'Charging Bull' Sculptor Arturo Di Modica Accuses NYC of Violating His Rights

[brooklynite]

WNBC:

The sculptor of Wall Street's "Charging Bull" statue is 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.

Attorney Norman Siegel told The Associated Press that Arturo Di Modica will explain at a news conference Wednesday exactly how he's challenging city officials who issued a permit for the bronze girl to stay until February. Siegel said he's demanding that the city release documents showing what procedures were followed.

Artist Kristen Visbal's figure was first placed on a traffic island near Wall Street on March 7, on the eve of International Women's Day, to make a point: There's a dearth of women on the boards of the largest U.S. corporations.

The 4-foot girl staring down the 11-foot bull with hands planted on her hips quickly became a tourist magnet, drawing global attention on social media while awakening the imaginations of live visitors who posed for pictures. In response to petitions with tens of thousands of signatures for the statue to stay longer, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that the city permit was extended for nearly one year.

Considering that Di Modica dropped CHARGING BULL into the plaza under dark of night with no permit at all, I don't see what legal rights he has here.

[luvMIdog]

1. that might look courageous an all but ..

having been stuck in a pasture with an angry bull myself I'd say running away is smarter

[brooklynite]

3. You DO realize that both are symbolic pieces?

[luvMIdog]

4. I was joking of course I should have used the ":P"

but my bull story isn't bullshit

[JTFrog]

15. Don't quit your day job.

[luvMIdog]

17. yeah I try to find reasons to laugh though there's always someone who wants to take that away

if they can. So many really bad things are going on. Sometimes I look for the tiniest thing to try and lift my spirits. I might make corny jokes or anything to laugh if I can. Others might just want to lash out at anyone for any stupid reason.

[JTFrog]

25. Sorry to dampen your spirits while you trivialize an issue seriously important to women.

I don't see how being offensive and insensitive about gender inequality lifts one's spirit, but apparently I'm just lashing out for "any stupid reason".

[luvMIdog]

26. being a woman myself I'm quite sure those were not my intentions

though I am done with the back and forth with you because it's pointless

[JTFrog]

27. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Kentonio]

28. Oh lighten up for goodness sake

Or is humor and kindness an obsolete concept in the modern age?

[JTFrog]

30. Get serious about gender inequality for goodness sakes!

That shit works both ways.

[leftynyc]

31. Don't sweat it

Some posters just look for reasons to be outraged and aren't happy until they find one. Please just ignore it.

[JTFrog]

33. I'm not an it. And I guess gender inequality is just a punchline to some. nt

[leftynyc]

34. I'm a woman also

And the original post that got knickers in a knot was totally innocuous and in no way anything that was making light of a serious subject. There is no reason to be a humorless scold in order to be taken seriously.

[JTFrog]

35. I'm still not an it. nt

[leftynyc]

36. That you choose

to make my post all about YOU and not about the situation I was speaking of tells me all I need to know.

[JTFrog]

39. Well you were talking about "some posters" in regards to my post. I thought I was the poster.

Maybe I'm wrong. I certainly don't claim to know everything I need to know. And something tells me nobody knows all they need to know.

I'm still finding zero humor in the "joke". Just offensiveness and insensitivity.

Seems that women are expected to just take the joke and move on. Sorry, that's never been the way I handle things.

[leftynyc]

44. I'm not here to tell

you what you should and shouldn't find offensive. I'm telling the other poster they're under no obligation to give a crap. There's a very valid reason that comedians no longer wish to perform on college campuses.

[Vinnie From Indy]

38. +1,000,000

Cheers!

[LanternWaste]

51. While yet other posters minimize and trivialize the valid concerns of others

While yet other posters minimize and trivialize the valid concerns of others, pretending it to be a rational approach.

[leftynyc]

53. Yawn

I save my outrage for the real thing, not for bullshit like an obvious trying to lighten things up. Feel free to be perpetually outraged. I think life is too short.

[Demonaut]

54. now you've been put in your place and know some subjects can never be placed in a humorous light

boy.....are we getting too much like the rw?

I thought your post was funny

[LanternWaste]

50. During a discussion of racism, I'd call pretty much anyone an idiot if they made jokes.

During a discussion of racism, or sexism, or the holocaust, I'd call pretty much anyone an idiot if they made jokes. But no doubt, you'll rationalize humor to lift your spirits, regardless of the spirits of others. Being self-centered can certainly narrow one's empathy.

It's kind of half-witted to pretend a time and a place for all things doesn't apply to oneself. But then, maybe you're simply damned special-- and laughing at a cancer victim is your own "coping mechanism."

[Demonaut]

55. wow!...carrying it to extremes...lol

[ret5hd]

2. "My big manly bronze balls shall not be overshadowed by a little girl!!!"

[blogslut]

5. Golly.

I sure hope some evil yarn bombers don't do something crazy like outfit that manly, manly bull with a big pink pussy hat. That would be just terrible.

[Squinch]

7. I better get knitting...

[WePurrsevere]

8. That would be perfect! nt

[HAB911]

12. Also make a Tutu

[crazycatlady]

23. I'll see what I can do on Saturday :-)

I also need a pic of Fearless Girl in one of my pussyhats.

[democratisphere]

6. Artist seems threatened by strong female.

What else is new.

[WePurrsevere]

9. Does the city or artist own 'Charging Bull? nt

[jberryhill]

20. Regardless of who owns the physical sculpture, the copyright and right of integrity...

...are a separate question.

[WePurrsevere]

52. Yes, I realize there might be more...

to the legal rights of an artist but thank you for the term 'right of integrity'. I couldn't remember the right term that essentially means an artists work can't be messed with even if you bought it... unless there's a contract that says differently if I remember correctly.

According to: http://www.quizlaw.com/copyrights/what_is_the_right_of_integrity.php
"The right of integrity is the right of an author to prevent others from doing things to his work which can hurt his reputation."

Anyway, I found my answer.. apparently the artist still owns full rights to the bull. It was first supposedly a "gift" but now is a 'loan' that currently remains displayed where it is with the cities permission (apparently the permit expired a few years ago but it's still allowed to stay.)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charging_Bull#Ownership

While a bull on Wall Street may be appropriate perhaps the city can find an artist who would make something else, perhaps a roaring bear (since some financial experts say we're heading that way soon), but is willing to work with the inspirational little girl sculpture and her artist. The artist could then remove his bull and find it a new home.

Personally I think the girl enhances the bull along with drawing more positive attention to it and therefore the artist but I know some artists can be very persnickety about their 'children'.

[PJMcK]

10. Well, this is interesting

It seems that the artist originally installed the Charging Bull sculpture illegally:

Arturo Di Modica (born January 26, 1941) is an Italian-American artist, born in Vittoria, Sicily. He is best known for his sculpture Charging Bull (also known as the Wall Street Bull, in reference to Wall Street), which he installed without permission in front of the New York Stock Exchange in December 1987. The work cost US$350,000 of the artist's own money. The three-ton bronze piece is in its current location on loan to the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. In 2017, Di Modica opposed the installation of the Fearless Girl sculpture across from his bull.

More from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arturo_Di_Modica

His opposition to Kristen Visbal's "Fearless Girl" is stupid on several levels. First, he should shut up because the Little Girl has brought his work more attention. Second, he's a hypocrite since he broke the law whereas Ms. Visbal did not. Third, he probably lacks legal standing since the concession to display the statues on public grounds is granted by the City of New York; he doesn't own the location.

Of course, maybe he's not an idiot. Maybe he's just churning the publicity mill that seems to permeate our culture.

[ProfessorGAC]

11. This Is Idiotic

His civil rights are violated? By another statue? This is incredibly dumb and he's a punk.

[jberryhill]

21. By another statue?

17 USC 106A

[ProfessorGAC]

41. His Civil Rights?

Or the civil rights of his statue? Sorry dude, but this trivializes violations of civil rights.

[jberryhill]

42. Where are you getting the phrase "civil rights" from?

No one has used that phrase but you.

In copyright law, the right of the artist against modification of the work is generally referred to as "moral rights" or "rights of integrity and attribution".

But neither the OP nor the article mentions "civil rights".

If there is some mention of "civil rights" anywhere in this story, and I missed it, could you point out where it is?

[ProfessorGAC]

45. I Stand Corrected

I misread it. That said, i question the wisdom of this dispute, as this is now clearly a public display and so is the other statue. So, it's IP against IP. The other artist's IP rights would seem to apply as well, since the placement of the statue is clearly meant to reinforce the message.

[jberryhill]

46. "the placement of the statue is clearly meant to reinforce the message"

Well that, in essence, is the point.

The question is whether placement of the second statue, which is clearly intended to recontextualize the first statute, constitutes a modification of the first one, such that the two statutes are viewed as "one" piece. If that is the argument, then it could be viewed as creation of a derivative work.

In the recontextualization, the bull statue, which may be taken in a number of ways, is re-cast as the "bad guy" in the larger scene. Before it was just a bull, but now the larger statement, to which the artist apparently takes exception, is that the bull stands for gender inequality, etc.. I don't know anything about this artist, but whether, on the basis of some news article summary, one can actually understand whatever his argument might be, is something I doubt.

As noted below, there are likely a lot of relevant facts.

The interesting thing is that this is a requirement of the Berne Convention that embodies certain rights long recognized elsewhere, but unfamiliar to people in the US - for whom, as in this thread, there is a tendency to reduce everything down to an economic argument of some kind. You can see it here - "Who owns the statute?", "Who owns the land it is on?" and so on.

So, sure, if McDonald's wants to buy the land next to the Crazy Horse Memorial, such that when the sculpture is finished, Crazy Horse will be pointing at a humungous sign saying "Take the Kids to McDonald's PlayLand, 3 mi. ahead at exit 20!" that's all jake.

But outside of the US, and as we were sort of dragged into by the Berne treaty on copyright, there is a concept of an artists "rights" in an artwork which are not purely economic, and do not transfer with the economic rights in the work.

[ProfessorGAC]

48. I Get That It Makes Sense From A Legal Standpoint

I also think it's debatable whether there is actual harm done by another artist asserting the same artistic license in a practical sense.

Thanks for the clarification

[DetlefK]

13. What legal rights??? Since when do artists have a legal right to how their art is presented?

[jberryhill]

18. Since the US entered the Berne Convention on Copyright, around 1990

The US is behind the curve on what are variously called artist's "moral rights" or "rights of integrity" in other jurisdictions.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106A

(a)Rights of Attribution and Integrity.—Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art—
(1) shall have the right—
(A) to claim authorship of that work, and
(B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create;
(2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; and
(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right—
(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and
(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.

-------

The argument would be that the juxtaposition of these two sculptures creates a "modification" of the work which places the work in a context where the two might be seen as one work, or in which the bull, which was originally a reference to a market term, has been modified by that context to represent a symbol of something else.

In other jurisdictions this sort of thing has prevented the demolition of exterior walls which bear artwork, among other things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights

Moral rights were first recognized in France and Germany,[4] before they were included in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in 1928.[5]:37 Canada recognizes moral rights (droits moraux) in its Copyright Act (Loi sur le droit d'auteur).[6] The United States became a signatory to the convention in 1989,[7] and incorporated a version of moral rights under its copyright law under Title 17 of the U.S. Code.

[brooklynite]

22. What diameter of space is required to protect his artistic "integrity"?

10 feet? 50? 100?

[jberryhill]

24. Do you think the law actually works that way?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_v_Eaton_Centre_Ltd

Whether it constitutes a modification is not a question of "how many feet".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights

In the United States Moral rights[16] have had a less robust tradition in the United States. Copyright law in the United States emphasizes protection of financial reward over protection of creative attribution.[5]:xiii The exclusive rights tradition in the United States is inconsistent with the notion of moral rights as it was constituted in the Civil Code tradition stemming from post-Revolutionary France. When the United States acceded to the Berne Convention, it stipulated that the Convention's "moral rights" provisions were addressed sufficiently by other statutes, such as laws covering slander and libel.[5]:30

Some individual states have moral rights laws, particularly pertaining to visual art and artists (See, e.g. California Art Preservation Act, Artists Authorship Rights Act (New York)). However it is unclear if these laws, or portions thereof, are preempted by federal laws, such as the Visual Artists Rights Act.

The Monty Python comedy troupe made a claim of "mutilation" (akin to a moral rights claim) in 1975 in legal proceedings against American TV network ABC for airing re-edited versions of Monty Python's Flying Circus.[17] However, the case was primarily decided on the basis of whether the BBC was licensed in such a way as to allow ABC to edit the videos (paragraph 20). Main article: Gilliam v. American Broadcasting.

[PJMcK]

29. The sculptures are on public land

The bull and the sculpture of the "Fearless Girl," are on city-owned property and the displays are concessions licensed by the City of New York.

[jberryhill]

32. So?

The building in Board of Managers, Soho International Arts Condo. v. City of New York (S.D.N.Y. 2003) wasn't owned by the artist either. How is that relevant?

[PJMcK]

37. We don't know the terms of the lease

Your legal knowledge is more extensive than mine, jberryhill. I've seen that quality in many of your posts. I'm not certain how to answer your question.

My point is that the displays are done through agreements with the City. I've had several concession agreements and the contracts for the statues may have clauses that grant or limit various rights including the artworks' displays. Until they are made public, (I mean, in the media, not just in the City's files), we don't know what is in those documents. In any event, I believe these agreements are part of what the artist Arturo Di Modica is seeking with his legal action.

Ultimately, I don't really care. Both artworks are effective and are being seen by lots of people. Significantly, both artists are getting publicity; after all, I've known the Raging Bull statue for a long time but now I know the artist's name. Could all of this noise be a publicity ploy?

[jberryhill]

40. There is likely a whole constellation of relevant facts

I was just pointing out, since most people seem unaware, that there are relevant rights bearing on the question of "how an artwork is displayed".

Whether this would be considered a "modification" through re-contextualization of the original work to symbolize something other than was intended, what impact the various agreements might have, etc., are all interesting questions beyond the kneejerk "WTF?" reaction to the claim.

In the US, it's more of a developing area of law than elsewhere.

[PJMcK]

49. Good points

My work is in the world of music as a creator, publisher and manager. It's always amazed me how far behind the rest of the world the US has been with respect to intellectual property rights.

Thanks for the chat. I enjoyed it.

[gratuitous]

14. Note to New York

Get a crane, pick up that cartoonish sculpture, and drop it off at Di Modica's studio with a cheerful note that he can take his bull somewhere else.

[SoCalNative]

19. And send him the bill for the

crane rental, removal and delivery costs.

[Achilleaze]

16. Jeez, guy totally sounds like a repube

[Javaman]

43. as an artist, I only have one thing to say...

tough shit.

once you put your art out in public, you better damn will have a steel as skin. if you don't like what another artist does in response to your art, again, tough shit.

art is many things and one thing it can be is controversial.

this artist needs to get over his bullshit. (no pun)

[Buns_of_Fire]

47. I've got an easy solution. Get rid of the f***in' bull.

Tell Arturo to come and pick up his precious, or its next display will be guarding Cadillac Ranch. Or the remains of the Titanic.

[Buzz cook]

56. Arturo Di Modica has a point

Whatever his intent at what the bull represents has been altered by the placement of fearless girl to that of male chauvinism.

http://chargingbull.com/chargingbull.html

Arturo Di Modica first conceived of the Charging Bull as a way to celebrate the can-do spirit of America and especially New York, where people from all other the world could come regardless of their origin or circumstances, and through determination and hard work overcome every obstacle to become successful. It’s this symbol of virility and courage that Arturo saw as the perfect antidote to the Wall Street crash of 1986.

So from what Modica saw as a positive to what most people think of as a negative symbol.

[brooklynite]

58. ...and he has every right to pick up the Bull and move it to another location...

...more fitting to his message.

[Buzz cook]

61. So you don't think there

can be any other accommodation?

[brooklynite]

63. Why does there need to be?

He effectively donated his art to the City by dropping it off on the plaza without a permit in 1989. You could just as easily argue that hordes of tourists ruin the "message" of his sculpture by taking selfies with the bull's testicles all day long.

People like Charging Bull. People like Fearless Girl. He can accept reality or he can pick his piece up and move it.

[Buzz cook]

64. I believe that an artist has a right to maintain the integrity of her art.

I wouldn't want another installation to weaken or divert from Fearless Girl's creator's intent.

I wouldn't want Guernica to be turned into a pro-war work.

Besides if the bull is removed then the girl is left staring at nothing, she goes from fearless girl to petulant kid having a snit.

[brooklynite]

65. But if the artist drops it off in my front yard...

...he can't complain if I stick a Garden gnome next to it.

[samnsara]

57. i love the pair together....

.....so does he demand that all the pigeon poop be cleaned off because it distorts his art?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

59. I don't like either piece

The bull is kitschy 80's crap, the girl is pseudo-political virtue signaling.

Although when I am in New York for work I have to stay at the Hilton DoubleTree just a few feet away from this pairing and I can assure everyone that selfies with the bull's balls remain the primary attraction. The girl appears to be a popular place to hang camera bags.

[eleny]

60. I think the girl would have looked more powerful all by herself on Wall St.

Then, the question, "What is this lone girl doing on Wall St.?" would be even more significant.

Just my imo. But that's how I would have liked to see her rather than creating this new composition of pairing her with the bull.

Just sayin' because you know how desolate the Wall St. area can be at night. The thought of her on her own there after midnight is strong.

[Buns_of_Fire]

62. Art should engage people. Stir the emotions. BE controversial.

If that's one of the criteria, the pairing seems to be a success. Arturo's doing his part, by being an ass about it.

I hope he's as helpful when someone's next project -- a polished bronze cowpie with thousand-dollar bills imbedded in it -- is installed right behind Manly-Bull.

But I still think it would look better guarding the remains of the Titanic.