Design of the New Generation Design Exhibition poster. VS Lomography design pattern.
The design company, Chen Yongji Design Co., contracted to create the main visual for the event, was suspected of plagiarizing an advertisement for the Lomography Spinner 360° camera. After the news was exposed, the Taiwan Creative Design Center immediately withdrew all promotional materials and worked on reproducing new ones, including posters, banners, website ads, guidebooks, and exhibition designs. The company's director apologized to the Lomography Taiwan General Manager and published a public apology in major newspapers. Lomography accepted the apology and signed a settlement agreement, and no further action was taken. The Taiwan Creative Design Center also released a statement on May 16, 2011.
The head of the design company, Chen Yongji, apologized to Lomography Taiwan's general manager, Jeansman Lee, in person and issued a public apology in major newspapers such as United Daily News, Liberty Times, China Times, Commercial Times, and Economic Daily News. Lee accepted the apology orally and reported the incident to the company's headquarters. The company eventually decided to sign a settlement agreement with Chen Yongji's company and no longer pursue further responsibility.
The event organizer, Taiwan Creative Design Center, also issued a statement on May 16, 2011.Link
The incident of intellectual property infringement at the New Generation Design Exhibition, which has been held for 30 years and is a valuable event for the design industry in Taiwan and globally, has sparked widespread negative reactions. The design company, organizer, and sponsor Bone Bounce have received a lot of attention and inquiries. After receiving the poster design draft, we did not notice the plagiarism until the incident broke out and sparked discussions and criticisms. We are in the eye of the storm and can only cooperate with the organizer's follow-up measures and hope that the incident can be resolved quickly.
Why did it take us 10 years to voice our opinions now?
Taiwan Creative Center was established in 2003 and later renamed Taiwan Design Research Institute. Two years later in 2005, Bone Studio was also founded in Taiwan. Both organizations have been promoting and advancing Taiwan's design industry for over a decade, transitioning from manufacturing to branding. We have participated in various exhibitions across Europe, Asia, and America with Taiwan Creative Center.
In 2011, the three main sponsors of the New Generation Design Exhibition were the Japanese brand MUJI and two Taiwanese original design brands, Domo and Bone. As designers in Taiwan, it was the most reasonable choice for us to sponsor the exhibition. We firmly believe that Taiwan has the necessary design and brand essence, and we always strive to enhance brand value through design.
This case of the infringement of the poster image for the New Generation Design Exhibition is only a copyright issue for a flat image. As long as you provide the "valid" creator's creation information and date, you can ask a lawyer to send a letter to assert your "copyright" rights.
In other fields, such as patents and trademarks, infringement can still occur. Bone has won numerous international design awards for its products over the past decade, but this has also attracted many "competitors" who may reference or imitate their designs. There are three types of competition (imitation) that I classify, but whether there is actual infringement will be determined by lawyers and judges.
- Complete copying, even the logo, website, and customer service phone number are exactly the same.
- Similar working principle with slight adjustments to their own logo.
- Established companies with resources and history investing in the development of similar products to enter the competitive market.
Basically, the three types of competition are all about profitability. They enter the market to grab a share of the pie, design and develop similar products to earn profits. The difference lies in how much resources they are willing to invest in design and development. Whether the first and second types of competitors can assert their rights depends on the scope of your patent or trademark registration and whether they can file a lawsuit to protect their rights. When a resource-rich company enters the market to compete with a similar design, they usually check the scope of your publicly disclosed patents and avoid infringing on them. Although this may not constitute an infringement in legal terms and is considered legal competition, it is essentially a concept of reference and imitation. In my opinion, it cannot be called original. Even if such a brand succeeds and grows, when you rely on plagiarism to reach the maximum, there will be no one left to copy in front of you, and you still have to face the issue of originality.
Let's discuss why people resort to copying and counterfeiting. If you ask 100 business owners if they want to design and innovate, 99 will say yes. However, when they realize the cost of innovation - personnel, development expenses, time - many will back down. Some will take ready-made "public models" from factories and modify them to make money, possibly without realizing they are infringing on others' rights if not sued.
In 2011, a Taiwan-based publishing group purchased counterfeit products, Bone Collection's famous design "Horn Stand speaker," as a promotional gift to boost sales of their travel magazine. The product had a patent, and patent infringement is a civil lawsuit of "compensation regardless of fault," not to mention the counterfeit product also bore the Bone Collection trademark, which is a criminal offense of "public prosecution."
After the prosecutor initially decided not to prosecute, we filed an appeal and the CEO of the company, who is a person of integrity, personally appeared in court to explain the situation. The case was finally settled with a compensation payment.
Recently, another company was selling silicone straws on a crowdfunding platform and giving away what appears to be a knockoff eco-cup as a purchase incentive. When asked about it, they claimed they were not selling knockoff products and that they were giving them away for free. They are unaware that using copyrighted content without authorization constitutes infringement, regardless of whether or not they are selling it.
These cases illustrate that most people are unfamiliar with intellectual property concepts. Even industry experts and opinion leaders such as design firms, publishers, brands, and crowdfunding platforms can still have situations of possible infringement. Companies or individuals who knowingly continue to infringe for profit are unacceptable and must be held accountable within the legal limits.
For individuals or companies seeking to do creative work, whether business owners, design directors, or designers themselves, it is important to be vigilant and remind colleagues to respect the creativity of others. If companies, bosses, or superiors refuse to comply, then consider finding a company worth investing time in for design.
As for the general consumer, it is understandable if they are unaware of copyright infringement. However, if possible, support genuine and original products to help those who strive to innovate continue to create new works, and contribute to the advancement of creativity in the world.