"...she had since made copies that are now in London, Oslo and Stevensville, Md..."
Correction: Stevenson, Md.
The statue is at St. Timothy's School in Stevenson, Md., an all-girls high school and my alma mater. I'm proud to have "Fearless Girl" at St. Tim's whose motto has been “Vérité Sans Peur” (“Truth without Fear”) for over 125 years.
2
Fearless Girl was corporate “art” to begin with, intending to co-opt a movement to garner public favor. So we should be surprised that this is the result?
4
Let her not become a symbol of greed, please.
It will be a bad day when our girl becomes the international symbol of greed.
A good reason to cut back on copyright law.
It's not great art, but if people want replicas. they should be able to make them. Imitation is the sincerest form of praise.
1
@Jonathan Katz - pfft.....who cares about the sincerity of praise, artists have to make a living like everyone else. Contempt for the skills, talents and hard work of others is disgusting. If you think artists and their work are so valueless, come up with your own original stuff.
3
>Critics say the fight proves that the company’s embrace of the Fearless Girl was always less about promoting female empowerment than it was about promoting itself.
Can stop reading there, that's the long and short of it whenever people allow corporations to co-opt "moral" movements.
2
Was this a “work for hire?” If not it would seem creator has right to the copyright unless she specifically/licensed them in some fashion.
It's a wonderful statue and I hope the artist wins, but it all comes down to the contract. Take heed, artists, never sign away all your rights. There are pro bono lawyers for the arts orgs all over the country you can consult for contract advice.
In any case, my first thought when I saw the statue was Greta Thomberg! So I'm wondering why Wall Street even wants it so much. (Go Greta!)
1
The courts will decide if State Street has a case. In People Court, however, State Street clearly lost.
I guess after paying out the settlement to the women they discriminated against, they had no money left for a good PR firm.
2
State Street Global Advisors can have their Fearless Girl. The world has found its own Fearless Girl in Greta Thunberg.
5
Rights to the "image" are usually retained by the artist even though a purchaser owns an individual work. Hence, multiple copies of soup cans, blue dogs, etc....
2
My opinion on this was somewhat divided/complicated until I got to the part where the corporation sues the female artist. Do they support women or not? If so, don't sue them when they refuse to stifle their voices to enrich/aggrandize you.
4
@Lex No, they don't. What part of a multimillion dollar settlement for unequal pay AFTER THE STATUE WAS UP screams caring about women?
4
Let me guess, the girl's name is Elizabeth Warren?
1
Unless the apparently bottom feed ing company State Street has a release of the copyright from the artist, they don’t have a keg to stand on.
I recently read a article about actors with tattoos that have been successfully sued by the tattoo artist when the artwork appeared in a movie. Without explicit release by the artist, the artist owns the copyright.
That State Street is even attempting this move is sadly another example of hat disgusting, money grubbing things corporations are.
I hope the artist counter sues for millions.
11
@Paulie If it was created as a 'work for hire', there would have been a clause in the contract assigning copyright to the hiring party. NYT Editors: could you look into whether such a contract exists between the parties? That could make this case more complicated and interesting on a broader scale: when an artwork takes on cultural significance like this, ought the moral rights to be restored to the creator? And who decides?
3
Who decides that a particular work is a “work of art” and who decides the gravity or urgency of the cultural significance? To the extent that the statue is symbolic of a political ideology, could it be said to be propaganda? And is it possible for propaganda to be art?
@Cold Eye All interesting questions to which I don't know the answer. Personally, I have always found the assignment of moral rights/title of an artwork to a third party (via 'work for hire') rather troubling. The character, the singularity, of an artwork inextricably belongs to its creator -- how can that be 'transferred'? And yet were it not legally possible, many artists would struggle to earn a living. So: idealism, meet reality, I guess.