The Fearless Girl statue facing the Charging Bull in lower Manhattan in New York City. Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com

The Fearless Girl is getting out of the path of the Charging Bull, which may also allow the New York City government and the owner of the Fearless Girl to sidestep a lawsuit.

The popular Fearless Girl statue, installed last year athwart the iconic Charging Bull statue in Manhattan's Financial District, will be moved a few blocks away to the New York Stock Exchange, Mayor Bill de Blasio's office announced on Thursday.

The de Blasio administration cited safety concerns with the teeming crowds of pedestrians passing by the statues, which stand on a narrow cobblestone median on Broadway, and visitors stopping to snap photos as the reason for the move, according to a news release.

The news release also stated that it is planning to move the Charging Bull somewhere near the Stock Exchange.

Fearless Girl, commissioned by State Street Global Advisors, was installed in March 2017 to recognize the firm's efforts to promote more women to corporate boards and to coincide with International Women's Day.

But in addition to selfie-taking tourists, Fearless Girl also drew the ire of Charging Bull sculptor Arturo Di Modica, who said the new statue—which appears to be staring down the bull—altered the dynamic and the symbolism of his work, and thus violates his rights under copyright law and the Visual Artists Rights Act.

Di Modica initially installed the bull in front of the Stock Exchange after the 1987 stock market crash. He intended the statute, which was installed without a permit in the middle of the night, to stand as a symbol of the resilience of the American financial system.

The bull was later trotted over to its current location in Bowling Green.

In a letter sent in April 2017 to de Blasio's office on Di Modica's behalf, attorneys from Siegel Teitelbaum & Evans and McLaughlin & Stern likened the placement of Fearless Girl to a marketing gimmick and that it would behoove the city and State Street to move the newer statute and pay damages to Di Modica.

The attorneys argued that it derives its artistic power from the presence from the bull, which is given a “menacing air” by the placement of the smaller statue.

“The Charging Bull no longer carries a positive, optimistic message,” the attorneys wrote. “Rather it has been transformed to negative force and a threat.”

Norman Siegel, the former head of the New York Civil Liberties Union and a name partner at Siegel Teitelbaum, said that his client has not given the go-ahead to sue because of the cost of litigation, but noted that his client is still within the three-year statute of limitations for copyright infringement.

Both the mayor's office and State Street said threats of legal action played no part in the decision to move Fearless Girl.

“Our concern here has been safety—those threats had zero effect on our decision-making,” said Jane Meyer, a spokeswoman for the de Blasio's office, in an email.

Paul Callan, of counsel to Edelman & Edelman who has opined on possible legal issues arising from the showdown between the two statues but is not involved with the matter, said in an interview that Di Modica would likely have a strong argument for copyright infringement if he brought a copyright infringement suit over Fearless Girl.

“We're talking about a radical change in the message of a work of art,” he said.

But if Fearless Girl and Charging Bull are permanently decoupled, Callan said it wouldn't be out of the question for the owners of Fearless Girl to assert that the statue amounts to political speech and that moving her out of the bull's path might infringe on their First Amendment rights.

“They should probably get a third artist to create a statue of a lawyer standing in between the two works of art,” Callan said.