▲范可欽與霍夫曼隔空交火，雙方各說各話。（圖／東森新聞）
生活中心／綜合報導
黃色小鴨的版權爭議越演越烈！從原本一面倒支持霍夫曼，到范可欽爆出霍夫曼「收大筆權利金卻不准別人收門票」，開始有不同聲音出現，過去美國玩具公司對霍夫曼抄襲小鴨的指控也再度浮上檯面，更有律師舉例，這樣的小鴨缺乏原創性，在中國是沒有版權保障。霍夫曼團隊則在22日深夜回信給《ETtoday東森新聞雲》，痛批范可欽賺錢的方式「醜陋而廉價」。
黃色小鴨在台灣從高雄、桃園，一路往北到基隆展出，吸引成千上萬的民眾前往合照留念。原本是充滿療癒、開心的喜事，卻在基隆爆發版權爭議。巨型黃色小鴨創作者霍夫曼因不滿現場販售未授權的黃色小鴨相關商品，拒絕來台參加開幕典禮，也逼得已辭去主辦業務的范可欽再上火線面對外界質疑。
對於小鴨的版權爭議，網路上言論原本幾乎一面倒支持霍夫曼，逐漸開始浮現其他不同看法。有人找出台灣早在多年前就有非常類似的小鴨玩具；也有人找到早在1989年，也就是將近24年前，美國玩具公司就曾舉辦的漂流鴨活動，還在90年代推出戴著墨鏡的大黃鴨「Duck Derby」，更到霍夫曼的家鄉荷蘭展出，相對照霍夫曼2007年開始巡迴各地的「Rubber Duck」，玩具公司指控霍夫曼才是抄襲。
受限於無法得知詳細合約內容，網路上言論也多是推測。《ETtoday東森新聞雲》持續追蹤黃色小鴨事件，記者在21日寄信給霍夫曼，詢問是否能對有爭議合約內容做出說明，在22日獲得該團隊回應。信中一開頭表示看到《ETtoday東森新聞雲》有關於范可欽與商品的報導，因此他們特別做出回應。
對於商品授權的爭議，霍夫曼團隊指出，范可欽於六個月前開始參與基隆黃色小鴨策畫團隊，「范可欽在大陸時認識霍夫曼，當時他提出要大量創做相關商品，就已經遭到霍夫曼本人清楚且大聲地拒絕。」但沒想到拒絕後，范反而以迂迴方式繼續製作，霍夫曼團隊指出，「合約內容承諾，不應有其他商業活動行為，必須立即停止。」
霍夫曼透過信件重話批評范可欽在未經授權狀況下，用「廉價和醜陋」的方式來製造商品賺錢。霍夫曼團隊指出，范可欽的種種惡劣行為，加上記者會發表的談話內容不斷「暗箭傷人」，令人憤怒。對於范可欽的不實指控，霍夫曼團隊表示，已經請求法律專員調查相關違約證明，將會採取後續行動。
霍夫曼信件全文如下：
The signed pledge on top opt that , done because of the recent situation says exactly why Mr. Fan is not allowed to have any commercial activities.Please ask our commissioner for this written pledge and the the points they are violating right now.
Mr. Fan is partly responsible of creating this commercial circus around the rubber duck art work in Keelung!
Mr. Fan was from the beginning (around 6 months ago) involved already.Together with our commissioner they met Mr. Hofman in China to speak about the souvenirs.
Mr. Fan wanted to create a lot of merchandise and buy us out for authorization.
Mr. Hofman didn't approve and told them then loud and clear he was against all this merchandise they proposed!
In this sense it is a stab in the back, not cooperating with us and our other original souvenirs.
Choosing the way of going around Mr. Hofman and his strict rules making a lot of unauthorized by Mr. Hofman; cheap and ugly money win merchandise.
Our legal advisor and his team tell us our commissioner is violating this signed pledge and contract on several points.
As signed in the pledge they have to stop all commercial activities.
Our commissioner must perform what they exactly signed in the pledge and contract for.
Mr. Fan nor anyone connected to the commissioner have rights and privileges in the selling any merchandise and should stop directly.Our legal advisor and his team are still investigating on the exact size and impact of the commercial activities and violations.
讀者迴響