Dutch artist Hofmann's "Big Yellow Duck" is popular all over the world, but the issue of its originality has recently become the focus. Some Chinese netizens asked: If it has the same form as a bath duck toy, but if it is enlarged in size, can the copyright belong to the artist? This question immediately aroused great repercussions in the art circle and triggered questions.
Inspired by "Made in China"
Many people still remember the news about Hoffman angrily criticizing the "copycat yellow duck" that has spread all over the world, but they did not expect that he is now involved in Copyright quagmire. In mid-July, young artist Xing Xin expressed doubts about the copyright issue of "Big Yellow Duck" on his blog. He believed that Hoffman enlarged a ready-made original yellow duck into a "Big Yellow Duck" and then changed the "Big Yellow Duck" Developing derivatives and flowing them into the market constitutes infringement. He asked: Is this infringement of other people's intellectual property rights in the name of art, or is it secretly colluding with business?
If you trace the origin of Hoffmann's creation, there is indeed a "handle" to grasp. Hoffmann's "Big Yellow Duck" has been touring the world since 2007. Decades ago, the little yellow duck as a toiletries product was born. In terms of appearance, the "Big Yellow Duck" is just a "little yellow duck". "It's just a giant version. Hoffman also admitted that the idea came from a painting of a little yellow duck in the museum. The shape of the "big yellow duck" is enlarged based on the rubber duck produced by a toy factory in Hong Kong.
Xing Xin’s doubts were supported by many people. Critic Chen Mo commented on Weibo: "Judging from the appearance, the suspicion of plagiarism is very serious." Feng Jiamin, president of the Shenzhen Creative Design Intellectual Property Promotion Association, believed: "The big yellow duck is indeed suspected of infringement, but it is difficult to obtain evidence. It is now If the finished product is used directly to create works of art, it must be suspected of infringement.”
But some people support Hoffman. Independent curator Bao Dong said that Hoffman's artistic method of creating "Big Yellow Duck" is not new, but he incorporated his own ideas into the process of enlarging the original object. "Ideas are very important. This is an important part of artistic creation." .
At the beginning of the online controversy, Hoffman was in Chengdu to discuss the "Big Yellow Duck" tour exhibition. Before that, it was reported that he had authorized Beijing to exhibit the "Big Yellow Duck" in September. In the face of copyright issues raised by the media, he has not responded directly. But he admitted: "Big Yellow Duck" has not yet been registered in any country in the world. Some netizens couldn't help but joke: "After making the whole world go crazy and then getting himself into a quagmire of copyright, is Hoffman doing performance art?"
"Big Yellow Duck" may not be protected by copyright law
p>
Does Hoffmann's "Big Yellow Duck" have its own copyright? If not, how could he "authorize" the exhibition and sale of derivatives everywhere? Two scholars from Shenzhen University Law School, Li Yang and Zhao Mingxin, expressed their views on this.
Zhao Mingxin said that the creator of the yellow duck may own the copyright of the artwork or the patent right of the industrial design, but since the little yellow duck has existed for nearly a hundred years, it does not have these two intellectual property rights. No longer protected by law. According to our country's legislation, the protection period of copyright property rights is 50 years, while the protection period of design patent rights is only 10 years. It is similar in other countries and regions. Therefore, the Yellow Duck has already entered the public domain and anyone can use it, even for commercial purposes. Therefore, there is no problem for Hoffman to make a big yellow duck for exhibition, but he does not have the right to authorize others to make little yellow duck toys.
“Practical works of art such as the bathing yellow duck only constitute works in the sense of copyright law when they constitute a ‘work of art’.” Li Yang said that the yellow duck has been used as a bath toy for nearly a hundred years. , whether it is the duck's body, head, eyes, or the combination of these three elements, they are all simple uses and combinations of creative elements in the public domain. They are no different from duck images in nature and cannot constitute a "work of art". Therefore, it is not protected by copyright law. Even the original Rubber Duck is difficult to qualify as a work protected by copyright law, let alone Hoffman's "Big Yellow Duck." Therefore, he believes that as far as the rubber duck is concerned, no matter its size, it 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, there are many examples of daily necessities transformed into works of art: the most famous one is the French artist Marcel · Duchamp's "Fountain".
In 1917, he named a male urinal bought from a store "Fountain", signed it with his name, and sent it to the American Independent Artists Exhibition for display as a work of art, which became a landmark event in the history of modern art. . Sculptor Oldenberg will enlarge daily necessities, such as badmintons, baseball gloves, clothespins, etc., and place them outdoors as environmental sculptures. People can't help but ask: Where is the dividing line between practical products and works of art?
In this regard, art critic Sun Zhenhua believes that there is no objective standard for practical products and works of art. It mainly depends on what content the artist himself gives it. "Artwork is the endowment of a concept. For example, if a urinal is placed in the furniture market, it is just a urinal. But if it is placed in an art gallery, its relationship with people will change. This is an evolution of past artistic concepts. A kind of subversion" (Liang
Ting Ye Yongshi)