
Charging Bull sculptor says New York's Fearless Girl statue violates his rights - dsr12
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/12/charging-bull-new-york-fearless-girl-statue-copyright-claim
======
542458
> 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
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
"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
> _" 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).

------
trothamel
This 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'.

~~~
anigbrowl
Yes 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.

------
JohnLeTigre
The 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.

~~~
anigbrowl
Good. 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.

~~~
JohnLeTigre
Sorry 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.

------
basseq
_Fearless 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.

------
patrickg_zill
[http://variety.com/1998/film/news/settlement-reached-in-
devi...](http://variety.com/1998/film/news/settlement-reached-in-devil-s-
advocate-case-1117467814/)

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.

------
diamonis
The 'little girl statue' is the artistic equivalent of painting a black
mustache on the Mona Lisa with a marker. Pure artistic vandalism.

~~~
chadgeidel
I 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
Mashups 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
Changing 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
> 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"?

------
malandrew
Worst 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
That would be great. The fearless girl stared down the bull, and the bull
flinched.

------
hluska
Al Jazeera's article is a good second source:

[http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/bull-sculptor-
fearless...](http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/bull-sculptor-fearless-
girl-removed-170413044032365.html)

------
setr
Consider 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.

------
rabboRubble
I 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...

------
larvaetron
Copyright 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
Creating a derivative work is a form of copying.

~~~
anigbrowl
This 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.

------
rhcom2
Either I'm misunderstanding copyright or he is... what "artistic copyright"
applies here?

~~~
pdabbadabba
There 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)

~~~
elastic_church
so basically, he doesn't have a case, thanks for reaffirming my world view.

~~~
patorjk
Maybe I'm just really tired, but that article made it seem like he does have a
case...

> Authors may seek moral rights protection from state moral rights laws and
> art preservation statutes in California and New York, whose provisions
> resemble those of VARA.

> VARA grants two rights to authors of visual works: the right of attribution,
> and the right of integrity.

~~~
elastic_church
ah, hm, I was not familiar with that. I skimmed the article but missed that
part

I'll keep VARA in mind, looks like he could use both the federal VARA law and
the state's

------
cam_l
Good 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.

------
thescribe
I'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.

------
hhjkjhkjhhlkj
The bull artist does seem to be quite immature.

~~~
rhapsodic
"Bull artist" indeed.

