you were before you saw it, albeit unwillingly. Whether you like or agree with this novel thesis is beside the point of whether it has caused a shift in your consciousness, which is the aim of art.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- JohnLeTigre 10y agoSorry for the late reply, the act of living itself makes me see the world slightly differently every day as new events unfurl. I prefer learning from observations rather than being subjected to ideological propaganda. One respects the sovereignty of my conscience, the other does not. Art does have a great impact on everyone's conscience, this is what makes it poignant. But there is good art and bad art, and in my book, ideological art is always bad since it veers your mind towards ideologies, towards a self-imprisonment of the mind, towards a false sense of consciousness, etc.
- justin66 10y ago> "financial resilience" becomes "confronting women"? wow. Not women, cute little girls with cross looks on their faces. Presumably State Street (creator of the thing) thinks full-grown women are less sympathetic, or the image of full-grown women confronting bulls hits a little too close to home with regard to their corporate culture, or something.
- trothamel 10y agoThis is a really interesting case, since it seems like it really goes down to artistic integrity. The 'Charging Bull' statue seems to be pro-capitalism - which might not be a popular statement, but seems like a reasonable one to want to make. By adding the 'Fearless Girl' to the mix, it changes the meaning of 'Charging Bull'. I mean, if someone added a 'Camera' statue to the mix that looked up the girl's skirt, that could be a valid statement about something (objectification of women, for example). But we'd be outraged about the change of the meaning to 'Fearless Girl' - and so I think it's at least interesting to talk about the change in the meaning of 'Charging Bull'.
- gdulli 10y agoWe wouldn't be outraged because of artistic integrity. We'd be outraged because it would be in bad taste, despite the anti-objectification intent of the artist. There would be no outrage about a more neutral installation. The original artist might object, but unless they own the land is there any protection of their artistic intent in the law?
- anigbrowl 10y agoYes it does change the meaning of the work. (There's a fine tradition of this in the arts, most famously around the work of Duchamp but less obviously with many others through history.) Personally I've never liked Charging Bull as an artwork - tis' too propagandistic for my taste, and I think the creator half-assed it by not exploring the equally powerful concept of an angry bear - and then we wonder why people on Wall Street profess surprise and helplessness in times of recession. I think it's an interesting modification to the work to confront the bull with a human female; not only does it finally balance the work, but by choosing an oppositional figure whose identity is rooted in self-awareness rather than atavistic force, it refutes the abdication of moral agency that underpins the business culture of Wall Street. Assuming it's not destroyed by vandals, the new work has the potential for historical significance.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- dsschnau 10y agoWhat a crybaby.
- anigbrowl 10y agoThis guy's tears are delicious.
- larvaetron 10y agoCopyright is "the right to copy your work." Unless I'm missing something here, and the artist can claim copyright to the sidewalk, this is some next level bullshit.
- whiddershins 10y agoCreating a derivative work is a form of copying.
- anigbrowl 10y agoThis is a transformative work, not a derivative one. Amusingly, the people who most dislike it are bolstering its legal future with their complaints, the most strident of which I anticipate will be cited in legal briefs.
- larvaetron 10y agoWithin the scope of copyright for sculptural works, what part of the Fearless Girl sculpture would you consider a derivative work?
- malandrew 10y agoWorst case, he can just have his art moved. The other statue is meaningless without his. I think having the Bull turned 90 or 180 degrees would be hilarious.
- gdulli 10y agoThat would be great. The fearless girl stared down the bull, and the bull flinched.
- patrickg_zill 10y agohttp://variety.com/1998/film/news/settlement-reached-in-devil-s-advocate-case-1117467814/ http://variety.com/1998/film/news/settlement-reached-in-devi... Reminds me of this case. The movie made a reference to a sculpture, but made it appear demonic instead of the intended angelic effect. The author of the work sued and won a settlement, having the scene be cut for video sales.
- basseq 10y agoFearless Girl absolutely changes the original intent and meaning of Charging Bull. ('A symbol of the "strength and power of the American people".') In a sense, Fearless Girl is a derivative work—using the original art, no less—created without permission of the artist. It's less about environment and more about the fact that Fearless Girl would not make any sense without Charging Bull. Whether the artist has a right to prevent derivative works, whether this counts, and whether the city was within its rights is what's up for dispute.
- setr 10y agoConsider it as an internet meme Copied, modified and spread, until it supercedes the original meme And then you have the original meme's creator complaining about his meme was stolen You'd tell him to shut up, its the natural existence of a meme, to be subsumed and regurgitated in new fashion That's how I see this, anyways. Art should be modifiable in this way; though I don't have an opinion on the ownership of the case, but it seems to me (based on charging bull's wiki) that Modica is overly defensive about his meme in any context (possibly purely for licensing's sake), and fearless girl clearly kills any value Modica has in charging bull In spirit I think fearless girl is fine; in practice, its pretty messy.
- thescribe 10y agoI'm torn, because I absolutely hate the Fearless Girl statue, but at the same time the artist might not have the most right to complain. A better solution might be to add a third statue changing the meaning of the girl to be negative.
- cam_l 10y agoGood artists copy, great artists steal.. Maybe Di Modica should be more sour that the fallibility of the market, and the cultural realisation of gender bias, has changed the meaning of his work. Or Instagram and the many people polishing it's balls.
- rabboRubble 10y agoI understand why he feels the way he does. That said, once an artist lets their work go into the public, how that piece is displayed, reflected, or even understood is no longer under their control. How many authors find their books published, only for the reading public to find an interpretation of their written word different than intended? When an artist's painting is hung or displayed in a museum, does the artist control the how's and why's of their piece's display? No...