<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Balloon sculpture 'inspired'? Let's call a spade a spade
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to Mr Gerald Ng's letter on Thursday, 'Two balloons - and which came first', and the ST Forum note saying that Mathis Neidhart's work was 'inspired' by Jeff Koons'.
I have not seen either piece of work but, judging from the photos, they look almost identical.
If memory serves me well, I think many 'inspired' handbag craftsmen in Shenzhen were taken to task by brands like Louis Vuitton, and 'inspired' movie-makers at Holiday Plaza in Johor Baru had their shops raided and their wares confiscated. Even 'inspired' software makers at Sim Lim Square were taken to task by Adobe and Microsoft.
Let's just call a spade a spade, and not pass off a piece of blatant copyright infringement as inspired art.
Singapore has been promoting itself as a nation that encourages creativity and respects intellectual property. Surely such public acts of copying must not be tolerated and we must not look like fools accepting explanations from foreign artists that their copied works were 'inspired' pieces.
In situations like this, do we have to wait for the originator of the artwork to take legal action against the copy, or do the relevant authorities and organisers of the exhibition have the right to take appropriate action and seek legal redress? Alexander Lau
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to Mr Gerald Ng's letter on Thursday, 'Two balloons - and which came first', and the ST Forum note saying that Mathis Neidhart's work was 'inspired' by Jeff Koons'.
I have not seen either piece of work but, judging from the photos, they look almost identical.
If memory serves me well, I think many 'inspired' handbag craftsmen in Shenzhen were taken to task by brands like Louis Vuitton, and 'inspired' movie-makers at Holiday Plaza in Johor Baru had their shops raided and their wares confiscated. Even 'inspired' software makers at Sim Lim Square were taken to task by Adobe and Microsoft.
Let's just call a spade a spade, and not pass off a piece of blatant copyright infringement as inspired art.
Singapore has been promoting itself as a nation that encourages creativity and respects intellectual property. Surely such public acts of copying must not be tolerated and we must not look like fools accepting explanations from foreign artists that their copied works were 'inspired' pieces.
In situations like this, do we have to wait for the originator of the artwork to take legal action against the copy, or do the relevant authorities and organisers of the exhibition have the right to take appropriate action and seek legal redress? Alexander Lau
