4 ms·

> 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.

by 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 ago
I'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 ago
His 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.

by 542458 10y ago

morganvachon 10y ago

I'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 ago

His 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.