Inspired by "Made in China"
Many people still remember the news that Hoffman angrily denounced the "fake yellow duck" everywhere, but they didn't expect that he was now caught in the mud of copyright. In mid-July, Xing Xin, a young artist, questioned the copyright of "Rubber Duck" on his blog, arguing that Hoffman enlarged a completed original yellow duck into a "rubber duck" and then developed a derivative of "rubber duck" to put it on the market, which constituted infringement. He asked: Is this an infringement of other people's intellectual property rights in the name of art, or is it a collusion with business?
If traced back to the source, Hoffman's creation does have a "handle" to grasp. Hoffman's "Rubber Duck" began to tour around the world in 2007. A little yellow duck was born as a bathing product decades ago. In appearance, "Rubber Duck" is just a giant version of "Little Yellow Duck". Hoffman also admitted that his idea came from a painting with a little yellow duck in the museum. The shape of the "rubber duck" is enlarged according to the rubber yellow duck produced by a toy factory in Hong Kong.
Xing Xin's questioning has won the support of many people. Commentator Chen Mo commented on Weibo: "From the appearance, plagiarism is very suspected." Feng, president of Shenzhen Creative Design Intellectual Property Promotion Association, said: "Rubber ducks are indeed suspected of infringement, but it is difficult to obtain evidence. Creating works of art directly from finished products is definitely suspected of infringement. "
But some people support Hoffman. Dong Bao, an independent curator, said that Hoffman's artistic method of creating "Rubber Duck" is not novel, but he incorporated his own ideas in the process of expanding the original work. Creativity is very important, and it is an important link in artistic creation.
At the beginning of the online controversy, Hoffman was discussing the exhibition tour of "Rubber Duck" in Chengdu. Prior to this, it was reported that he had authorized Beijing to exhibit "Rubber Duck" in September. Facing the copyright issues raised by the media, he never responded positively. But he admits that "rubber duck" has not been registered in any country in the world. Some netizens can't help but ridicule: "Let the world fall into madness and let yourself fall into the mud of copyright. Is Hoffman doing performance art? "
"Rubber Duck" may not be protected by copyright law.
Does Hoffman's rubber duck have its own copyright? If not, how can he "authorize" the exhibition of derivatives everywhere? Two scholars, Li Yang and Zhao Mingxin, from Shenzhen University Law School, expressed their views on this issue.
Zhao Mingxin said that the creator of Yellow Duck may enjoy the copyright of artistic works or the patent right of industrial design, but because Little Yellow Duck has existed for nearly a hundred years, these two intellectual property rights are no longer protected by law. China's legislation stipulates that the protection period of copyright is 50 years, while the patent right of design is only 10 years, and other countries and regions are similar. Therefore, the yellow duck has already entered the public domain, and anyone can use it, even commercially. So Hoffman can make rubber ducks for exhibitions, but he has no right to authorize others to make yellow duck toys.
"Practical works of art such as bathing yellow ducks only constitute works of art in the sense of copyright law." Li Yang said that yellow ducks have existed as bath toys for nearly a hundred years. Whether it is the duck's body, head, eyes or the combination of these three elements, it is a simple application and combination of creative elements in the public domain, which is no different from the duck image in nature and cannot constitute a "work of art", so it is not protected by copyright law. Even the original "Rubber Duckling" is hard to identify as a work protected by copyright law, let alone Hoffman's "Rubber Duckling". Therefore, he believes that rubber yellow duck, regardless of its size, is not a work protected by copyright law.
The "dividing line" between practical products and works of art
In fact, in the history of art, it is not uncommon for daily necessities to be transformed into works of art: the most famous one is Fountain by French artist marcel duchamp. 19 17, he named a male urinal bought from a shop as "Spring", and signed his name on it, which was sent to an independent artist exhibition in the United States as a work of art, becoming a landmark event in the history of modern art. The sculptor Odenberg enlarged the daily necessities according to the original objects, such as badminton, baseball gloves and clothes pegs. And put them outdoors as environmental sculptures. People can't help asking: where is the dividing line between practical products and works of art?
In this regard, Sun Zhenhua, an art critic, believes that there is no objective standard for practical goods and works of art, mainly depending on what the artist gives it. "Art is a gift of thought. For example, put a urinal in the furniture market, which is a urinal. When it is placed in an art museum, its relationship with people has changed, which is a subversion of past artistic concepts. " (Liang
Ye Ting Warriors)