Copyright Fight Over Famous Wall Street Bull Statue
from the well,-that's-a-lot-of-bull... dept
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
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 ]
Littering
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Possibly a hot cup o java is in order
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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 ]
Re: Re:
It's amazing, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's in public view!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's in public view!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who's gonna write the book?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 ]
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 ]
Re: Re: It's in public view!
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 ]
COUNTERSUIT
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: COUNTERSUIT
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: COUNTERSUIT
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's in public view!
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
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 ]
Copyright Retained
Even if he no longer owns the sculpture itself, he may still own the copyright on it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
There, fixed that for you...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
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 ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
Why am I not suprised?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
Go on, whats a birther? And what possible relation could it have to a story on copyright?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]