Artists using doll likeness without crediting

Seriously, using dolls as models might not actually be cheaper in the long run, but you don't have to give them stretching breaks or have them sign a release form.

I think that it would be perfectly acceptable for the artist in question to discuss the influence of ABJDs on her art in an interview or personal statement. I don' think it would be reasonable or necessary to make an artist credit all of the objects depicted in her work and it really doesn't matter if the artist is depicting an object that was created by another artist or an object made in a factory.

 

I think any type of mass popular art has a high potential for what one person might call "creative re-use or creative recycling of ideas" and what another person might call "ripping off." When there is money or recognition involved, people care a lot more than if it's just some random person creating a random work. The Internet makes it worse because of the ability to slap up two images (or two audio files or whatever) together and show all the similarities to large numbers of people quite easily. Usually there are also horror stories floating around about bona fide ripoffs fueling the concern, for instance those schemes where someone runs a "contest" and then takes all the winners' ideas and profits from them while the winner gets little or nothing.

Whether you can see a ripoff depends a lot on where you're coming from with it. For example, I know one artist who is very knowledgeable about older Japanese art of certain periods and she has seen modern manga-type artists almost directly recreating certain pieces with a slight stylistic change. That bothers her a lot, but it wouldn't bother the average person who's not familiar with the older pieces of art.

 

I've seen pictures of BJDs used on vinyl bags and little pin buttons and stuff, and I think that if your picture of your doll has been stuck on a bag for someone else to sell and earn profit without you recieving any credit, that is wrong and you do have a legal leg to stand on...if it is just someone using a BJD as nothing more than a model, I don't see an issue with it.

A lot of human models aren't credited when used in art, and it isn't necessary for them to be credited, although some photographers will do this for a model they are particularly associated with.

 

It seems that with the creation of the internet and having all sorts of pictures easily accessable and right at our fingertips there also came this sense of having to have every single little tiny thing that inspires you credited in big bold print. Everyone wants everyone else to know what is theirs... And in turn, when they see someone else displaying something that isn't crediting someone else their alarms all go off.

But as said, that isn't the case. No matter what you see someone whine about in their Live Journal or on their DeviantArt updates. In some cases, yes, you should give credit where it is due, but it isn't always due. That last point is what a lot of people seem to miss.

As others have said, when you paint a vase in a still life, you don't need to give credit to the company that cast that vase. When you take a photo of a skyscraper while on vacation, you don't need to find out who designed it and make sure to mention it whenever you show someone the image. The same goes for drawing, painting, photographing people, or dolls if you will, they're all just objects in art.

When something crosses the line into stealing a likeness and using it for questionable gains, it is usually pretty obvious. But drawing a ball jointed doll? No, that isn't crossing a line, not even if you're publicly showing in a gallery.

 

"almost identical" meaning the only difference is in the fact that the artist created it. that is just not right. if she really did try to creat the same thing with out crediting or anything, she is taking the honor, which is horrifically WRONG.

If she was visibily trying to creat her own version of the doll, that wouldn't be so bad because it would not be stealing someone else's work, but if the likeness is strikingly obvious that she took that face design... D:<

I like to draw and have not had the problem of ppl stealing my artwork, but that's only due to the fact that I never post it on the internet or even give it to anyone else. I've seen beautiful works being stolen before and advertised as those low scums' "fantastically beautiful orginal work". I believe that the same thing apply to dolls. BJD is a form of art too, and everything should be respected and credited.

Maybe we are overreacting though, since many dolls resemble each other A LOTTT@_@
Guess in the doll world only a small range of designs exist. I'm making a BJD right now, and yes, I have referenced from other doll's bodies. I've learned a lot from looking at pictures of these beautiful things. The difference is, I know my doll is unique because i created the designes and everything.

So if it was just a drawing, it could have been a coincidence?? ... still depends on the level of resemblence though! ^_^; wow that was long.. and a waste of time to read........... but that is a really good question that outta have some sort of definit answer!

 

This has been said over and over, but I don't see a problem if they don't say where they got the inspiration.

I do have a problem if it is very obvious that it was modeled after a doll and when you comment on how it looks a bit like a doll they get really defensive and deny it. I once saw a picture that was so obviously a Homme Ducan it was ridiculous, down to the make-up, hair and even body type. It was a bit insulting that the artist told me I was wrong and it looked nothing like a Ducan and it was completely an OC. :/

 

There is no opnion here, just a space for you to put in your own opinion.


Artists are weird. Enough said.

 

On the doll images side if I saw something with Xavier's mold on it, and it wasn't a knock-off, I'd be inclined to buy it, even if the doll had the same wig and eyes. Now if it was distincly a picture of Xavier with my face up I'd contact them and ask if I could get credit and Xavier could have a "model fee".

If you run in to something on Ebay with your image you can definately have the listing shut down. My sister took a picture of a musician that was published in a small time magazine with enough of a following. Some jerk was selling a mouse pad with the image, not only did my sister have the editor of the mag on her side Ebay helped her slam the guy in to the stone age. He even tried to say he had permission from the editor but my sister knew better, any crap would have gone thru the mag and its site.

 

Quite frankly the only time I credit anyone is when I use stock art. If I'm using something that I own - one of my bjds or photos that I have personally taken then I don't credit anyone. Why should I? Especially for one of my dolls, Kala. I've had him modified to have frill ears - he is no longer the original doll that I bought. Also, I've had the make up of him and Adelaide changed several times (I intend to wipe Kala soon and do my own! ...he fell on his nose, you see, and now it's all dirty).

 

I think its fine that she painted the doll but if she was interviewed and said some BS that would probably be annoying.

 

What's the real difference between a drawing of a doll & a still life incorporating brand name items? Nothing. They're both renderings of something the artist considers beautiful & there's no requirement to credit the company. Artists have traditionally used uncredited models & this is the same sort of thing, even less important really since it's an object & not a human being.

 

Just curious...what kind of BS could she say that would be annoying?

 

This is kind of interesting to me, as I am right now working on an art project wherein I am using my own dolls as models. The project itself is more about investigating a new (to me) medium -water-based oil paints- and I am using my dolls as subject matter because that is what is interesting to me right now. Also, I think it is incredibly funny to be painting dolls in a medium you can't paint them with!

First off, painting a a doll, and trying to truly represent the doll? wow! it's a lot harder than you might think, especially using the doll as a 'still life' (as opposed to working from a photo) because the doll's form changes with every tiny movement of your head. Also messin' with my mind is the subtle distortions of representation of a figure that is in a doll - the 'rules' of drawing a human figure do not apply! It really makes me realize how much of seeing gets blurred by what we expect to see.

The point of my pictures are not that it is a picture of X doll from Y company - it is about my process and thinking as an artist. I could be painting an image of almost anything, I just happened to choose dolls. I do sometimes put the name of the doll in the image, because I like putting words in my pictures, but I don't think it's necessary to 'give credit'...
hn. maybe I should do a painting that's completely obscured by 'credits' for my source imagery, supplies, equipment, instructors, etc. Poor image, it would be squarshed right down in the corner like a postage stamp, weighted by a NASCAR-like panoply of brand names...hn. I think I saw something like that in an exhibit catalogue in the 90's...

Isn't the form and depiction of the modern ball-joint doll derived from the work of Hans Bellmer? What goes around comes around.

 

there are a lot of artist i know that use their bjd for inspiration...

and recently..it started to bother me.. especially mijnschatje which means my dear or baby in a lovers kinda way...

This artist is starting to hit big bucks with her art...
And doesn't seem to tell anyone where the faces in her art come from!
I wonder i can report this to rainmen, dollstown, volks and blue fairy? :/

[link removed due to viruses]

You can also google her work
http://images.google.com/images?sou...=mijn schatje&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

I knew more artist on dA that used photo's of their dolls and painted over them in paintings..but i noticed..now i was looking.. that all 3 of them have deleted all paintings from their gallery o---o"



See i am an artsy artist myself.. and i really like people to make original work. Mijnschatje really makes amazing stuff...
but that i keep recognizing doll molds in every single peace is starting to annoy me. Almost feel like she doesn't have the creativety to think of a face by herself D:'

 

I can do both, and I can definitely tell you it is much harder to craft a resemblance that to pull a face out of thin air. If you know the proportions and 'ingredients' that make up a face? So-called 'creativity' is as easy as following a recipe. Whereas, a tiny line or shadow off, and you go from 'That's a >insert doll name here<' to...'yeah, it kind reminds me of...but the eyes are wrong'.

What makes dolls difficult, is they are abstracted already, so there's not a lot of margin for error. Whereas on human beings, you can kind of distill and use an expressive shorthand, like a caricature, and deliver the 'impression' of a person.

There isn't much of anything out there that's original anymore. All I can hope to do is add my little wrinkle.

That said, I don't find her stuff very interesting. Mark Ryden is much cooler...and more successful.

 

Wouldn't it depend on the artist? As in, some might be better at crafting resemblances while others are better at drawing from imagination. I'm not sure that there's a definite one that will be easier than the other.


On topic though, let me try to see it from the POV of the few who are saying that the artist should credit the sculptors.

For those who are saying that models who pose for paintings are rarely credited... I think the comparison isn't exactly the same because how do you credit the model? Credit goes to the model for having such a nice face? Credit goes to her/his parents for the nice genes? Credit goes to God for giving them good looks? (I use these examples because the artworks in question seem to mostly concentrate on the facial features of the dolls.) The model is usually paid for their work already, if their name is on the art piece, all the better, but not necessary.

Others might feel that the artist should credit Rainman or Volks or whatever because their sculptors are the ones who actually came up with the faces in those pieces. (Such as this photo )

That was my attempt to address the thoughts of others. Curiously, if someone was to draw the exact same picture above...but of Barbie, would Mattel flip out if no credit was given? Would they have a right to?


On my personal opinion...I don't think artists need to credit the sculptors. Yes, the sculptors came up with those faces. But the art does not comprise of just the face. The face is part of a whole. In the end, most art is derivative of other artwork. This would just be another example.

 

Was it U2 that said every artist is a cannibal? Every time I read this I feel like I end up with a different opinion. I entered a Re Ment contest, worked hard to get the doll in the shot, then was told he had to be cut out of it. Irritating but I can see where they're coming from.

Half the time with my work I find myself struggling to get a balance btween a resemblance to someone and abstracting enough. My portrait work hinges on having an exact resemblance and that transmitted to my doodles and my face-ups (other artists understand what I mean by keeping a "face library" of characters?) With some of the little "mini mes" I have I'm in a debate if I can use them in a book I plan to sell or not.

 

yep, the lyric is from 'the Fly'
every artist is a cannbal/every poet is a thief/all kill their inspiration/and sing about their grief
::tibbyclaps:: can we has another round? I leik this game!
hn. the world needs a Bono Vox Minimee, no?

I have painted Barbie, and Mattel hasn't come after me yet! But then again...I am surely teh suck at marketing myself ^vxv^ The thing with dolls is, they are a product with a face. Is the artist depicting the face, or the product? Or both, or neither? Is the image of the doll, or is the doll a 'player' on the stage of the picture plane, portraying a role in some 'bigger picture'?

I'm not just speaking from my own experience, but what I have observed with people I have instructed, including courses in figure drawing and advanced painting. In order to -reliably- construct a resemblance, an artist needs to understand the form and structure of a face - what parts go where, and how lighting behaves in different situations. Of course, I am talking 'classical' technique, not 'cheats' (imho) like gridding and digital photomanip.

I had somebody once tell me I had 'no right' to paint what I saw out my window. It's very discouraging to believe there are also people out there who would say I also can't paint the doll collection I have invested so much time and love in - I want to make an image of something I care about. When I draw my Pipos Baha, it's not any Baha, it's neveR, it's my first resin, it's my serios little farmer in his secondhand 'oberalls'...

gee, I need to go paint that.