some will find this weird, but it just has to be stated! concerning fearless girl vs EPIC BULL

[LogGrad98]

I don't think it does infringe on his copyright. I kinda think that it's fair use. I bet he loses.

I can understand his frustration but I don't think a copyright gives you that level of control over your work, nor should it.

I think this is entering a gray area that will set some kind of precedent depending on how far they push it. Fair use can mean lots of things, for example "eat it" as a parody of "beat it", or a song cover. One thing that makes fair use work is it does not intrinsically change the original work. It may build off of it or use part of it, but the whole of the original work remains as intended by the owner. In this case you could argue that leaving the little girl statue there impinges on the original enough as to change its meaning intrinsically, which does infringe on the rights of the owner. But that is one for the courts to decide. I get why the guy is mad about it.

Imagine if it were a statue of a man holding a little girl's hand entitled "fatherhood" or something. And next to it someone sets up a statue of a woman pointing to the man while holding a sign that read "pedophile". This would intrinsically change the original work even though it may be separate from it. The big question is what precedent do the courts, or do we as a people, want to be set.

 

[Rubashov]

How does a meathead like butch not know the old blood sport of bull vs bear fighting?

The used to get bears to fight Lions in the old days too, the bear always won.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

The used to get bears to fight Lions in the old days too, the bear always won.

Happens a lot in football, too.

 

[colton]

Pretty sure by donating that bull sculpture to the city the artist had given up all the rights he has to the bull, so the city can do with it what it so chooses, including erecting the 'fearless girl' next to it, I don't think the artist has any right over it any longer.

I was surprised to read that the bull artist still owns the sculpture himself. It's just on loan to the city. So presumably he still has all the rights, including the right to take away the sculpture or move it someplace else.