perumbula
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,439 
Location: Idaho
|
Post by perumbula on Apr 13, 2017 20:56:15 GMT
I do get the idea that the Fearless Girl changes the meaning of the Bull. I understand why that could bother the original artist. However, the point of art is how people interact with it and our interpretations and view of art shifts over time. The artist can not put his Bull in a bubble where everyone can only interpret the way he wants. It's as laughable as when an author gets mad because people start reading new meaning into their work the author didn't originally intend. When you put art into the world, no matter it's form, you open it up for the world to interact with it however they will. When a director takes a Shakespearean play and re-cuts it and stages it in a new century, that changes the work. When someone writes a fan fiction book based on Jane Austen it can change how people see her original characters. And when someone puts a statue in a public place that's near yours (in the public place the city was kind enough to allow it after you dumped it on them,) yes, it can change how your work is interpreted. It's the nature of art. Get over it. You're completely ignoring the extensive copyright laws protecting artists. Sure most copyrights expire in 100 years and they're part of the public domain for people to do with them what the like. But before that time - you are not free to take an artists work and do what you like with it. No one touched that bull. A statue was placed near it. The artist does not own all land in whatever radius he thinks he does because he has a piece of art sitting there. The placing of Fearless Girl has not violated his copyright in anyway. I'm sorry my examples threw you, because they would involve copyright if the pieces weren't in the public domain. There is no violation here. The work itself has not be altered. |
|
AmandaA
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,502
|
Post by AmandaA on Apr 13, 2017 21:07:05 GMT
I also find humor in the irony of how both have come me to be there at the present time. As I understand it, the bull ended up being released from impound and granted its temporary permanent home as a result of the public support for it. The same swell of public support got Fearless Girl's stay extended. Funny how that works.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Apr 13, 2017 21:58:28 GMT
You're completely ignoring the extensive copyright laws protecting artists. Sure most copyrights expire in 100 years and they're part of the public domain for people to do with them what the like. But before that time - you are not free to take an artists work and do what you like with it. No one touched that bull. A statue was placed near it. The artist does not own all land in whatever radius he thinks he does because he has a piece of art sitting there. The placing of Fearless Girl has not violated his copyright in anyway. I'm sorry my examples threw you, because they would involve copyright if the pieces weren't in the public domain. There is no violation here. The work itself has not be altered. I agree that no one touched the bull, but disagree that therefore he doesn't have a copyright case. Your examples "threw me" as if they weren't in the public domain it WOULD violate the artist's copyright. You cannot go off and write a book using JK Rowling's characters without infringing on her copyright - which is why you see a plethora of people "borrowing" author's characters once they enter the public domain (or you host your server in a country that doesn't recognize copyright - which is how the Internet "fan" books circumvent the law). Nor can you put on someone else's play changing it or not without their consent. I think the statue is a hugely grey area. It's not about whether he "owns" the land - it's whether his art was deliberately modified without his consent. I'm no lawyer, but assume it would follow under the integrity of work provisions: Now the question for the courts is does the placing of the fearless girl - which is clearly there BECAUSE of the bull - it's not just any random statue that was placed there - modify the original art sufficiently and more importantly in such a way for the artist to be damaged. |
|
perumbula
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,439
Location: Idaho
|
Post by perumbula on Apr 14, 2017 0:00:58 GMT
You have missed my point entirely. My argument was not about copyright. that was yours. My argument was about the nature of art. Once art is presented to the audience, the artist no longer has any control over the interpretation thereof. The artist can ask the audience to view things their way, but can not force their opinion on anyone viewing the work. It's the nature of art that the interpretation is up to the audience, not the artist. My argument was the artist has no basis for a lawsuit in this case because it's based entirely on an alternation in the meaning, not the actual work. Something else was placed near it. The new piece was put there to enter into a new dialog with the bull, but it does not fundamentally change the work that existed before.
No artist can control interpretation. Oh, they often try, but to try and force the issue with a lawsuit is petty and gauche.
|
|
|
|
Post by pondrunner on Apr 14, 2017 0:09:18 GMT
No one touched that bull. A statue was placed near it. The artist does not own all land in whatever radius he thinks he does because he has a piece of art sitting there. The placing of Fearless Girl has not violated his copyright in anyway. I'm sorry my examples threw you, because they would involve copyright if the pieces weren't in the public domain. There is no violation here. The work itself has not be altered. I agree that no one touched the bull, but disagree that therefore he doesn't have a copyright case. Your examples "threw me" as if they weren't in the public domain it WOULD violate the artist's copyright. You cannot go off and write a book using JK Rowling's characters without infringing on her copyright - which is why you see a plethora of people "borrowing" author's characters once they enter the public domain (or you host your server in a country that doesn't recognize copyright - which is how the Internet "fan" books circumvent the law). Nor can you put on someone else's play changing it or not without their consent. I think the statue is a hugely grey area. It's not about whether he "owns" the land - it's whether his art was deliberately modified without his consent. I'm no lawyer, but assume it would follow under the integrity of work provisions: Now the question for the courts is does the placing of the fearless girl - which is clearly there BECAUSE of the bull - it's not just any random statue that was placed there - modify the original art sufficiently and more importantly in such a way for the artist to be damaged. I would be willing argue that Fearless Girl could be considered commentary on the original work, which is not a copyright infringement but is considered fair use. the difference between fanfic and commentary is significant under fair use. |
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Apr 14, 2017 0:21:11 GMT
Well, I was just down there today, and you couldn't get near either statue because of the huge crowds. I don't know if it is always like that, but it seemed to me the placement of the statue is getting the bull a lot of attention.
|
|
JustTricia
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,894
Location: Indianapolis
|
Post by JustTricia on Apr 14, 2017 1:05:04 GMT
No one touched that bull. A statue was placed near it. The artist does not own all land in whatever radius he thinks he does because he has a piece of art sitting there. The placing of Fearless Girl has not violated his copyright in anyway. I'm sorry my examples threw you, because they would involve copyright if the pieces weren't in the public domain. There is no violation here. The work itself has not be altered. I agree that no one touched the bull, but disagree that therefore he doesn't have a copyright case. Your examples "threw me" as if they weren't in the public domain it WOULD violate the artist's copyright. You cannot go off and write a book using JK Rowling's characters without infringing on her copyright - which is why you see a plethora of people "borrowing" author's characters once they enter the public domain (or you host your server in a country that doesn't recognize copyright - which is how the Internet "fan" books circumvent the law). Nor can you put on someone else's play changing it or not without their consent. I think the statue is a hugely grey area. It's not about whether he "owns" the land - it's whether his art was deliberately modified without his consent. I'm no lawyer, but assume it would follow under the integrity of work provisions: Now the question for the courts is does the placing of the fearless girl - which is clearly there BECAUSE of the bull - it's not just any random statue that was placed there - modify the original art sufficiently and more importantly in such a way for the artist to be damaged. Wasn't his original intention of the art already altered due to the fact that the city moved it? The spot he placed it was probably picked for a very specific reason, but it's been moved to a different spot. Doesn't that change it's intention? |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Apr 14, 2017 1:07:56 GMT
If the artist wants to control all the art placed around it, he should place his sculpture on land that he owns.
|
|
|
|
Post by MsChiff on Apr 14, 2017 2:52:20 GMT
Well, I was just down there today, and you couldn't get near either statue because of the huge crowds. I don't know if it is always like that, but it seemed to me the placement of the statue is getting the bull a lot of attention. The bull has ALWAYS garnered huge crowds and lot of attention, so the new statue is not what's causing the attention. SaveSave |
|
|
|
Post by MsChiff on Apr 14, 2017 3:06:36 GMT
You have missed my point entirely. My argument was not about copyright. that was yours. My argument was about the nature of art. Once art is presented to the audience, the artist no longer has any control over the interpretation thereof. The artist can ask the audience to view things their way, but can not force their opinion on anyone viewing the work. It's the nature of art that the interpretation is up to the audience, not the artist. My argument was the artist has no basis for a lawsuit in this case because it's based entirely on an alternation in the meaning, not the actual work. Something else was placed near it. The new piece was put there to enter into a new dialog with the bull, but it does not fundamentally change the work that existed before. No artist can control interpretation. Oh, they often try, but to try and force the issue with a lawsuit is petty and gauche. I disagree. The addition of "Fearless Girl" changes the interpretation because it changes the art. She is not located down the block or across the street, she is directly in front of the bull as if she is part of the intended art. This changes the original art, not merely the interpretation. In fact, if the bull were removed, "Fearless Girl" would be reduced to "Petulant Girl" as the statue cannot stand on it's own; the bull has done so for years. For those citing the fact that the bull showed up in the middle of the night and, therefore, it's acceptable for another artist to alter it/it's meaning -- "Fearless Girl" did the same. Does this make it OK for someone to alter her? Do all of you who approve of this change in the original artwork support changing all art or only support changes with which you agree? |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Apr 14, 2017 3:13:38 GMT
You have missed my point entirely. My argument was not about copyright. that was yours. My argument was about the nature of art. Once art is presented to the audience, the artist no longer has any control over the interpretation thereof. The artist can ask the audience to view things their way, but can not force their opinion on anyone viewing the work. It's the nature of art that the interpretation is up to the audience, not the artist. My argument was the artist has no basis for a lawsuit in this case because it's based entirely on an alternation in the meaning, not the actual work. Something else was placed near it. The new piece was put there to enter into a new dialog with the bull, but it does not fundamentally change the work that existed before. No artist can control interpretation. Oh, they often try, but to try and force the issue with a lawsuit is petty and gauche. I disagree. The addition of "Fearless Girl" changes the interpretation because it changes the art. She is not located down the block or across the street, she is directly in front of the bull as if she is part of the intended art. This changes the original art, not merely the interpretation. In fact, if the bull were removed, "Fearless Girl" would be reduced to "Petulant Girl" as the statue cannot stand on it's own; the bull has done so for years. For those citing the fact that the bull showed up in the middle of the night and, therefore, it's acceptable for another artist to alter it/it's meaning -- "Fearless Girl" did the same. Does this make it OK for someone to alter her? Do all of you who approve of this change in the original artwork support changing all art or only support changes with which you agree? If someone added a third statue to the group, without physically doing anything to the Fearless Girl, and the city decides to grant a permit, sure, that is equally OK. No one altered the Bull. No one changed the Bull. A statue was placed in the vicinity. If someone placed another statue in the group it would be a-okay with me. |
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Apr 14, 2017 4:27:22 GMT
I had no idea that Fearless Girl was in front of the bull... I thought when the stories about it first came out, they were JUST about that statue. Did they move her next to the bull statue, or something? I guess I'm missing the whole point of why it's an issue. I thought she was 'fearless' all on her own, without the bull playing any part in it.
(meaning, I don't think the placement matters-- the meaning of any sculpture is open to the interpretation of the viewer, and depends on the individual outlook / experiences that they bring to the viewing.)
|
|
|
|
Post by myshelly on Apr 14, 2017 4:31:24 GMT
I had no idea that Fearless Girl was in front of the bull... I thought when the stories about it first came out, they were JUST about that statue. Did they move her next to the bull statue, or something? I guess I'm missing the whole point of why it's an issue. I thought she was 'fearless' all on her own, without the bull playing any part in it. (meaning, I don't think the placement matters-- the meaning of any sculpture is open to the interpretation of the viewer, and depends on the individual outlook / experiences that they bring to the viewing.) She stands facing the bull a short distance away, so it looks like the bull is charging her. She is standing there, fearless because she refuses to move for the bull. |
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Apr 14, 2017 4:32:37 GMT
but was she always there? I don't remember hearing about that when the articles about her first came out.
|
|
|
|
Post by myshelly on Apr 14, 2017 4:33:57 GMT
but was she always there? I don't remember hearing about that when the articles about her first came out. Yes |
|
msliz
Drama Llama
The Procrastinator
Posts: 6,419
Jun 26, 2014 21:32:34 GMT
|
Post by msliz on Apr 14, 2017 5:06:05 GMT
I've changed my mind a few times while reading through this thread. As I see it now, there's really no difference between the city allowing Fearless Girl to stand there for a year or a gallery installing two paintings next to each other for the purpose of one commenting on the other. Yes it can change the meaning of the art, but for a reason. It's not a permanent installment, and if he doesn't like it he can move his bull.
|
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Apr 14, 2017 5:12:24 GMT
The bull DOES NOT currently reside where it is without permission. People keep repeating that but it's not true. Where it was originally dropped off was illegal, and it was removed that same day. Where it is now, at Bowling Green, is its legal, permanent home. The Charging Bull is under a temporary permit because the city does not own it. Granted, it's been there under a temporary permit since 1989, but unless Di Modica donates it to NYC, it's status will continue to be temporary art on loan. When Di Modica tried to sell it in 2004 he had the stipulation that the buyer couldn't remove it from it's current location which is interesting given that he couldn't bind the city to keep it. |
|
|
|
Post by ScrapsontheRocks on Apr 14, 2017 5:41:01 GMT
The bull DOES NOT currently reside where it is without permission. People keep repeating that but it's not true. Where it was originally dropped off was illegal, and it was removed that same day. Where it is now, at Bowling Green, is its legal, permanent home. The Charging Bull is under a temporary permit because the city does not own it. Granted, it's been there under a temporary permit since 1989, but unless Di Modica donates it to NYC, it's status will continue to be temporary art on loan. When Di Modica tried to sell it in 2004 he had the stipulation that the buyer couldn't remove it from it's current location which is interesting given that he couldn't bind the city to keep it. I am not knowledgeable about art and defer to those who are- I have enjoyed the debate on the thread and agree that the sculptor of the bull seems to be on a sticky wicket. This info about the (presumably unsuccessful?) attempted sale with conditions in 2004 has prompted me to ask: does this kerfuffle have anything to do with "there is no such thing as bad publicity"? Unless you are United Air, of course. Is the sculptor still at the top of his career or is he after another 15 minutes? Incidentally, years ago there was an art installation outside the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, the bull and the bear locked in combat. I always took a short deviation to see it if I was nearby. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:44:30 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 6:28:29 GMT
On the one hand I can understand the bull artist's frustration. Usually when you collaborate your art with another artist, you have the cooperation and agreement from both artists. And to me, this is definitely a collaboration, since she doesn't really say fearless without the bull.
On the other hand it's ashame the bull artist can't see that they both are creating the same feeling with their art and their art really works well together.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:44:30 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 11:35:02 GMT
The bull DOES NOT currently reside where it is without permission. People keep repeating that but it's not true. Where it was originally dropped off was illegal, and it was removed that same day. Where it is now, at Bowling Green, is its legal, permanent home. The Charging Bull is under a temporary permit because the city does not own it. Granted, it's been there under a temporary permit since 1989, but unless Di Modica donates it to NYC, it's status will continue to be temporary art on loan. When Di Modica tried to sell it in 2004 he had the stipulation that the buyer couldn't remove it from it's current location which is interesting given that he couldn't bind the city to keep it. I know it's legally temporary, but really, does anyone believe it's going anywhere at this point? I don't, but stranger things have happened. As for the other Pea question of was the girl always there, yes and no. She's only been there and nowhere else, but she's only been there since March 2017 and is permitted to be there until March of 2018. I have a feeling this will be her temporary-permanent home as well. Save |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Apr 14, 2017 13:24:35 GMT
I disagree. The addition of "Fearless Girl" changes the interpretation because it changes the art. She is not located down the block or across the street, she is directly in front of the bull as if she is part of the intended art. This changes the original art, not merely the interpretation. In fact, if the bull were removed, "Fearless Girl" would be reduced to "Petulant Girl" as the statue cannot stand on it's own; the bull has done so for years. For those citing the fact that the bull showed up in the middle of the night and, therefore, it's acceptable for another artist to alter it/it's meaning -- "Fearless Girl" did the same. Does this make it OK for someone to alter her? Do all of you who approve of this change in the original artwork support changing all art or only support changes with which you agree? If someone added a third statue to the group, without physically doing anything to the Fearless Girl, and the city decides to grant a permit, sure, that is equally OK. No one altered the Bull. No one changed the Bull. A statue was placed in the vicinity. If someone placed another statue in the group it would be a-okay with me. Let's play that out. So say a new sculptor would like to give awareness to pedophilia. He places a sculptor of a man looking up Fearless Girl's skirt. The statue doesn't touch Fearless Girl - but clearly the art has taken on a completely different meaning. Still okay? What if someone added a new piece of art next to a famous historic figure (pick any you like) the new art is someone aiming a gun at their head? Copyright laws are specifically made to protect artists for when their art is public - if all artists had to keep their works at home to keep others from using them without the permission of the artist, they'd be pretty meaningless. |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Apr 14, 2017 13:31:27 GMT
If someone added a third statue to the group, without physically doing anything to the Fearless Girl, and the city decides to grant a permit, sure, that is equally OK. No one altered the Bull. No one changed the Bull. A statue was placed in the vicinity. If someone placed another statue in the group it would be a-okay with me. Let's play that out. So say a new sculptor would like to give awareness to pedophilia. He places a sculptor of a man looking up Fearless Girl's skirt. The statue doesn't touch Fearless Girl - but clearly the art has taken on a completely different meaning. Still okay? What if someone added a new piece of art next to a famous historic figure (pick any you like) the new art is someone aiming a gun at their head? Copyright laws are specifically made to protect artists for when their art is public - if all artists had to keep their works at home to keep others from using them without the permission of the artist, they'd be pretty meaningless. I wouldn't like both of those examples, not because of what it does to the girl, but because I don't agree with glorifying pedophilia or gun violence using public art. And I would probably lend my voice, not because it changes the meaning of the other sculpture, but because I don't agree with the message of the new sculpture. And that is one reason I would guess many people who have an issue with the Fearless Girl have. I think there are a number of people who still harbor sexist views about women in the corporate world and other workplaces, and have an issue with the meaning of the new statue, not that it changes the Bull. |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Apr 14, 2017 13:38:57 GMT
Let's play that out. So say a new sculptor would like to give awareness to pedophilia. He places a sculptor of a man looking up Fearless Girl's skirt. The statue doesn't touch Fearless Girl - but clearly the art has taken on a completely different meaning. Still okay? What if someone added a new piece of art next to a famous historic figure (pick any you like) the new art is someone aiming a gun at their head? Copyright laws are specifically made to protect artists for when their art is public - if all artists had to keep their works at home to keep others from using them without the permission of the artist, they'd be pretty meaningless. I wouldn't like both of those examples, not because of what it does to the girl, but because I don't agree with glorifying pedophilia or gun violence using public art. And I would probably lend my voice, not because it changes the meaning of the other sculpture, but because I don't agree with the message of the new sculpture. And that is one reason I would guess many people who have an issue with the Fearless Girl have. I think there are a number of people who still harbor sexist views about women in the corporate world and other workplaces, and have an issue with the meaning of the new statue, not that it changes the Bull. I actually haven't seen anyone other than the artist express any issue with Fearless Girl, and I have no clue if the artist is sexist. But really, it shouldn't matter. The law shouldn't be based on our feelings on the issue or art in question. I stated at the onset that I wished the artist could appreciate how Fearless Girl enhances rather than detracts from his piece. But my feelings on how the artist should view his art - shouldn't force the artist to accept my views against his legal rights. If so - there's a ton of art I'd really like to modify, as I find it extremely objectionable. |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Apr 14, 2017 13:44:25 GMT
I wouldn't like both of those examples, not because of what it does to the girl, but because I don't agree with glorifying pedophilia or gun violence using public art. And I would probably lend my voice, not because it changes the meaning of the other sculpture, but because I don't agree with the message of the new sculpture. And that is one reason I would guess many people who have an issue with the Fearless Girl have. I think there are a number of people who still harbor sexist views about women in the corporate world and other workplaces, and have an issue with the meaning of the new statue, not that it changes the Bull. I actually haven't seen anyone other than the artist express any issue with Fearless Girl, and I have no clue if the artist is sexist. But really, it shouldn't matter. The law shouldn't be based on our feelings on the issue or art in question. I stated at the onset that I wished the artist could appreciate how Fearless Girl enhances rather than detracts from his piece. But my feelings on how the artist should view his art - shouldn't force the artist to accept my views against his legal rights. If so - there's a ton of art I'd really like to modify, as I find it extremely objectionable. I do think that there is a difference between public art that glorifies illegal activity - your examples of gun violence and pedophilia, for example - and art that simply challenges social norms. People can sculpt tributes to pedophiles and gun-toting individuals to their hearts' content and house them indoors where people have to choose to go to see them. I have no issue with that whatsoever. I also don't know if the artist truly has had his legal rights violated. I will be interested in hearing what a judge has to say. |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Apr 14, 2017 13:53:54 GMT
I actually haven't seen anyone other than the artist express any issue with Fearless Girl, and I have no clue if the artist is sexist. But really, it shouldn't matter. The law shouldn't be based on our feelings on the issue or art in question. I stated at the onset that I wished the artist could appreciate how Fearless Girl enhances rather than detracts from his piece. But my feelings on how the artist should view his art - shouldn't force the artist to accept my views against his legal rights. If so - there's a ton of art I'd really like to modify, as I find it extremely objectionable. I do think that there is a difference between public art that glorifies illegal activity - your examples of gun violence and pedophilia, for example - and that simply challenges social norms. I also don't know if the artist truly has had his legal rights violated. I will be interested in hearing what a judge has to say. We could also debate whether it glorifies the activities - or brings awareness to it - I can think of a few pieces I have found extremely distasteful - but the artist claimed they were raising awareness. I'm interested in how this plays out legally as well. As I said at the onset, I think it's really open to how one rules on the art being modified. I don't think there's any question if the actual art piece itself has been physically modified, his case would be excellent. If he was claiming a trivial modification (someone used an example of building something that changes the light shining on it) it would be a hard case to argue. But this one is grey - in my mind at least - but I do feel the decision should be based on actual law and not our personal feelings on the new piece and whether we support the message. |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Apr 14, 2017 14:03:28 GMT
I do think that there is a difference between public art that glorifies illegal activity - your examples of gun violence and pedophilia, for example - and that simply challenges social norms. I also don't know if the artist truly has had his legal rights violated. I will be interested in hearing what a judge has to say. We could also debate whether it glorifies the activities - or brings awareness to it - I can think of a few pieces I have found extremely distasteful - but the artist claimed they were raising awareness. I'm interested in how this plays out legally as well. As I said at the onset, I think it's really open to how one rules on the art being modified. I don't think there's any question if the actual art piece itself has been physically modified, his case would be excellent. If he was claiming a trivial modification (someone used an example of building something that changes the light shining on it) it would be a hard case to argue. But this one is grey - in my mind at least - but I do feel the decision should be based on actual law and not our personal feelings on the new piece and whether we support the message.Of course the legal decision should be based on the law. I agree. I do love the Fearless Girl statue and hope she is able to stay but will support whatever the legal decision is, even if I don't like it. I haven't come across public art that I find so distasteful that I'd advocate for removing or altering it. Well, except for scary Lucille Ball, maybe. LOL! (just kidding) |
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Apr 14, 2017 14:19:05 GMT
If someone added a third statue to the group, without physically doing anything to the Fearless Girl, and the city decides to grant a permit, sure, that is equally OK. No one altered the Bull. No one changed the Bull. A statue was placed in the vicinity. If someone placed another statue in the group it would be a-okay with me. Let's play that out. So say a new sculptor would like to give awareness to pedophilia. He places a sculptor of a man looking up Fearless Girl's skirt. The statue doesn't touch Fearless Girl - but clearly the art has taken on a completely different meaning. Still okay? What if someone added a new piece of art next to a famous historic figure (pick any you like) the new art is someone aiming a gun at their head? Copyright laws are specifically made to protect artists for when their art is public - if all artists had to keep their works at home to keep others from using them without the permission of the artist, they'd be pretty meaningless. Di Modica has used the copyright law to successfully stop others from replicating the Charging Bull image and selling them and sued Random House for using an image of the bull on a book cover. I think it is a stretch to preserve a perimeter around the sculpture and include it in the copyright. Photos can still be taken of Charging Bull without including Fearless Girl. I don't see how one can argue copyright infringement here. I'm not sure how your first example could be placed without infringing on the Fearless Girl's image and I'm pretty sure public outcry would lead to both these new sculptures being removed in your examples before we even got to the question of whether there is a copyright infringement. IMHO, Fearless Girl and the Charging Bull are unique in that they can both be appreciated independently and as a pair. I'm curious to see how this plays out. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:44:30 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 14:20:31 GMT
If someone added a third statue to the group, without physically doing anything to the Fearless Girl, and the city decides to grant a permit, sure, that is equally OK. No one altered the Bull. No one changed the Bull. A statue was placed in the vicinity. If someone placed another statue in the group it would be a-okay with me. Let's play that out. So say a new sculptor would like to give awareness to pedophilia. He places a sculptor of a man looking up Fearless Girl's skirt. The statue doesn't touch Fearless Girl - but clearly the art has taken on a completely different meaning. Still okay? What if someone added a new piece of art next to a famous historic figure (pick any you like) the new art is someone aiming a gun at their head? Copyright laws are specifically made to protect artists for when their art is public - if all artists had to keep their works at home to keep others from using them without the permission of the artist, they'd be pretty meaningless. What if someone put naked statues of donald trump in public places in several cities? Oh wait that happened and the statues were removed that day by the cities. When "Fearless Girl" first appeared, New York had the option of removing her like they did do with the naked trump statue or letting her stay. Which they chose to do for what a year?. So I doubt very much the pedophilla or gun toting pieces of art would hang more than a day. Both statues are squatters meaning the city didn't commission these statues with the intention of putting in that particular space. As such neither artist has much of a say in what New York chooses to allow around them. |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Apr 14, 2017 14:20:58 GMT
We could also debate whether it glorifies the activities - or brings awareness to it - I can think of a few pieces I have found extremely distasteful - but the artist claimed they were raising awareness. I'm interested in how this plays out legally as well. As I said at the onset, I think it's really open to how one rules on the art being modified. I don't think there's any question if the actual art piece itself has been physically modified, his case would be excellent. If he was claiming a trivial modification (someone used an example of building something that changes the light shining on it) it would be a hard case to argue. But this one is grey - in my mind at least - but I do feel the decision should be based on actual law and not our personal feelings on the new piece and whether we support the message.Of course the legal decision should be based on the law. I agree. I do love the Fearless Girl statue and hope she is able to stay but will support whatever the legal decision is, even if I don't like it. I haven't come across public art that I find so distasteful that I'd advocate for removing or altering it. Well, except for scary Lucille Ball, maybe. LOL! (just kidding) I'd put some pants on poor Marilyn Monroe in Chicago. I mean can you imagine being forever immortalized with a giant statue of your skirt blown up so tourists can take pictures of themselves looking at your knickers? |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Apr 14, 2017 14:23:12 GMT
Let's play that out. So say a new sculptor would like to give awareness to pedophilia. He places a sculptor of a man looking up Fearless Girl's skirt. The statue doesn't touch Fearless Girl - but clearly the art has taken on a completely different meaning. Still okay? What if someone added a new piece of art next to a famous historic figure (pick any you like) the new art is someone aiming a gun at their head? Copyright laws are specifically made to protect artists for when their art is public - if all artists had to keep their works at home to keep others from using them without the permission of the artist, they'd be pretty meaningless. Di Modica has used the copyright law to successfully stop others from replicating the Charging Bull image and selling them and sued Random House for using an image of the bull on a book cover. I think it is a stretch to preserve a perimeter around the sculpture and include it in the copyright. Photos can still be taken of Charging Bull without including Fearless Girl. I don't see how one can argue copyright infringement here. I'm not sure how your first example could be placed without infringing on the Fearless Girl's image and I'm pretty sure public outcry would lead to both these new sculptures being removed in your examples before we even got to the question of whether there is a copyright infringement. IMHO, Fearless Girl and the Charging Bull are unique in that they can both be appreciated independently and as a pair. I'm curious to see how this plays out. Copyright isn't simply the right not to have your art replicated. I quoted the passage regarding the right to integrity of your piece against modification above. ETA so you don't have to go back and find it: |
|
