That’s one ugly frog. Even by frog standards.
Would you prefer hypno-toad?
Actually, it was a marketing stunt by a huge finance company. Their cause was to attract new customers and make more money.
Well I am not a lawyer so my ignorance is vast and thus assuming so my wonder remains: if copyright “protection” exists then what is its nature if it cannot protect from the unauthorized use of the copyrighted material?
Doesn’t change the fact that it was about pointing out sexism on Wall Street, which is still a good cause.
Though I admit using it as a marketing stunt does decrease my appreciation of it considerably.
It’s like those Dove ads. They have a nice message, sure. But they’re still just selling soap and deodorant, so I don’t think all that highly of them. Still, at least the good message is there.
There’s a certain amount of hypocrisy in the Charging Bull creator’s position which prevents me from having too much sympathy for him - he himself did exactly what he’s complaining about Fearless Girl for doing. He used something he didn’t own (in his case, the physical space, the Financial District of Manhattan) and re-contextualised it with his artwork without asking anyone’s permission. It’s the placement of the statue that gives it half its meaning. Sauce for the goose - if you believe that an artist just Doing Their Thing without regard to anyone else’s opinion and let the chips fall where they may, is the right way to go about your art, then you can hardly complain about someone else following the same pattern.
Pepe’s creator actually does have a legal case against the facist meme-makers AIUI, but following it up would be a full-time job in itself - no wonder he’s decided to walk away from it all to save his sanity
You’re taking a stand against cleanliness? What’s next, godliness?
ETA: 
That’s not true at all, Pepe is one of the most popular reaction images. The alt-rightists make up a minority of Pepe posters.
The same “protection” the law grants you against having your house robbed. Some, I suppose, as far as deterrence goes. But mostly it’s on you. Cops aren’t going to protect your house 24-7 just like the copyright office isn’t going to scour the internet 24-7 for infringement. If you don’t have an army of lawyers – hell, even if you do – good luck whacking all those moles.
Not in my experience but I’ll accept that we must travel in different internet circles.
EVERYONE loves Hypno-Toad.
Well, there are a few differences. For starters, a public square in a city’s office district is not a work of art like a statue or a drawing. You can’t really “re-contextualise” it in the same way.
More importantly, Charging Bull did not re-contextualise anything in the sense of assigning a new, negative meaning to it. Instead, it symbolizes the people who work in those offices in a very positive and sympathetic manner. The story would be different if he had placed his monument to capitalism in a park which was known as a gathering place for hippies, or if he had placed in the Financial District a statue of a caricatured Evil Banker, greedily counting his money while stamping on the fingers of poor people trying to climb up from the gutter.
But most importantly, Charging Bull was an original work of art and Fearless Girl was a publicity stunt by a billion-dollar company. I think it’s OK to have different standards, legally and morally, for authentic works of art versus commercial marketing activities. Is it hypocrisy to say that if a private artist does something clever with the Coca-Cola logo, that should be allowed as Fair Use, but if Coca-Cola wants to use an artist’s work in their advertisements then they should have to get permission and pay royalties?
The two key differences are that the statue was adding a new creative element and that it was specifically relevant to the original piece of art. Copy-and-mascotize doesn’t create anything new or provide commentary or context for the original, nor does it really draw on the original’s context. It smacks of a lack of creativity, or even simple laziness.
Again, I’m not arguing about what should or should not be allowable. I just think it’s not a good example for the comparison you wanted to draw.
Yes, that would be the “copied and used as a mascot” version I mentioned.
(Sorry for the delayed response–I sort of forgot about the thread after my initial post.)
I fully support the Charging Bull artist’s right not to have his art used in someone else’s project if he doesn’t like the project, and that option is available to him right now - he can take the bull out of the square. If for some reason that’s being prevented - well, I disapprove of that too. It’s his statue, he can do what he likes with it. But his expectation of being consulted beforehand is incredibly entitled, given that he himself didn’t consult with anyone before dropping his statue in. You can’t hold others to moral standards you don’t follow yourself.
As for Fearless Girl - I’m a bit meh about her myself. I agree with those who say that the fact that she’s a small girl makes her a kind of wishy-washy non-threatening pseudo-symbol of women’s empowerment. If they REALLY wanted an artwork about fighting the power, I’d suggest a grown woman in gumboots holding a rifle and a cattle-prod - now that would be confronting. But the fact that she’s a commissioned work of art is neither here nor there. People can take that into account when judging the piece - I do. But being paid for by a large corporate entity has no bearing on whether she should be allowed in the space.
The Pepe equivalent of all this would be not so much the Nazi memes but … suppose the Matt Furie had done a Pepe mural on someone’s business place overnight. The business owners see it in the morning and they’re a bit taken aback but eh, what the hell, they kinda like it, and they let it stay. Next year it’s the elections and being committed Republicans they have VOTE TRUMP signs all up and down their windows. Would Matt Furie have a cause for complaint against them because they’ve made it seem like he’s a Trumpist?
Hmm, I think that analogy would fit better if:
[ol]
[li]the mural was in a business area but it was on the wall of a public building belonging to the local municipality, rather than to a specific business;[/li][li]they did not just put Trump signs in the vicinity of the mural, but added something like a text balloon to make Pepe say “vote Trump”.[/li][/ol]
Still, I see your point. But I see the bull creator’s point too, and I don’t think he is necessarily a hypocrite for thinking that the two situations are not equivalent.