Another Artist Using Doll Likenesses Without Crediting?

Good catch! I looked for it last night and could not find it. The original artist is definitely Oleksiy Golonchenko. Educated as a digital artist it shows skill and time invested. At the bottom of this page: http://cargocollective.com/oleksiy/About is his phone number and his email (bottom of the page.) He is definitely a professional artist. He speaks English according to his CV.

This card game used his art. We don't know whether it was commissioned, permitted or not. But Alexsiy needs to know. I am giving you the EXIF data for the game card. You will see that it is only 72 dpi (common dpi for copiers - not digital artists), went through Photoshop with color changes, etc. Check here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/99436201@N04/9369406477/meta/

Our third user of this artist's work was good old MCN. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...411685.-2207520000.1394327539.&type=3&theater My suspicion is he lifted this from the card company who may have (or not) had permission (dubious) to tak it from the original artist.

Did you uncover a 3-for-1? I don't know but it seems to me you write Aleksiy first - and write to him in English!

This was good work to make these discoveries!

 

On Elfwood I've received a notice from two visitors that ' ghostdragonpoet' had put up an image of mine without my consent. "Adi" informed me there was additional misuse of photographs from the Doll Community as well. I coincidentally own a doll (due to a fellow Elfwooder ) and registered here a while ago.
Allthough my drawing has little do to with Ball-Jointed Dolls, I wish to state this for the record:

User ghostdragonpoet has posted a drawing of mine on DeviantART without my permission:
http://ghostdragonpoet.deviantart.com/art/Skeletal-Hound-31698064

I haven't given any copyrights to said user, which has the original title: 'The NecroMancer' and can be initially found here:
http://www.elfwood.com/~corstiaensen/The-NecroMancer.2641965.html

DeviantART has received a request to take the image down.

 

Borqje - I knew when I saw that drawing that MCN lacked the skills to render it. I am so sorry this happened to you but again, I am so grateful you are now aware.

He's taking complete credit - as the drawing is entitled "Skeletal Hound BY Matthew Christopher Nelson"

I'm glad you wrote to Deviant Art. Let's hope it is down on his pages soon.

Fellow DOA-ers, This is just one more proof that MCN's "old" DA account is full of copies. http://ghostdragonpoet.deviantart.com/gallery/

Please keep hunting.

 

I have been keeping up with this and scrolling through the images on Facebook to see if I recognize anything. Well his latest image change on profile picture and I truly believe it is from ice age with glasses photoshopped in along with his normal filters. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152691410741686&set=a.425045206685.195153.504411685&type=1

edit: I did find the pic it is ice age. I hope this works. http://images.search.yahoo.com/imag...4bo&sigi=12l4gd7gr&.crumb=XvutqkoaC1G&fr=ipad

 

Yeah that is definitely the child from Ice Age. Having seen it many times thanks to my daughter, neices and nephews, I know that image very well. This guy makes me so mad, ergh just ergh. *goes back into lurker mode now*

 

saskha: I think that that one has 'not' been found yet. Your thought that it is 'AiL' is a good one. But, look at the hair: it looks like mohair in 'his drawimg'. And, the line of the clothing in the 'drawing' is definitely, i would say, straight across on the bodice with sleeves. The original doll also probably was wearing a head band in the picture.

The original photograph also might have a watermark down on the left corner, as he has built up a cloud of black down there.

 

Well, the deeper I went on his FB page, the more furry art I found. I alerted a friend who actually keeps track of this kind of theft for the furry community, and as of last night he is posting all over the place about it.

This dweeb thought he had it bad with the BJD community....he is going to wish he had never been born when the fur-fandom gets done with him.

 

I can imagine they'd all love to get a piece of him. He's pissed off not one, but probably even two tight-knit online communities.. Even if he doesn't see *immediate* consequences from the individual artists online, he's going to see some trouble from the big names like Wizards of the Coast and Disney. This guy just pushes the bounds of belief.

 

Here is an interesting article on copyright infringement....

http://www.contentfac.com/copyright-infringement-penalties-are-scary/

 

It's a lot of text for me to get through but if I'm not mistaken.... 'technically' all the copy-written material we posted as "this is stolen' is breaking those same laws just because we passed it around? O_o confuse is I...

 

We apparently had an issue with copyright infringement of an image at the company I work for. They try to be "fun" and have special names for what tier of employee you are (the more clients you can take calls for, the higher your tier). As a small company they decided to reward employees that reached the highest tier level, 4, which a small goody bag that had a drawstring bag, a t-shirt, a pair of headphones and a water bottle. On each of these, save for the headphones, they had the name of the tier and an image of a little ninja guy (as that tier was called Ninja). Well, apparently before I started working there they stopped this because the company that printed the t-shirts found out that the image of the guy wasn't the company's, it was just something they found online, and refused to print anymore shirts with the image.

Yeah, the shirts were all company gifts, but it was wrong for them to use the image without permission, which the printer wouldn't stand for. And I guess rather than try to track down the artist of the image and ask permission (and possibly pay to use the image) they opted to just stop giving out the stuff. They did try to do a contest for employees to redesign an image for the tiers, but that was a big fail in different ways. (Ask artists to design something for you in less than 2 weeks for nothing, yeah, that'll go over real well)

 

Not certain if my opinion on this matter would help, but I am attending one of the best Art University in Australia. This university teaches what copyright is.
The simple truths about this guy is that:
1. He is breaking copyright
2. He is attempting to make money off other people's original work
3. (This one might be the most important one of the lot)
Every person that purchased a bjd (from a bjd artist, a bjd company, dealer or entity legally selling bjd) purchased the right to create and use those bjd in photos and artworks of their own. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone purchased the right to make money off the bjd purchased. As that is making profit from another company's products. You need a legal agreement to do this, usually a bloody good legal contract on all sides.
The fact that this guy doesn't own any of these bjd, has stolen photos from the owners, and is claiming them as his own work is all illegal.
He has no legal basis for being allowed to use any of this. And just imagine if it actually got into print, kickstarter and all the people involved in his project could be held legally responsible.
I know most people would have already done this but please remember to: put your name as the artist/ photographer on your photos, the year photographed, and a blooming copyright sign. Don't put it in an out of the way corner of the photo, that was fine for paintings back in the 1800s when they couldn't be mass produced, put the details in a central location stating that this work is yours. NOT HIS!
As an art student and an artist in training what this guy is doing makes me want to be sick, just wrong on all accounts. This person is not an artist he is a sham. And should be made to take some responsibility for his so called 'artistic' irresponsibility.

If anyone is interested I could ask the professionals in my University what the bjd community could do legally in this case. All of our professors here are also fantastic artists in their varied fields, and have some good connections .

ladies, gentlemen please make him pay and all of us have a good day ^^.

 

(From the above article
Current Fair Use image copyright laws say that you’re financially liable for posting copyrighted images, even if:

• You did it by accident
• You immediately take down the picture after receiving a DMCA takedown notice
• The picture is resized
• If the picture is licensed to your web developer (Getty Images requires that you get your own license, thankyouverymuch)
• You link back to the photo source and cite the photographer’s name
• Your site isn’t commercial and you make no money from your blog
• You have a disclaimer on the site
• The pic is embedded instead of saved on your server
• You found it on the Internet (that’s not an excuse!)

That's an interesting article!!!

I do wonder how sites like Tumblr and the like... get away with reposting nothing but other peoples images? How is it different?

 

It's not different. Usually it works because nobody bothers to report it (or perhaps more often don't have the time to hunt it down). As far as i know you need some kind of permission to use an image you don't have the rights to, period.
That goes for forum avatars, blog posts and everything. (Even the original pictures used to compare this guys altered pictures to in this thread and on other places.)

However, there is a difference to how much different kinds of use hurt the copyright owners and that is usually reflected in the reactions the use gets. And every one is responsible for their own actions.

 

embedded sharing.
Most art social networking sites, like deviantArt and Flickr have quick sharing options that include quick sharing to tumblr.
As long as the tumblr user uses that method, then no wrong was done and if the original artist is upset, then it's their own fault for not disabling "quick sharing"
Now if someone shares your picture where you don't have sharing enabled then you have a case, but it's easier and faster to just shoot tumblr support and email than going to court.
Tumblr doesn't condone people uploading random images they find on the internet, it's just what happened.
The intention of tumblr, correct me if I'm wrong, was for original content creators (the copyright holders) uploading their content to the site, therein agreeing to sharing their image via reblogs/likes -on tumblr-. And then it's a win win situation - but that's not happening.
People are making pretty page blogs with other people's stuff, and the internet has combated this by adding "quick share" options. Because at least then it links back and it's easier than right click save.


ETA: even if you have sharing enabled, you can still email tumblr and they'll take your stuff down, but removing sharing options is a proactive approach ^_^

 

Plus when you share stuff on tumblr you're not going to share an image and credit it to yourself. It's one thing if I repost someones photo it's another if I repost it and claim it as mine. I think that's the big difference.

 

Re: tumblr, just to add to Knibitz's response; Tumblr operates the same way as most other websites in that if you file a DMCA request for a picture that was reposted (instead of shared as per the sharing links on dA etc that Knibitz's describes or correctly linked to the source) they'll remove the picture in question because if it doesn't contain correct credit then the person who reposted it is claiming ownership by omission. Tumblr takes their responsibly when it comes to copyright infringement and their image policies (like their rules against images that promote self harm or eating disorders) very seriously and I've had a lot of success having my work removed when it's posted without credit in the past, though of course it's mostly to cover their own asses from getting sued for infringement.

 

Thanks for the clairification everyone!

The thing I think I've noticed (though I'm not a member on Tumblr) is someone will link a photo from say my Flickr account...and it then gets "likes" or "reblogged" from there...and so on...but if someone then links from the tumblr site then it shows coming from that site and you would then have to click on that site to get back to the original person's credit.

Or so it seems.

Anyway, I personally only put up images that I want to share...and in general I don't mind others linking with sites like Tumblr...as it seem like a place just to look at stuff.

Now if they then were used like the dude (Matthew Christopher Nelson) did and for profit...then I'd not be happy....

I think as time goes on and more and more sites and technologies are used...some of these copyright laws will have to be more defined and also find a better way to enforce.

It has really pleased me at the 'visual memory' many of the members have here... of not only of bjds but other images in general.

 

Yeah they are usually good on that, plus people are very supportive of artist who don't want their stuff taken or unsourced on the site.