Artists using doll likeness without crediting

But on that same note, would that make artists who paint still lives less creative, because they are painting objects from life rather than making up their own? What about artists who draw architectural pieces? Creativity can come from the artist painting their own face, or it could come from other aspects of their work--it's going to depend on the artist and what they're trying to do. I would see 2D artwork of a doll as something along the lines of a still life--they are working off of a real life object, so depending on their style it may very well have a close resemblance to the object (in this case a doll) that they are working off of.

 

It depends, I think.

Sometimes people ask me If they can use my photos as reference. That's nice, 'cause making photos is also art. It's also stealing to take and upload it and to say "It's mine! I've made it!" when you haven't made it.

Well, but it's not stealing when just the face was a reference. Copying a whole picture, or even tracing it, is definitly a big no-no. So, when just the face looks like a special doll mold, I think it's okay. Nearly every Artists uses references, sometimes they don't even know! You've seen a picture months ago, you draw and it looks like the one you've seen before. It's all in your head, sometimes not known.

 

But if it was famous and you were making heaps of money from it, would they still not go after you? (This is of course, assuming it isn't famous based on what you said about marketing.)

I'm confused. So in order to reliably construct a resemblance, an artist needs to understand form and structure of a face. While an artist drawing from imagination, need not understand form or structure of a face? They also need not think about how lighting behaves in different situations, if they're drawing a face from the depths of their imagination?

I would think they still do if they're trying to come up with anything that looks realistic or plausible.

Constructing a resemblance can be hard. But I wouldn't think that it's easier than drawing from imagination, if you're going for the same level of realism.

 

It depends. Campbells, for instance, never went after Warhol; why sue the man who made your canned goods into high art? Just that lady with the 'flowers' picture...and I can't even recall if she won or not. In the case of Barbie - who can be said to 'own' her? Mattel may have the copyright on the product and design, but the idea? It might not be worth the risk of a counter-suit.

I've said from the beginning that making a face from imagination is in many ways far easier than crafting a resemblance, especially with dolls, because of issues of scale and abstraction, based on my personal experiences as an artist, a student, and an instructor.

'Realism' is relative - what I am finding particularly challenging right now is making highly-representational images of dolls that are quite stylized, like my Pipos Baha and BBB Nissa. It will be interesting to see when I work my way 'up' to a more 'realistic' sculpt, like my Lati Red, if the sledding gets easier, or tougher.

But first, I need to clear a space in the studio for him to sit

 

This.

Also, as I suggested earlier, I think right now we have this idea that all art should be "original" and "creative" in a way that is more important for some types of artwork than others. But although a landscape I paint out of my head, glancing at reference photos without particularly following any one of them, might be more creative and original than the one painted by the fellow I saw carefully studying a bamboo forest and putting it down on paper, I don't know that it would necessarily be better art.

I guess in some ways, it depends on who you're setting yourself up to be as an artist. For example, I understand that for many people, the characters in their visual art are tied strongly to the ones in their writing. Since storytelling tends to have a higher requirement for "originality," and relatively little respect is given to a very good "copy" (although there are still those of us who appreciate how difficult and very very respectable it is to, say, write "A Child's Christmas In Scarborough" and so very perfectly and beautifully capture the voice of Dylan Thomas in "A Child's Christmas In Wales") I can see how some artists would feel that originality is a vital component of their art. For some people, it's about the Idea, and that Idea should be distinct from all others. But for other people, it's not about having an original idea, it's about the skill, passion, and subtlety with which they express the idea, whether it's unique to them or not.

edit:
And as far as feeling annoyed because BJDs are all such and such a person draws/paints/photographs/designs for/talks about/thinks about right now...how many of us can honestly say that there has never been a moment since we joined the hobby when our friends were saying the same thing about us? Some of us pass through that phase, some of us don't and the people around us learn to accept that dolls are just What We Want To Paint or whatever...and is that so wrong?

 

If I were to do a painting of some toothbrushes in a cup I wouldn't credit "Toothbrushes by Oral B, cup by Ikea"... if I painted one of my dolls I might mention what doll it is but I certainly wouldn't feel obliged to. A painting is an original work of art, it's not JUST a 3D object in 2D form, it's its own work.

 

I think it does depend on the company. Every company will treat usage of their products in art differently. I brought up the case of Mattel because they're a bit sue-happy and have been known to sue artists as well (not always winning) and also because, Barbie is a doll with a recognizable face so it was a close relation to my previous example, where the Soah face was used for reference.

I personally think no credit is required but I also suspect some companies might think differently.

I reread what you were saying earlier and there might be some misunderstanding (in the sense that I thought you were implying that artists who draw from imagination need not understand the structure and features of any faces at all, which might be misinterpretation). Anyhow, I'll try to stay on topic now. :P

 

Actually, there's already been one well-publicized, fairly recent case about an artist whose work involved taking photos of Barbies. Mattel did sue him, and Mattel ended up losing bigtime.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE5DC1438F93BA15755C0A9629C8B63

 

What I got from what tigerbaby said was that artists who draw from imagination only need to understand the structure, whereas artists who draw from life must not only understand the generalities that underlie a face, but also be able to accurately re-create the specifics of how that light hit such and such a feature. It did get a bit confusing in a later post, I think, but basically I understood that she was saying, if you draw from imagination, you just have to understand how things work, whereas if to draw a good, recogniseable likeness you must also understand how things are.

You can also change, add, or remove things to cover your own deficiencies, as when my aunt always drew horses standing in long grass or ankle deep in water (thereby avoiding the whole problem of hooves). Can't quite get the light right on apple-round cheeks? No problem if you're making up a character out of your head. But if you're trying really hard to sketch your darling puki's face, you may grow much more as an artist by powering through the challenge than you would by altering the face to be less chubby-cheeked.

 

That's why I was using Mattel as an example. They are a bit sue-happy. They lost bigtime here, but in a sense, they're really reinforcing their reputation as being aggressively protective of their merchandise and they might think it helps discourage people from going near their products for some artistic creativity in the big markets. They have won in other cases though:

It's from that same article. They've also famously sued Aqua over the Barbie Girl song. Which they lost. Perhaps suing on grounds of defamation doesn't work so well for them while their suing to protect likeness and trademark gives them more ground to stand on. But I admit that that's probably gross over-simplification of complex legal reasons. >_>

Heh...to be honest, I didn't get all that from her. A bit confusing later on. The use of an 'a' instead of 'the' in one of the posts really confused me at some point. I went to another artist and got a brand new explanation which helped me reinterpret the original posts.

 

so if was to create some awesome art with my dot sha, do i have to give dod credit? well i think no. y? cause i own the doll. anything that inspires an artist to make something shouldn't always have to "credit" the "maker" of watever inspired them. if you think about it. art is all around us. a lot of things are similar to one another but there is no credit to this and that.

 

Just because you own the doll doesn't make the image/design/what have you your's to use however you like. I'd be able to sell hand-made t-shirt prints of Donald Duck because I own a plush of him - without having my pants sued off - if that were the case.

Outside of works that fall into Fair Use, use of someone else's copyrighted/trademarked work or intellectual property is always ethically wrong in my personal opinion. However, it's a hairy mess legally, and it seems that companies that have taken legal action see varying outcomes in court.

 

Wow, this is actually a really interesting line of discussion and one that has a lot of people worried and angry.
Personally, I find nothing wrong with it unless it's a sketch of a very specific person's doll, meaning to me, if someone has a dollfie with a very unique face up, mods and body styling (which I have seen in spades here) and someone does a drawing of it and not give credit for it, I would find that offensive. But then again, I think not giving credit to models in pictures that they model for his offensive too.
From a legal stand point however, it's a very grey area.
Technically, you don't HAVE to give credit if you do a sketch if you have the subject in front of you. They give consent by being in the public arena, its why artists can go to a park, sketch people and then sell it. Same with modeling, you specifically go to sketch someone with intent and they agree, then they have no legal standing.
However, if the sketch is done from a picture (which I've seen on dA and other art sites) of a site's dollfie shoot, then there are some legal problems with it.
At that point, you have to look at the copyrights attached to the picture and yes, dollfie artists, if you post your picture on the web, you DO have a copyright automatically on your piece. Just make sure you state how far you are willing to let people use your work.
And I've just babbled all over this. Sorry.

 

We must not forget..that Barbies are mass produced dolls.
Famous all over the world.. and recognized right away.
So you can not use their looks without people noticing what they are.

BJD, are art objects themselves.
And not a lot of people know what they are or where they come from.
And their faces can easily be used by artist in work without anyone really noticing.

The artist who produced the painting may get credit for being original and all that,
While he/she is simply stealing/using someone else's gift and vision but just forgot to credit the person who came up with the face in the first place.

No i'm sorry, i have no respect for artist that use other artists work to fuel their own.

Mark Ryden,
does not photo copy like some other european artist.
You can not look at his work and say.. well thats that and that mold ..from that and that company.
And that is what bothers me.

 

I have a genuine question to ask you and this is not meant to be offensive or confrontational, it's an actual question of curiosity but what is your feeling on fan art then?

 

I think recasting a doll would be stealing someone else's vision, using a doll as a subject of a painting isn't really the same thing. The painting and the doll have different uses, different purposes etc. BJDs are art objects, but they aren't 2D works on paper or canvas. I also think that as a bjd fan you might be zeroing in on the idea of the face more than someone who was simply interested in the art work and saw the piece as a whole. I will also say that down through the ages artists have used in some way or another what has come before or what other people have been doing--we are influenced by what is around us.

Here's something else to think about--aren't the buildings, vases, furniture etc that appear in other paintings also their own form of art as well? What about artists that paint those objects? By your standards at least 3/4 of the artists that appear in museums would be thieves.

 

I'm sure they won't stop suing entirely, companies like Mattel and Disney sue people every day. And companies sue partly because they know a lot of artists don't have the money or knowledge to get a lawyer and fight back and will just knuckle under. However, when a company has a large, public loss like that, they will not only be more reluctant to sue in the future, the good law firms may well be more reluctant to take on a case or a client that's not perceived as a "winner". And when you're a large company, you can't just get Joe Average Law Firm to handle your business, the stockholders would have a fit. I'm sure by the time they were done paying all the expenses for that suit it was WELL beyond the amount of the loss (like multiples of it).

The other problem with such suits is that the company isn't usually as harmed by extra free publicity from an artist's work in the way it is harmed by someone copying their product (as in making a copy of an actual doll) and selling that. So it's harder to win the case. You have to bank on the fact that most defendants will just give up and not get lawyers of their own and fight back.

 

To me i guess it depends, but the only one who would know if she was stealing would be the artist. If it was her doll or a friends doll (or at least someone who gave her permission) to use it as a reference or model, then it is ok. If the image belonged to someone else and she just used it without giving credit, then it is bad, like using stock photography and not giving credit. but it would be hard to tell just by looking. And in gallery settings it's very rare to see credits given to models, usually just title, artist's name, date, and media.

As for the mold, it would be wrong if someone tried to create a cast or something, make a direct copy. But the doll is an object, that is created in the art. I do photomanipulations and use images that i take of objects like buildings car and such.

 

I dont see wrong in using inspiration. Any artist will tell you they use/have used other artists' peices as a muse. These are ways to better your talent.

 

Ahahaha... the age old debate that always comes up in my technology class...
"If it's online, is it really mine?"
A artist doing a rendering of a particular sculpt of doll without crediting the doll or company, is, as people have said, the exact same as a painter doing a portrait of a model, but naming it 'Unititled' or 'Muse' or something that doesn't credit the model in any way...

But artist doing a rendering of a specifically modded doll, without crediting the owner... this I begin to have issue with... I know that by posting things online, we're basically allowing anyone to copy our images/information/whatever, but if I were to mod my doll in a very specific manner with tattoos designed by me, for the doll and then found out that someone had taken my pictures from the internet and used them to create artwork (that they were getting paid for) without crediting me (I personally wouldn't want compensation, just acknowledgment)... this would irk me slightly. This is also just because I have had instances of people copying/reproducing parts of my art without acknowledgement or even permission and so it annoys me that people will take things without asking...

So, if it's a generic mold that anyone owns, then no I have no issue... but creating art based off of a specific product or image (as long as that image belongs to one person, not something, say like Andy Warhol's soupcans) without permission, not cool (it happens, especially online, but I don't like it)