Charging Bull vs.

Fearless Girl controversy

Name
Course
Institution
Instructor
Date
 Annotated Bibliography
Bridy, A. (2019). Fearless Girl Meets Charging Bull: Copyright and the Regulation of

Intertextuality. UC Irvine Law Review, 9(2), 293.

https://scholarship.law.uci.edu/ucilr/vol9/iss2/2/

This source argues that within the frameworks of Bakhtinian monologists and the linked

notion of Romantic authorship, DiModica's sense of artistic infringement at the positioning of

the Fearless Girl in juxtaposition to Charging Bull is easily understandable. In his letter to the

city, DiModica makes it plain that the location of Fearless Girl in direct association to the

Charging Bull has damaged the latter's reputation and distorted the meaning of the former's

intended purpose and symbolism. The once-upbeat and positive message of the Charging Bull

has faded. Instead, it has become a destructive power and a potential danger. How he responded

to Fearless Girl elucidates his dedication to a monolithic vision of his piece, which shuts out

everyone saves his own. Because of this dedication, he cannot acknowledge the many possible

allusions his audience members may make to Charging Bull. This article is relevant to my

research because it details the controversy of Fearless Girl vs. Charging Bull.

Barraclough, E. (2018). Raging Bull and Fearless Girl – Moral rights in Copyright.

Www.wipo.int. https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2018/02/article_0003.html

The author of this article claims that Arturo di Modica's intense animosity toward his art

being the subject of criticism as well as social commentary was evident from the moment

Fearless Girl appeared at Bowling Green. Di Modica's attorneys, Norman Siegel and Steven

Hyman made this very obvious in a letter to Mayor de Blasio just over a month after publishing

Fearless Girl. Fearless Girl's proximity to Charging Bull was a source of contention for Di

Modica's legal team. They argued that di Modica's rights to oversee the making of copies of
Charging Bull and any derivative works or distribution of those copies had been infringed upon

by the proximity of Fearless Girl to the bull. They also claimed that the author, di Modica, had

been wronged in his moral right to restrict changes to his work. The fearless girl is quite a

different "creature" from the aggressive bull. No part of the bull is used explicitly in its

construction or physical characteristics. The novel's content utilization is not entirely comparable

to that of a film adaptation. However, its placement adjacent made a distinct comment on and

altered the overall atmosphere of di Modica's work. This article is relevant to my research

because it explains the moral rights of copyright for an artwork.

Lam, B. (2017, April 14). Why People Are So Upset About Wall Street’s “Fearless Girl.” The

Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/fearless-girl-

reactions/523026/

According to Di Modica, Fearless Girl alters the meaning of his art. According to him,

the Bull was meant to represent a prosperous economy. However, the inclusion of Fearless Girl

inserts his piece into the argument for greater representation of women in the financial sector.

He doesn't approve of that at all. Some female in finance have said they are torn since they have

constantly found the bull motivating in its right. Some people have brought out the possibly

problematic tale of pitting females against the American economy symbol. When it comes to

Fearless Girl and the Bull, State Street doesn't make any claims. According to Lynn Blake,

executive vice president of State Street Global Advisor, “we placed the Fearless Girl there to be

a partner to the bull and to symbolize the power of women," as she noted in a phone interview.

We had no idea she would be so difficult; the point wasn't to provoke her but to show that she

exists and is capable of handling any situation. This source is important for my research because

it gives other people's opinions about the controversy of Charging Bull vs. Fearless Girl.
 Research paper
The man who housed the iconic bull sculpture has weighed in on the ongoing Charging

Bull vs. Fearless Girl controversy, alleging the corporate patrons behind the new public artwork

of intentionally collaborating to infringe on the copyright of Arturo Di Modica, the artist who

developed Charging Bull in 1989. Although artist Kristen Visbal is solely responsible for The

Fearless Girl, the project was coordinated by SSGA and McCann (Barraclough, 2018).

Therefore, the Girl has been condemned as a meaningless corporate gesture designed to cash in

on the present popularity of the women's movement, despite its feminist message. Since the bull

sculptor Di Modica considers Fearless Girl to be nothing more than an advertising trick, he is

understandably annoyed that his creation has been turned into an antagonistic symbol opposed to

women's rights (Barraclough, 2018). Piccolo goes further in his letter to De Blasio et al. by

criticizing the firms involved in deliberately co-opting Charging Bull for their purposes.

The McCann company made Fearless Girl, which was only intended to be on exhibit for

a week, the focal point of an advertising campaign for State Street. State Street stated that the

Fearless Girl was created to increase awareness as well as drive discussions about enhancing

gender diversity in the leadership roles (Bridy, 2019). The sculptural display was initially created

to promote State Street's Gender Diversity Index ETF, which targets companies with a greater

percentage of females in executive positions than the industry average (Bridy, 2019). There was

once a plaque at Fearless Girl's base with the following inscription: Recognize the strength of

female leaders. HER presence is felt. State Street's Gender Diversity Index ETF trades under the

symbol "SHE."
 The only reason SSGA commissioned Fearless Girl, Piccolo claims, was so that she

could be positioned in front of Charging Bull. It has been said that the two statues in their current

location have effectively merged into a single image, inseparable from each other (Lam, 2017).

Visbal, for her part, expressed sympathy for Di Modica's disappointment about The Fearless

Girl's placement and its impact on public opinion of Charging Bull. However, she played down

the seriousness of the situation. Piccolo also forwarded artnet News an email he had sent to

Visbal in which he scolded her for taking corporate funding for a project that would infringe on

the copyright of Charging Bull, which had been donated to the city at no cost to the artist.

Piccolo has called out State Street and their Fearless Girl production for hypocrisy (Lam, 2017).

Women comprised only 18% of the company's top management when it was first implemented.

At the same time, State Street Corporation, the parent firm, settled a lawsuit for $5 million over

claims of underpaying women and people of color.

During its 2017 installation in New York for International Women's Day, Fearless Girl

quickly rose to Instagram fame. After only a week, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced in February

that the piece would be made permanent after extending its permit for another year. The artist

who painted Charging Bull, Arturo Di Modica, was not pleased. He claims the statue was built to

represent American resiliency after the recession of 1987. However, the presence of the defiant

girl has transformed it into a symbol of patriarchal capitalist greed. A guerrilla installation in

front of the New York Stock Exchange in 1989, Charging Bull starkly contrasts the corporate

beginnings of Fearless Girl. The city eventually accepted it after the police impounded it. Di

Modica claims that Fearless Girl has stolen his ideas and utilized them in an advertisement.

Bowling Green Association chairman Arthur Piccolo, who was instrumental in finding a
permanent home for Charging Bull, has spearheaded an aggressive email campaign to counter

the influence of Fearless Girl.

Despite Arturo DiModica's legal threats, a judge is unlikely to hear his allegation that

including Fearless Girl detracts from Charging Bull's artistic integrity. However, the very public

disagreement over these two prominent works has brought up some interesting new

considerations regarding the reach of U.S. copyright law and its function as the regulator of

writer-to-writer and work-to-work relations to the art. DiModica's case falls under the category

of derivative works in which the protected work's appearance is changed without any direct

reproduction or inclusion of the original work's content. According to DiModica's, Visbal and

State Street effectively constructed a new work that entirely incorporates DiModica's by placing

Fearless Girl in the means of Charging Bull (Barraclough, 2018). However, DiModica claims

that the public's impression of Charging Bull was changed to accommodate the incorporation

(Bridy, 2019). The audience can now appreciate Charging Bull within a broader context, but the

sculpture has not been appropriated or integrated. Some perspectives reveal Charging Bull, while

others reveal Fearless Girl only partially. Even if DiModica's work has been aesthetically

integrated and semiotically transformed, the physical object is unchanged. However, current case

law has held that the derivative work right does not extend to this type of virtual incorporation.

Nevertheless, this is not a case of ordinary copyright infringement, such as the

unauthorized duplication or distribution of a protected work. Di Modica would have to rely on

his "moral rights" to the Charging Bull in this scenario (Barraclough, 2018). The Berne

Convention establishes minimum requirements for protecting copyrights that its participants

must meet. The writer has the right to object to alteration, distortion, and other forms of

derogatory action related to the said work, provided that such distortion or modification could be
prejudicial to his reputation or honor (Bridy, 2019). Since the Charging Bull has not been altered

in any way, Di Modica may have an uphill battle. Di Modica must prove that the mere placement

of the Fearless Girl distorts his work to have her removed for violating his creative property

rights. The Fearless Girl's inclusion could detract from the Charging Bull's overall impact.

The government mostly destroys obscene Art Work. The United States is no exception to

the rule that most countries impose some form of art regulation. For instance, the Supreme Court

of the United States has declared that the state may prohibit obscene art. There are often efforts

to prohibit or control various forms of art that some deem offensive.

In conclusion, copyright law is designed to guard authorial personality by providing

authors with extensive control over how creative third parties engage with their works, in

contrast to copyright law of the U.S, which mainly aims at boosting commerce in the creative

work by legitimizing a broad spectrum of second-degree works as well as uses. The debate over

Fearless Girl and Charging Bull sheds light on the distinction's significance and provides an

essential lesson for policymakers. Changes to the contours of domestic copyright law for

international harmonization should be considered cautiously. The Constitution's basis for the

copyright monopoly is at the heart of the differences between our copyright legislation and that

of the Continental countries. In his letter to the region, DiModica defended his right as an artist

to stop any other artist from obscuring the message he hoped to send to the public through his

work. This article has demonstrated that his argument has no basis under the United States

Copyright Act. The sculpture by Visbal is a literal and metaphorical challenge to the character of

Charging Bull. DiModica opposes the installation because its "writes" Charging Bull into the

visual narrative about women as well as power. As a surplus that displaces, it adds to Charging
Bull in the Derridean meaning without violating DiModica's copyright. That's great news from

the point of view of encouraging creative development.

 References

Barraclough, E. (2018). Raging Bull and Fearless Girl – Moral rights in Copyright.

Www.wipo.int. https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2018/02/article_0003.html

Bridy, A. (2019). Fearless Girl Meets Charging Bull: Copyright and the Regulation of

Intertextuality. UC Irvine Law Review, 9(2), 293.

https://scholarship.law.uci.edu/ucilr/vol9/iss2/2/

Lam, B. (2017, April 14). Why People Are So Upset About Wall Street’s “Fearless Girl.” The

Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/fearless-girl-reactions/

523026/