@cstanhope@identi.ca Differing interpretations come with the territory for any creative endeavor (indeed, I too was surprised at what he said he meant to communicate — I would have guessed that the bull represented the difficulty of business or economics, or that it represented "risk"). Apparently it represented "the establishment" or such to the other sculptor. Fine and good. People can disagree about art. But this is an instance of somebody _altering_ a work, which the original artist had every right to feel slighted by. Commentary would have been duplicating the statue with the addition of the defiant girl.
And I'm certain that the copyright claim is the legal move he took just because it's the only tool available. It'll be interesting to see how that turns out. We all know copyright ain't gettin' weaker these days, although mostly that's just for well-heeled and connected broadcasters & publishers. Sculptors don't usually have a lot of pull.