|
Forums >
General Industry >
Artist sues over use of Bull in ads and photos
Arturo Di Modica is suing Wal Mart and others for selling images of his bull. Others for use of the Bull in Ads. The charging bull often known as the Wall Street Bull The 3 1/2 ton bronze statue of a "Charging Bull" was sculptor Arturo Di Modica's artistic statement about the stock market's Black Monday in Oct 1987. Without permission, Di Modica placed the bull on Wall Street in 1989. It was moved a few blocks southwest to Bowling Green Park at the end of Broadway. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4205019.html http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … s&refer=us http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/64522 http://www.roadsideamerica.com/tips/get … onNo==7145 Sep 22 06 11:24 am Link Burnished Bull Balls! Sep 22 06 11:26 am Link Good for him. Sep 22 06 12:05 pm Link I am not a expert in this situation,but it is his creation so it should his right to sue.But why suddenly now I have seen that bull statue used more than once befor this and never heard any complaint about it from him. An another interesting item along the same line refers to the painting called "American Gothic" of a farmer and wife ,both thin and pale standing in front of house.Done in the 20's or 30's.A few years back a photographer/artist used the woman's image from the original painting using her face but did her nude in one of his own works,thinking she was obviously dead by now and had no legal claim to the image.Surprise,she was still alive and kicking and sued.When she had posed for the original painting she was a young girl. Sep 22 06 12:14 pm Link stan wigmore photograph, Thankyou for the answer. (not sure why moved to off topic, like what are you smokin in the back room?)( Will delete comment when restored to proper place) This topic is so central to much of what we all do, ownership, copyright, rights to reproduce images, etc. How can this not be On topic? Sep 22 06 11:54 pm Link I hope does not sue me, I have many photographs of the big bronzer. Sep 22 06 11:57 pm Link UnoMundo Photography wrote: What language would you like that translated to? Sep 23 06 12:05 am Link If the artist wins then will this have an effect on the use of artwork in images even in the backgrounds of shots? Sep 23 06 08:33 am Link R0nni3 wrote: Say that five times fast. Sep 23 06 09:10 am Link not a bull but(t)...  Sep 23 06 09:36 am Link Okay, I know that I make jokes often. The line about the bull balls was taken right from a website. I do think this case will be interesting to watch for photographers and artists. Property rights and usage of artwork in images and ads is at stake. Sep 23 06 05:21 pm Link playing devil's advocate here... so this guy, despite any financial investment he put into this sculpture, made some art, and usd a forklift to plop it in the middle of public (and highly visible) property. If photographers can legally take pictures of people and places that are in public, what makes the sculpture any different? It's not like its being sheilded by a private gallery.He obviously wanted this to be seen and to become a symbol or statement available to the public. That's exactly what it's become. If he wanted to profit from it, maybe he should have either not put it right on Broadway, or sold it to the city. (it is currently on loan to the city parks service, I believe) After 17 years of this sculpture being public domain, how can he come back now and ask for compensation for it? Sep 23 06 06:09 pm Link Yes, good point. The point that he never asked permission to do this in the first place is interesting. Not sure if that will have any legal leverage in the case. But not sure if he should be penalized that it has become such an icon. He did make it and it is accepted now. Not sure if he is trying to make a profit from the sale of images as much as stop others from doing so. Reminds me somewhat of the ban on photography of the Flatiron building in NY. Sep 23 06 06:39 pm Link I would be amazed if he doesn't win a suit against commercial advertisers who are prominently using his art in their ads. It will be interesting to follow the case, but I certainly feel he has a good one. Sep 23 06 06:42 pm Link Jack D Trute wrote: I like that parallel! Jack D Trute wrote: Interesting image! The creator of the icon that could arguably be one of the most famous associated with wealth and profit in a lawsuit to restrict that profit. Sep 23 06 06:45 pm Link American Gothic is of a man and his sister... Sep 23 06 09:01 pm Link Star wrote: Well, well, well. A little testy aren't we. Sep 23 06 09:17 pm Link mad city fine arts wrote: Yes, that part is funny. Sep 23 06 10:18 pm Link Sep 23 06 10:26 pm Link Aesthete Studios wrote: Anything to add to the topic? Sep 23 06 10:55 pm Link mad city fine arts wrote: (Not to you specifically, mcf, but in general.) Sep 24 06 02:20 am Link Chip Morton wrote: That's the best point made in this thread yet, I think. Yeah... so often you hear about a new ridiculous lawsuit... but never that they won, or even made it to the bench. Sep 24 06 09:44 am Link ArtisticDigitalImages wrote: No but someone looks like a bit of a... Sep 24 06 10:40 am Link  It's not that North Fork and WalMart are using a photograph of the bull, they've made logos from its likeness. Sep 24 06 10:50 am Link mad city fine arts wrote: It is not a public domain work. He still posesses the copyright to it. There is a statue of Popeye in Chester, Illinois, but that doesn't mean anyone can take photos of it and claim ownership of the character. Sep 24 06 11:17 am Link Long post and then I re-read some of the info, so I had to change it. Sep 24 06 11:23 am Link Jack D Trute wrote: I find it very interesting because my main photo on my website use to be an image with me riding the bull!!! Everyone loved it!!! Sep 24 06 11:27 am Link UCPhotog wrote: That's too bad; I thought was you had to say was thought-provoking... Sep 24 06 11:28 am Link Because the bull was left without permission in a public place, does that make it vandalism? Is artistic vandalism copyrighted as other art is? If I take photos of graffiti, can I use the photos commercially without permission of the artist? Sep 24 06 11:30 am Link Interesting thread. First, does Modica have copyright on all 'charging bulls', or just the one that closely resembles his? If so, who decides if the bull in question is a copy of the 'wall street' bull, or a generic charging bull? Art critics? Art historians? Lawyers? Supreme Court? Second, public domain is tricky. One poster stated that since its been in a public space for 17 years it should be public domain. I think public domain doesn't go into effect for a lot longer than that. Third, it does have implications for us. For example, 'what comes around, goes around'. Warhol obviously used iconic images for his lithographic series (Marilyn, Elvis, Campbell soup, Texaco, etc) but likely didn't have permission. But if I were to use his images, I would get sued. One poster said that he made copies of art work, and distributed them, pissing off the Art Museum. But I have a feeling that he would be steamed if I were to copy and distribute his work and call it my own. Some thoughts. Matt Sep 24 06 11:35 am Link acidstudios wrote: If Disney gets their way (and they're pouring a lot of money into getting they way) nothing made since 1928 will ever enter the public domain. Sep 24 06 11:42 am Link Modica won't (Can't)win, just think. Everytime we use a pic of say the Empire State Building, we have to pay someone. How about the statue in Columbus Circle? We'd have to pay for it's use as well. That would mean ANY building (yes architects are artists) in any pic is therefore copyrighted and must be compensated accordingly. Give me a fucking break! You FORCE your "art" upon us, my NYC tax dollars pay to move it to a new location and keep it clean, then you want us to pay you when we take pictures of it? What kind of crack is the Vandalist smoking? You dumped it on wallstreet remember? You disgarded it like someone would disgard a piece of trash. Now you want money for your trash? The city should sue Modica for keeping it for him and should charge him rent for that street corner. Let's see, it's been there for almost 20 years, how much is that in back rent with compounding interest? Sep 24 06 11:58 am Link Hamza wrote: Not at all, he wants people to pay when they use it in commercial advertising. That's very different from "when we take pictures of it". Sep 24 06 12:29 pm Link acidstudios wrote: The Supreme Court, if the suit was filed in New York as a state matter. But this is a copyright case, so it was filed in the US District court, which will make the determination. And there may be appeals from that decision. acidstudios wrote: Public domain isn't that tricky. The fact that something is accessible to the public does not mean that it is "in the public domain". The artist owns the copyright, and that copyright is not changed by putting the sculpture into a public place. Sep 24 06 12:36 pm Link TXPhotog wrote: Hamza wrote: Not at all, he wants people to pay when they use it in commercial advertising. That's very different from "when we take pictures of it". So now I'm supposed to pay for every picture I sell of the NYC skyline? How about a city street depicting the Empire State Building? Should I have to pay the architect of the building because I am selling a picture and the building is in it? Sep 24 06 12:48 pm Link Hamza wrote: Who owns the copyright to the NYC skyline? Hamza wrote: You may, if the building itself is a prominent part of the picture and the message of the picture depends on it. I don't know if the owners/architect of the ESB have ever asserted copyright, but it's not impossible. However, there is a difference between utilitarian structures and pieces of art, and copyright law treats them differently. Hamza wrote: Artist, like photographers, make their living by creating and controlling images. I am astounded that a photographer would not appreciate and support that. Sep 24 06 12:59 pm Link Ched wrote: What does the bull that modeled for the sculpture have to say? Or was it butchered for meat already? Sep 24 06 01:05 pm Link TXPhotog wrote: I guess that means he won't mind the proposed changes to the copyright laws currently under review on Capital Hill. Sep 24 06 01:07 pm Link Mayanlee wrote: It's absurd. The major media companies are working to make copyright eternal for their properties, while others are working to make the work of the little guy worthless. Sep 24 06 01:11 pm Link J n X Photography wrote: The Statue of Liberty was made in 1885. Typically, anything published before 1923 is public domain. Sep 24 06 01:11 pm Link |
