Copyright Fight Over Famous Wall Street Bull Statue

from the well,-that's-a-lot-of-bull... dept

Wed, Aug 5th 2009 3:17am — Mike Masnick

What is it with statues and copyright claims lately? Following closely on stories about copyright claims against a town's statue of a mermaid (since resolved) and a still ongoing fight over a photo and US postage stamp of the DC Korean War monument, comes the news that the guy who created the famous (infamous?) Wall Street "bull" statue, is suing both the publisher and authors of a new book about the fall of Lehman Bros., for using a photo of the statue on the cover of the book. Apparently (I had no idea), the statue was made by Arturo Di Modica back in 1989 -- totally uninvited -- and he just dumped it in front of the New York Stock Exchange unannounced. It was soon moved nearby, and it's stuck around ever since. Apparently, this is not the first time he's sued over such things, though it's unclear what happened in that lawsuit. Still, um... shouldn't there be a rule, that if you just dump a big sculpture on the sidewalk somewhere without permission and leave it for twenty years, you no longer own it? Isn't it like throwing something out?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bull, copyright, statue, wall street

37 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2009 @ 4:54am

Missing facts again.

Who moved the statue nearby? The New York City Parks Departement. As a result, it is in place with full knownledge of the city, who continues to permit it, with full knowledge that they don't own it.

Perhaps this calls for a minor re-write?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JP, 5 Aug 2009 @ 5:01am

Littering
I would have thought that the New York Police would have fined him for littering?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CleverName, 5 Aug 2009 @ 5:05am

Sounds like this guy's suit is a load of bull.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
..., 5 Aug 2009 @ 5:06am

Re:
Lame troll this morning?
Possibly a hot cup o java is in order
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bapzzy (profile), 5 Aug 2009 @ 5:13am

Re:
If someone left a lawnmower on your lawn for twenty years, during which you moved it into your garage, it's yours.

If he gifts the statue to New York by dumping the bull on the sidewalk and leaving it there for twenty years, it's now owned by New York.

New York should now sue for upkeep/storage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2009 @ 5:17am

Re: Re:
Except it doesn't work like that. New York accepts donations of art to display, they don't buy or own the stuff.

It's amazing, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JB, 5 Aug 2009 @ 5:35am

It's in public view!
I don't think he OWNS the copyright to photographs of the statue, if it's placed in a public area... What's to sue? This has nothing to do with who owns the statue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2009 @ 6:03am

Re: It's in public view!
He owns the statue, therefore he owns the rights to use it's image for commercial purposes, which is the point - the image is being used on the cover of a book to sell the book.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
res2 (profile), 5 Aug 2009 @ 6:11am

Re: Re: Re:
I think you need to look up the definition of "donate". If you donate $10 to me, its now mine, not yours.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2009 @ 6:16am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
*sigh*. Work with the facts, not a dictionary. The city doesn't own it. NEXT.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 5 Aug 2009 @ 6:35am

Who's gonna write the book?
Somebody should write a book about copyright insanity (or they could update an edition to an existing text) and place a picture of the bull statue's ass on the cover.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Guillermo Del Torro, 5 Aug 2009 @ 6:48am

Sorry, but dumping your sculpture on city property removes any pretense of ownership. You can't maintain a copyright on something you dumped as trash.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 5 Aug 2009 @ 6:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Facts? How about you check your facts. You suggested (or at least the previous AC) that the bull was donated. A donation is giving something to someone without expecting payment. It's a transfer of ownership. Thus the reply from Res2

At this point it isn't a donation tough. He left the bull on city property for years and never once complained when they moved it. Thus it is abandoned property and is now in the possession of whomever claimed it (the City). This is the way all garbage works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stupid US Copyright laws, 5 Aug 2009 @ 7:08am

In both the UK and in Canada, it's perfectly legal to market photos of sculptures placed in public venues without any fear of breaching copyright. In the US, however, because of our lousy copyright laws, you may only do so if the photo is considered falling under the "fair use" doctrine, and that's open to the court's interpretation of whether or not a 2D representation of a 3D object is transformative enough to be considered fair use.

Di Moda's first suit against walmart has been re-filed with a different plaintiff, as it seems he had to go after those who produced the book, and not those who sold it. 3 years after his initial filing, it's been amanded to Di Moda V. Random House.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
scarr (profile), 5 Aug 2009 @ 7:19am

Re: Re: It's in public view!
By that flawed logic, the owner of the World Trade Center should get a cut of every book/show/movie/t-shirt/keychain that's been made about it, or had it displayed with the skyline.

If it's in public, anyone can take a photograph to use however they like. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be any paparazzi.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2009 @ 7:34am

COUNTERSUIT
Fine for littering: you owe us $2,000,000.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weird Harold's former #5 fan, 5 Aug 2009 @ 7:56am

Sounds like it's time to find out where this guy lives and give him his sculpture back if he thinks he still owns it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sean T Henry, 5 Aug 2009 @ 8:09am

Re: COUNTERSUIT
What is the fine for DUMPING in NY and is there a holding fee.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 5 Aug 2009 @ 8:24am

Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
If only that were true. Sadly it is not. The Space Needle in Seattle is trademarked. You can take a picture of Seattle that has the Space Needle in it and sell it. You cannot take a picture of just the Space Needle and sell it. If the Space Needle is not the subject of the photo you are fine. Otherwise, it is a no go.

http://seattletrademarklawyer.com/blog/2007/6/17/is-the-space-needle-different-from-the-rock- and-roll-hall-of.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 5 Aug 2009 @ 8:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
Another example, the Bean in Chicago. It is protected as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lucretious, 5 Aug 2009 @ 8:44am

Re: Re: COUNTERSUIT
someone brought that up in the comments section of Carney's post. How about charging for storage and maintenance?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 5 Aug 2009 @ 9:02am

Re: Re: It's in public view!
the image is being used on the cover of a book to sell the book

Are you saying that if there was a different picture on the cover the book wouldn't sell?

Because, as I'm sure you can see, that's asinine. Looks like fair use to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2009 @ 9:08am

Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
The cover image of a book is actually often shockingly important to it's sales potential. Remove the bull, replace it with a white cover with Arial lettering with the book name and the authors name in simialr sizes in black print, and see how well it sells. The answer is likely much less.

In the end, the image is being used as part of the marketing of the book, and that is more than enough to violate copyright. The guy should have just used the ML logo instead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 5 Aug 2009 @ 9:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
So.. you think that there's nothing wrong with this law suit? You *honestly* believe that the guy who made a statue and put it out for the entire word to see should be compensated for a someone taking a 2 dimentional picture of it and putting it on the cover of a book?

C'mon now.

However, back to my original question:

Remove the bull, replace it with a white cover with Arial lettering with the book name and the authors name in simialr sizes in black print, and see how well it sells.

I don't see anywhere where I said "No picture." I said "A different picture." Hint: The answer is "Probably not."

Along the same lines, do you feel that a blank book with this picture on the cover would sell? What about the book is valuable? The cover or the content? (Another hint: I throw away dust covers, they annoy me-- which happens to be where the picture usually is.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2009 @ 9:51am

Copyright Retained
Still, um... shouldn't there be a rule, that if you just dump a big sculpture on the sidewalk somewhere without permission and leave it for twenty years, you no longer own it? Isn't it like throwing something out?

Even if he no longer owns the sculpture itself, he may still own the copyright on it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard, 5 Aug 2009 @ 10:00am

Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
And the 911 terrorists should be able to sue for all those photographs of the ruins of the WTC which they created by their piece of performance art!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 5 Aug 2009 @ 11:10am

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
"And the 911 [CIA/NSA] agents should be able to sue for all those photographs of the ruins of the WTC which they created by their piece of performance art!"

There, fixed that for you...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2009 @ 11:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
"I don't see anywhere where I said "No picture." I said "A different picture." Hint: The answer is "Probably not.""

It is the point though - the image on the book is part of the sales process. It is part of the marketing. Just like anyone, he is entitled to use another picture, but he choose this one. He choose to use an image to sell his books without permission of the owner. It's not a big thing, you have the same right on your house too (which is visible from public land). If someone uses an image of your house to sell a product without your permission, you can sue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 5 Aug 2009 @ 11:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
Are you trying to claim that I have a copyright claim over a picture of my house that I didn't take, taken from public property?

Citation, please. (That's my polite way of saying I think you're making that up.)

Also, if he took the picture, wouldn't he be the owner of that picture? It's not like the actual statue was glued to the cover.

Still seems like fair use to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crashoverride, 5 Aug 2009 @ 2:38pm

In Portland Oregon there is a Statue on a Public building. Quite a big statue being several stories high (If I guessed I would say over ten stories high) Anyways the sculptor has all image rights to the sculpture and thus the sculpture lives in obscurity that very few people other than die hard Portlanders even realize it exists. It's ironic one of the largest sculptures on the west coast something named after Portland and few know about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
another mike (profile), 5 Aug 2009 @ 4:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
"I wasn't taking a picture of the Space Needle, I was photographing the sky behind it. Your building is just in the way!"

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2009 @ 5:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
No, please read more carefully.

You have the copyright on the likeness and image of your house. Nobody can take a picture specifically of your house and use it to sell a product (such as paint, siding, or pest control) without your permission. You own the rights to your house's appearance.

It's one of the reasons when making a movie or shooting a video, one of the important model releases to get is a location release. You need to have the permission to use the likeness of the place you are shooting (unless it is entirely public). Accidental appearance, such as a house in a series of houses in the background of a shot, or say that the featured bull in this set happens to be in an image in passing doesn't always rise to the need for such a release / permission, but it is considered normal procedure to get a release for almost anything that appears near the front of an image or in the case of a video that is "dwelled" on.

So basically, you can shoot New York in general, you can shoot the skyline, etc. But if you want to film in the lobby of the Empire State Building, you need a permit and you need a release to use it's image. Further, while you can take a picture of the Empire State building and show your friends, if it is the main focus of the image and it is used for a commercial purpose (selling condoms, example), then a release and permission is required to use it's likeness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CleverName, 5 Aug 2009 @ 6:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
That's messed up - and wrong.
Why am I not suprised?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oily Taterz, 5 Aug 2009 @ 6:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
Hey truther, are you a birther too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Enrico Suarve, 6 Aug 2009 @ 12:40am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
Oh great, another new word that tools who would rather name call than think can resort to using

Go on, whats a birther? And what possible relation could it have to a story on copyright?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 6 Aug 2009 @ 7:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
I still think you're making that up, and you haven't cited anything to prove your point. We've already seen that movie makers regularly secure rights to things that are public domain, so that doesn't mean anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wall Street Tour, 21 Aug 2010 @ 3:53pm

Re: Re: Re:
i like your point of view. well, the authorities should grow some bulls and clear the situation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]