A streamer can be carefully removed from the official group photo; an audition soundtrack that repeatedly shouts "AudioJungle" can pass the review and be played publicly at the awards ceremony. Is Jiang Wanan City Government careful or careless? Putting the two things side by side, a more compelling question emerges: Where is this team focusing its attention?
On October 29, at the Taipei Design Awards ceremony, the "Ocean Current Ribbon" worn by award-winning designer Lai Qianchen disappeared from the official photos. The opening video of the same scene was pointed out for using a soundtrack with a voice watermark. The Industrial Development Board relayed the production company's statement that the trial version was misused due to fine-tuning of the film. It is particularly ironic that a ceremony to commend the value of design has made the use of materials and respect for creation controversial.
The watermark cannot directly prove that there is no purchase authorization. The city government should still provide authorization records to explain the acquisition time and review process. However, even if payment is indeed made and the trial version is broadcast on a formal occasion, loopholes in delivery and acceptance have been exposed. Reporting "misuse" to the manufacturer cannot replace the management responsibility of the organizer.
Similar problems have recently occurred one after another in Jiang Wanan’s campaign team. The MV for the campaign song "Taipei Encore" first caused controversy due to the use of images of players such as Chang Yu-cheng, and the company apologized and adjusted the image. Later, actors in city government advertisements protested that their images were unknowingly used in campaign promotions. Although the competition said it had obtained authorization from the city government, it still made adjustments again.
Recently, the "Taipei Policy Island" has also been criticized for imitating Shen Boyang's Policy Island, and the creation prompts clearly refer to the other party's website. Ge Rujun explained that this was a contribution from a netizen and denied plagiarism. The form of reference does not mean infringement, but once the campaign team incorporates the work into the platform, it should clearly explain the source and reference relationship and accept external inspection.
The city government and the campaign team each have their own responsibilities and cannot be confused; several controversies cannot all be labeled as "piracy." However, under the leadership of the same politician, problems with material verification and creative sources have arisen one after another, which is enough to examine its management culture: why do we always wait for the parties concerned to protest and netizens to point out before starting to remedy the situation?
The motive behind the removal of the ribbons still needs to be officially explained; however, the contrast left by this scene is very clear: political symbols are carefully processed, but professional inspections are repeatedly failed. If an organization is accustomed to prioritizing the elimination of things that embarrass its leaders, it is easy to underestimate the rights and feelings of others.
Urban governance requires care, and care needs to be distributed correctly. What truly deserves protection includes the labor of creators, the expression of participants, and the credibility of public records. Jiang Wanan should answer: When can the team focus on repairing a streamer and focus on guarding these boundaries?
(The author is a Kaohsiung citizen)
