|
EDITORIAL: ¡¥Rubber
Duck¡¦ fiasco shames Taiwan
Dutch conceptual artist Florentijn Hofman intended to bring joy to the world
when he first unveiled his oversized rubber duck sculpture in 2007. He hoped the
giant inflatable bathroom toy would conjure up spectators¡¦ childhood memories.
As it already had in cities and countries around the world, the Rubber Duck
project created a buzz when it came to Taiwan.
However, in an unexpected twist, the duck¡¦s arrival triggered an intellectual
property rights row, with event organizer the Keelung City Government taking
advantage of Hofman¡¦s popular inflatable sculpture by selling unauthorized
yellow duck-themed products.
It is a sham and a disastrous turn of events for Taiwan that this artistic
display has been spoiled and turned into a farce.
Disputes arose between the artist and event organizers as all kinds of
unauthorized rubber ducks were put on sale before the arrival of the gigantic
Rubber Duck in Keelung Harbor. These ugly, cheap ducks ruffled Hofman¡¦s
feathers. He claimed his copyright had been infringed by the organizers and he
considered lodging a lawsuit against the Keelung City Government and former
event planner Jerry Fan (S¥i´Ü).
The Taiwan Smart Card Corp also allegedly infringed the copyright by issuing
duck-themed stored-value cards.
In addition to the sale of counterfeit rubber duck-themed products, the Keelung
City Government also sold tickets for two newly established yellow duck
exhibition halls, which totally contradicts Hofman¡¦s vision of bringing people
happiness by floating the giant yellow duck around the world. The artistic
effect envisioned by Hofman has been completely ignored.
With these commercial activities surrounding Keelung harbor, where the Rubber
Duck is stationed, it is almost impossible for anyone to feel the tranquility
and simplicity the sculpture was intended to evoke.
To show his strong disapproval of the local government¡¦s activities, Hofman
refused to attend a ceremony marking the arrival of the duck. Hofman called the
whole thing a ¡§commercial circus.¡¨
In a ridiculous defense of his actions, Fan said there had been no violation of
intellectual property rights as the iconic yellow rubber duck is the common
property of all mankind and does not belong to any individual. Fan quit his job
because of the controversy.
The dispute to some extent reflects weak awareness of intellectual property
rights violation in Taiwan and indicates that public eduction should be stepped
up.
What makes the situation worse is that the Keelung City Government originally
planned to install a mechanism to rotate the sculpture through a full 360
degrees. The idea was dropped following Hofman¡¦s disapproval, but the incident
showed the government¡¦s lack of taste and respect for pop culture.
In recent years, Taiwan has made constant efforts to lose its notorious
reputation for making illegal replicas by stepping up intellectual property
protection regulations and cracking down on those who break them. The country
has achieved considerable success in this regard and in 2009 it was removed from
the US Trade Representative¡¦s Special 301 Report of countries with insufficient
intellectual property rights protection.
Do not let the country¡¦s efforts to protect intellectual property rights be in
vain. Stop buying and selling cheap knockoffs of the Rubber Duck.
|
