After a recent discussion about whether the new Fearless Girl sculpture by Kristen Visbal in Lower Manhattan might implicate the copyright of the earlier Charging Bull sculpture that has been there for nearly three decades, the sculptor who created Charging Bull has stepped to the foreground to complain that the recent installation infringes his rights. In addition to copyright arguments, that artist (Arturo di Modica) suggests that he has a moral rights claim under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (17 U.S.C. § 106A). But since Charging Bull predates VARA it is probably ineligible for any protection. Even if it were eligible, the elements of VARA rights are not implicated by the installation of The Fearless Girl because nothing has actually happened to Charging Bull. Artistic confrontation is not “distortion, mutilation or other modification” under VARA. In short, none of the arguments he advances would bestow on him the kind of right to be asked first that he proposes.
Topics: Arturo Di Modica, Kristen Visbal, Charging Bull, The Fearless Girl, State Street Global Advisors, Carter v. Helmsley Spear, Inc., 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, VARA, Christina Cauterucci, Slate, Copyright Act, Derivative Works, Trademark dilution
Topics: The Fearless Girl, Charging Bull, Arturo Di Modica, New York Stock Exchange, Mr. Robot, Kristen Visbal, Copyright Act, Copyright Fair Use, International Women’s Day, State Street Global Advisors