|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Apr 14, 2017 14:32:02 GMT
For those who haven't had the pleasure of the Forever Marilyn statue:  |
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Apr 14, 2017 14:46:55 GMT
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: Does Fearless Girl distort, mutilate or modify Charging Bull if Charging Bull can still be viewed independently? Given the crowds around the sculptures, it is hard to even get a photo of the two together. People are still able to take their photos rubbing the bull's nose, horns & testicles without Fearless Girl in the photos.  |
|
loco coco
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,662 
|
Post by loco coco on Apr 14, 2017 14:55:06 GMT
I dont know what to think. I like the bull and love the Fearless girl, I love everything she represents. However, I do see how it changes the bull. Instead of facing the bull, couldn't the 2 stand in strength next to one another?
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Apr 14, 2017 16:09:08 GMT
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: ? Given the crowds around the sculptures, it is hard to even get a photo of the two together. People are still able to take their photos rubbing the bull's nose, horns & testicles without Fearless Girl in the photos. Exactly my question! That's what makes it an interesting discussion. I can absolutely argue both sides. I don't know if a case like this goes to a judge or jury but I don't think the outcome is black and white for either side. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:44:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 16:39:17 GMT
I like the Fearless Girl, but yes it does change what the Charging Bull represents. Same thing would happen if you put sculptures of defeated parents standing in front of the Bull, facing the Girl, with toys and clothes strewn about.
|
|
AmandaA
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,502
|
Post by AmandaA on Apr 14, 2017 17:17:13 GMT
So I am getting confused on something here as the conversation has evolved. And at this point a google search isn't being helpful either as any searches I have tried related to Fearless Girl brings back page after page of stories related to the current dispute with Charging Bull. So if anyone has a good link they can post to help me (or all of us) clear up any misunderstanding about the actual appearance and installation of her statue- please share.
It has been mentioned in this thread about her appearing at night, like he did, and the legality of her installation on public property. If I am understanding correctly, yes she was also installed at night. But I have yet to find any proof that her installation was an act of art abandonment or some rogue act. Where charging bull literally was dropped in the street illegally as part of a planned act. So I am not following the connection there that has been made. It seems to me that the timing is an inconsequential coincidence at best.
And with regard to the city then choosing not to remove her immediately ... everything I have read seems to be saying that she had the permits to be put there from the get go, initially for a week, then extended to a month, and now a year. So I am not following the argument of the city choosing not to remove her after she appeared.
Just trying to make sure I have my facts straight on the actual manner in which each statue came to be in its present location and the legality of each. It seems to me that these two have vastly different circumstances, but now I am questioning my own understanding based on some of the posts here.
And as an aside, I have to agree with someone up thread who commented on the healthy debate here. I really appreciate the thoughtful comments and discussion happening around this topic. And thanks to whomever removed the political tag (it was not me) as I think this conversation may certainly be controversial to some, but has maintained a healthy non-political status IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by JBeans on Apr 14, 2017 20:06:35 GMT
As an art history major and an art teacher I'm kind of shocked by these comments. The bull was built to represent a particular idea. Putting the girl statue there absolutely changes the meaning of the first statue. I love the girl statue but putting it there changes the meaning of the art. I think the original sculptor is absolutely correct that the new sculptor devalues his original piece. The bull went from being the hero to being the villain. The juxtaposition of the girl with the bull absolutely destroys the meaning of the bull. I totally understand the statement the girl statue makes, and support it. At the same time, that statue ruins the meaning behind the original bull, and that is not right. From the artist's perspective, I totally understand what his problem is. I would hate for the meaning of my work to be destroyed by some other artist's addition. On the other hand, art is meant to be discussed, interpreted and can evolve in meaning. This piece now represents even more multitude of meaning and it is involved in an important discussion yet again. |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Apr 14, 2017 20:13:56 GMT
As an art history major and an art teacher I'm kind of shocked by these comments. The bull was built to represent a particular idea. Putting the girl statue there absolutely changes the meaning of the first statue. I love the girl statue but putting it there changes the meaning of the art. I think the original sculptor is absolutely correct that the new sculptor devalues his original piece. The bull went from being the hero to being the villain. The juxtaposition of the girl with the bull absolutely destroys the meaning of the bull. I totally understand the statement the girl statue makes, and support it. At the same time, that statue ruins the meaning behind the original bull, and that is not right. From the artist's perspective, I totally understand what his problem is. I would hate for the meaning of my work to be destroyed by some other artist's addition. On the other hand, art is meant to be discussed, interpreted and can evolve in meaning. This piece now represents even more multitude of meaning and it is involved in an important discussion yet again. I agree! Art is a reflection of society and culture and I think that it is wonderful that the Bull is relevant and reflective of the current times in another sense than it was at its creation. As an artist, I would be flattered that my piece was at the center of social discussions. |
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Apr 14, 2017 21:04:10 GMT
So I am getting confused on something here as the conversation has evolved. And at this point a google search isn't being helpful either as any searches I have tried related to Fearless Girl brings back page after page of stories related to the current dispute with Charging Bull. So if anyone has a good link they can post to help me (or all of us) clear up any misunderstanding about the actual appearance and installation of her statue- please share. It has been mentioned in this thread about her appearing at night, like he did, and the legality of her installation on public property. If I am understanding correctly, yes she was also installed at night. But I have yet to find any proof that her installation was an act of art abandonment or some rogue act. Where charging bull literally was dropped in the street illegally as part of a planned act. So I am not following the connection there that has been made. It seems to me that the timing is an inconsequential coincidence at best. And with regard to the city then choosing not to remove her immediately ... everything I have read seems to be saying that she had the permits to be put there from the get go, initially for a week, then extended to a month, and now a year. So I am not following the argument of the city choosing not to remove her after she appeared. Just trying to make sure I have my facts straight on the actual manner in which each statue came to be in its present location and the legality of each. It seems to me that these two have vastly different circumstances, but now I am questioning my own understanding based on some of the posts here. And as an aside, I have to agree with someone up thread who commented on the healthy debate here. I really appreciate the thoughtful comments and discussion happening around this topic. And thanks to whomever removed the political tag (it was not me) as I think this conversation may certainly be controversial to some, but has maintained a healthy non-political status IMO. Everything I have read confirms that Fearless Girl was installed with the proper permits. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Apr 15, 2017 10:16:14 GMT
|
|
iowgirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,539
|
Post by iowgirl on Apr 15, 2017 12:07:00 GMT
As a livestock owner, that girl might be brave - but that bull is going to knock the snot out of her. I want to get her on the other side of the gate.
It's funny how your perspective of things can change by how your lifestyle interacts with the statues.
|
|
moodyblue
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,381
Location: Western Illinois
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2014 21:07:23 GMT
|
Post by moodyblue on Apr 15, 2017 12:36:59 GMT
As a livestock owner, that girl might be brave - but that bull is going to knock the snot out of her. I want to get her on the other side of the gate. It's funny how your perspective of things can change by how your lifestyle interacts with the statues. This made me laugh - I was raised on a farm with livestock and I know exactly what you mean, |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:44:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2017 14:27:59 GMT
As a livestock owner, that girl might be brave - but that bull is going to knock the snot out of her. I want to get her on the other side of the gate. It's funny how your perspective of things can change by how your lifestyle interacts with the statues. This made me laugh - I was raised on a farm with livestock and I know exactly what you mean, I wasn't raised on a farm but in the midst of them, and when this statue first appeared, my thoughts were less "brave girl" and more "oh, shit!" Of course, I know what she's supposed to represent, but I still can't look at the two together and think anything besides "girl's about to get gored." Save |
|
|
|
Post by myshelly on Apr 15, 2017 15:18:40 GMT
I think another aspect of the issue is that the bull had already started to change meaning before the girl appeared.
Art interpretation changes over time because public perceptions and opinions change over time.
When the bull was installed it was meant to be a symbol of strength and hope. There was a crash, but Wall Street would recover and keep going strong.
When the bull was intalled in the 80s, Wall Street was the goal. It was a good thing.
But as scandals and scams came to light, Wall Street isn't viewed the same anymore. A lot of people no longer see it as the goal, but as the enemy. It's a symbol of big corporations, rich people, the 1%.
That's why the figure of a little girl standing up to Wall Street is so popular.
With or without the girl, the bull is no longer a symbol of the same things it was a symbol of in the 80s. Because the world isn't the same as it was in the 80s.
|
|
