"Fearless Girl"

As if we needed another controversy, one has erupted over the new statue in New York city which has offended the artist who gifted the "Charging Bull" statue after the 1987 stock market crash. The attorneys for Arturo di Modica have indicated he may sue.

Supporters of the new statue see it as a symbol of the struggle for gender equality on Wall St.

The controversy is a microcosm of the broader contemporary conflict in society. On the one hand, the legal issues, appear to be relatively clear but the court of public opinion is split. This is a classic example of an intransitive preference function. One cannot simultaneously make decisions based on clearly defined rules, then arbitrarily depart from them when the moods strikes, and also have an internally consistent decision-making process. If one does not have such a system, why pretend it exists?

***"quod ali cibus est aliis fuat acre venenum" (what is food for one man may be bitter poison to others).
In this case: one man's meat is a women's poison.

Controversy must be a source of enjoyment for many in that the court of public opinion is the only court that most people will ever be able to air their opinions in. But, similar to courts of law, there is no justice there.

Imagine the controversy that would erupt in the court of public opinion if President Trump's or former President Obama's visage were added to the face of Mt. Rushmore.:silly:

Well the placement is like someone painting a few extra bits onto another person's painting. It changes the composition.

I guess the issue here is what right does someone have to say how a public space surrounding an unsolicited gift to the city should be managed going forward. It is certainly true that the placement changes the nature of the original visual composition. Unless there was a contract specifying that would not happen it is hard to see any legal merit to a claim.

More generally, the problem is fairly universal. All works of art reflect the time in which they are created. As years go by their "relevance" to contemporary life changes and a desire for something new emerges. That creates an inevitable tension between those who like the tradition that has been established and those who want to see a symbol of a new social reality.

I guess the sculptor could always remove the bull if it bothers him (I'm sure the city would love that!) or turn it a bit so they aren't facing each other!

I think the long term establishment of the original sculpture should earn it some respect even if there is no legal basis.

Maybe add a bear to the mix.

Both amusing and factually accurate.

Over time the bull is always the winner (inflation and population growth alone stack the deck) even if the bear wins a few of the battles.

Yes---betting on the bull paid for my castle.:dry:

I'm rather surprised that you missed this. It was pretty big news.

Well, I'll be. Sometimes I lapse into a stupor where I become oblivious to controversy, and during such an episode I must have missed this big event. But seriously, speaking of Mt. Rushmore, until about 20 years ago, I, like all Americans, must have seen hundreds of various images of Mt. Rushmore during my life and thought, because of this constant exposure, it might not live up to the all the hype once I actually was there in person. Wrong, for it was stunning. Nothing should be added or subtracted from this wonder.:slight_smile:

First, congratulations on having notched up post number 5,000 on the forum.

Second, no discussion on this thread would be complete without the insight of that rarest of beasts in the blessing of unicorns--the artist/IP lawyer:

[b]As an artist, I love Fearless Girl. But as an intellectual property lawyer, I will say that Mr. Da Modica has a valid legal argument.
Fearless Girl is a work of art that incorporates Charging Bull without permission of the copyright owner. Unauthorized use of a copyrighted work — unless it falls within some narrow exceptions — is straight up copyright infringement.

In my opinion, Mr. Da Modica is absolutely correct that Fearless Girl completely changes his sculpture’s meaning. You can’t control how people view your copyrighted work necessarily, but you can certainly prohibit them from using it without authorization. The relevant factual question would be, does Fearless Girl use the bull sculpture.
Fearless Girl is great, but people are unfairly attacking Mr. Da Modica. He could have easily and justifiably simply filed what would be a very strong claim for infringement — but he hasn’t. He’s trying to work things out. THAT is a rare find, indeed.
[/b]
— Leonard H in Winchester, reacting to an article about Arturo Di Modica, who created the “Charging Bull” sculpture that stands near Wall Street and is demanding that the “Fearless Girl” statue be moved to another location.

In the obscure world of the artist/IP lawyer cabal, it would seem that relevant factual questions do not require a question mark. Whether that is an artistic twist or a carefully considered legal strategy to avoid some potential copyright infringement is unclear.

Oldbooks1 posted: —" Leonard H in Winchester, reacting to an article about Arturo Di Modica, who created the “Charging Bull” sculpture that stands near Wall Street and is demanding that the “Fearless Girl” statue be moved to another location."

Would atop the Bull be considered another location? She would still be "fearless".

Another "artistic" controversy over a "public display" has erupted. This time the subject is an original work by Gelila Mesfin, an Ethiopian art student in New York, of former First Lady Obama that she uploaded to her Instagram account in November 2016.

Then " more than five months later, an almost identical version of Mesfin’s work showed up as a mural on a building on Chicago’s South Side.

In this case, "artist and urban planner Chris Devins, appeared to have profited from the project, raising nearly $12,000 on a GoFundMe page. He also suggested to local media the depiction of Obama was his idea."

Devins explained this amounted to "collaboration after the fact."

The complexities of this case are currently being examined in the court of public opinion.