Blogh | Pittsburgh City Paper: Two bits of info from the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust’s press event today, about tomorrow’s opening of the Pittsburgh International Festival of Firsts, featuring the much-ballyhooed Rubber Duck Project.
First, if you want to see the 40-foot-tall, bright-yellow Duck being towed upstream for its sure-to-be dramatic arrival at the Roberto Clemente Bridge (during the Rubber Duck Bridge Party), get there early. The party starts at 5:30 p.m., and sources in the Trust say the duck could arrive as early as 6 p.m. (Once it gets there, it'll bob all night then head to a mooring spot down by the Point for at least the next three weeks, said the Trust’s Paul Organisak, who curated the PIFOF.)
6 comments:
I really think this whole Duck infringement thing is quite silly. The Trust brought the Duck to Pittsburgh as a celebration of art. It seems like a symbol of the festival, which is meant to bring to artistic inspiration to those wanting to see it. shouldn't the Trust have anticipated this occurrence of someone wanting to make a shirt with an image that kind of looks like the Duck? It seems to me it was bound to happen. On the other hand, I was glad to read about an artist who seems so confident in his work that he is not threatened by others branching off of it. I think to a certain point every artist has to realize that his or her art will become part of the public once someone other than his or self sees it, and this artist seems to have a good idea of that.
Infringement on a duck? Rubber duckies cannot possibly belong to any single person or corporation. While yes, that specific giant duck is the artistic property of hofman, t shirts featuring the duck are not meant to profit of or infringe upon the duck, they are meant to profit off a cultural event, like selling t shirts that say "4th of july" or "steelers"
I think it is hilarious that the artist seems to be so indifferent over the issue of Joe Wos' shirts after all of the rage caused by the Cultural Trust last week. By the artist saying he does not care that the t-shirts are being sold, he is also telling us that the Cultural Trust is upset purely because Joe Wos is profiting off of their investment. Before reading this article, I thought that perhaps the Cultural Trust was upset partly because Joe Wos was using someone else's art for his own benefit. I think this entire argument boils down to the fact that the Cultural Trust wants to gain as much publicity and money off of the duck. They do not really care about preserving the integrity of the artist's work. So, in the end, it seems to be that the Cultural Trust is being a bit hypocritical.
I think this Duck is great as a form of entertainment, but, I think that this conversation of infringement is kind of absurd. I have been seeing ducks all around town as what I thought was a symbol of the festival. I don't quite understand how they didn't see this coming. It was almost as though it was inevitably going to happen. After all, the duck has basically been the single most attended attraction in this festival so far. I think it is sad that this piece of art is getting the most attention of all of the amazing pieces that have a lot more substance. Also, rubber ducks are a widely used thing in this world. There isn't a copyright on the use of a rubber duck, is there?
If Hofman seeks legal action, Wos should definitely not be along in the defense lineup. When I visited the Duck over the weekend, I noticed ducks everywhere throughout downtown Pittsburgh: hanging in storefront windows, painted on walls, they were all over! Even though these ducks aren't being sold, they are still being used as heavy advertisement, and they seem to be working. I appreciate Hofman's relaxed attitude concerning this "issue," which I would argue is not an issue at all. The artist claims the purpose of the duck is to make people happy (and he certainly succeeded in my case), so filing a lawsuit would bring negative and unwanted press attention to put a damper on the excitement and good will of the Festival of Firsts.
The thing that I found completely ridiculous in this article was the fact that the artist said he said "rubber ducks of 15 meters, 18 meters, 20 meters, they belong to me." So if I made a 25 meter tall rubber duck, would that be outside the size range of the artist's intellectual property? Is changing scale really enough to create a copyright or disregard one? Does the purpose play a part in it? If I created a giant rubber duck to advertise my soap business, rather than sell to cities in order to bring joy to people, is the purpose different enough to disregard copyright? This brings up many questions, but I feel they are important.
Post a Comment