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 (范可欽).
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.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
The Ministry of the Interior late last month released its report on homes that consumed low amounts of electricity in the second half of last year, offering a glimpse of the latest data on “vacant houses” — homes using less than 60 kilowatt-hours of electricity a month. The report showed that Taiwan had 914,196 vacant houses, or a vacancy rate of 9.79 percent, up from 9.32 percent in the first half of last year and the highest since 2008, when it was 9.81 percent. Of the nation’s 22 administrative areas, Lienchiang County (Matsu) had the highest vacancy rate at 17.4
RSS