Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

Well look at this link and tell me the style doesn't look "very familiar". Only the color schemes are much different.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/ros01-big.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.animationarchive.org/labels/upa.html&usg=__VpqjZXwiztMMP83Sp1zi2E1-HHc=&h=1407&w=1400&sz=182&hl=en&start=314&um=1&tbnid=fd5iCRUu787kNM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=149&prev=/images%3Fq%3D1950s%2Bspace%2Bage%2Badvertising%2Bart%26ndsp%3D21%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-USfficial%26sa%3DN%26start%3D294%26um%3D1

 

It has been determined she used a 'Totoro' image in one background. I believe Studio Ghibli has been contacted. While some of the vectors may or may not infringe copyright, what is certain is that she has copied company sales/stock photos for profit, is featured in a fashion line, and has a sculpture made of a copy of a photo of a sculpt!

I don't understand what can be accomplished by comparing style or even color schemes.

What must be concentrated on are the points above. If anyone sees a clip art vector used in a background of one of her digital paintings, Please list it.

 

it's the infectious.com link? Let me go remove that (someone else had mentioned the YouThoughtWeWouldn'tNotice link earlier, so I removed that....).

 

I think even in the end if Schatje can find a legitimate reference for all of those images - which I doubt she will, but if - it will still be a very valuable lesson learned; cite references for everything.
I was day dreaming at work and if a scientific researcher borrowed a diagram or schematic from another paper to publish in their own paper, they would reference it. If they borrowed it and altered it, they would cite that it was adapted from such and such's diagram of whatever paper. Even though in science you don't have to ask permission to take people's published ideas to mix with your own work, you have to reference them. I know science and art are different industries, but the idea of intellectual property should be the same - if you borrow something that you did not create to enhance your work, reference it.

tl dr; rambling and not really adding much to the updates of the conversation but some thoughts outside of copyright laws.

 

I should have been clearer. I have a few reactions too all this fervor. The first is, what happened to the original question? Another thought is that artists don't create new ideas out of the blue. Art is connected to what has come before. How many paintings and sculptures are a reaction to Greek sculpture? Artists take from art that they see. I wrote that blatant copying sucks and shouldn't be done. I mean that. It's funny that noone quoted me saying that! It would be sad if artists couldn't make and sell (for al lot of money) work that is based on their dolls. I am not talking about this artist are talking about. If there is money involved the lawyers will fight it out and this artist that is being discussed will probably have to change her format.

 

If you witness a robbery/mugging on the street do you just walk away without comforting the victim/calling the police/ chasing the mugger? Do you just go 'ah who cares, the police will catch the mugger anyway'?

Just curious.

 

It is pretty much through the doll community's efforts (primarily those of Radiotrash and Pristine Crimson) that this plagiarism is becoming known to the broader artistic community. It's not just undirected anger. Originality is valuable, and Art is worth protecting. There's no shame in believing this.

 

I occasionally paint my dolls, though I don't always credit them, just as I don't credit Mr. Woody when I use him for reference, or often even the human models I hire. I like the dolls because they are patient posers IMO if you own the doll, you have a right to paint it. You don't have the right to copy someone else's photo of a doll without permission, trace over company photos, or "borrow" someone else's painting, but other posters have expressed these points better than I have.

 

Greek statues were made by someone who is more than 75 years dead, hard for their creators to sue for copywright infringment.

The following statements are my opinion only:
I personally feel if a magazine is discussing dolls, using an image of a doll is fair use.
If someone is advertising faceups, using an image of a doll (photo taken by artist) is fair use.
If someone is advertising clothing for dolls, using an image of a doll (photo take by seamstress) is fair use.

If you are creating a fan site with pictures of dolls, it is not fair use unless you have permission of the doll creator. Most BJD companies have policies that allow for fan sites as long as they are clearly credited on the site. Most sites do this by having an "about the dolls" section of the site that lists the dolls sculpts and their creators.

If you are publishing a book or magazine where pictures of dolls where the photos are what is being sold, you should have permission of the company that made the dolls.

If you are doing fine art photography of dolls and selling the work, you should have permission of the company that made the dolls if the doll is recognizable. Let's say you did a photo of a doll for a pose reference, and in the finished work you could no longer tell it was from a doll, and the features did not look like the original doll. That is ok. However, in Mijin's case, where you look at a picture and go "oh wow - that is Narae" - I would argue that because the image is recognizably the doll, it is infringing on the doll artist's copyright.

Again, all of the above is my opinion only. Copyright is muddy waters, but from what I've read there have been many cases where an art work was based on another's photograph, and the art work was considered copyright infringement. Copyright is getting more strict over time, not less. Things people "got away with" 30 years ago won't hold water now. I think someone already linked this but it bears repeating: http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/martin/art_law/image_rights.htm

 

OT, but, oh, Fishcake! That's such a beautiful painting!

 

Doesn't copyright run out after a certain number of years? I know old patterns can be resold after a certain amount of time has passed.

I find is strange that she doesn't even own these dolls, so the companies haven't had anything from her at all, not even in the form of the $400 or whatever it would cost to buy them when she then sells prints for $1200?

 

Kiyono wrote:

I think this is a gray area. Someone mentioned the use of a Lenox vase in a still life painting earlier..I think it would be burdensome to contact the maker of every item you have in your home if you choose to do a painting or a photo of it. If you take a picture of your spouse in front of the toaster, and publish an art print of it, I don't think you should have to pay royalties to the toaster company, in spite of what the toaster company lawyers would like...and yes, the law is moving that way. I have stopped putting vehicles in my cover paintings because someone was sued for using a recognizable car from a street photo (I believe the controversy was on the front page of istockphoto for a while). Artists don't have the legal clout manufacturers do, so of course things are getting more restrictive.

oh, kateb, thank you!

 

I think people are not seeing what is really going on here. This artist mass-produced prints of unauthorized and traced photographs. She has made a lot of money off of these mass-produced prints, t-shirts, cell phone backgrounds, etc. To compare Mjin to an individual who does one painting for their own personal use is just ludicrous.

fishcake: Now if you were to start mass-producing that painting and selling prints as in a commercial business, you would have a copyright issue on your hands. But since that painting is solely for purpose of not making a profit, there is no issue. (Also, I can't imagine you actually traced a photograph from that painting, seeing as how it was done on canvas. Unless you projected the image directly onto the canvas and painted over it.)

 

Well again, does someone look at the picture of your husband and a toaster and say "oh my goodness, that is a (factory name) toaster!" or are they looking and the picture saying "wow, he's hot!"

That is why copyright is so tricky - if you did a picture of someone with a doll next to them that was clearly a doll, and it wasn't a focus of the work, that would be different then doing a picture where all you see is the doll's features.

I know in Music Videos they've been blurring out clothing/product logos for years, to avoid giving the impression that the company condones the music or video.

 

I've been watching this on here (and a pink fourm) and issue of weather she stole photos, or had permission or what have you aside. To me the idea that someone who makes a livelihood off of BJD would not even own one of her own to trace, or paint or what have you and then only gives the credit to the original photograph owner when pressed is kind of shady. Also as other have said, since she is making a profit, whether the doll was or wasn't hers she should be contacting the companies that make said dolls to ask for permission to use their sculpted art in her derivative digital works. It becomes even more muddy when she owns no dolls however, and is only borrowing the likeness of fellow artist's and friends dolls. If I were a BJD company I would not be so kind to give a artist making a large profit permission to use borrowed pictures of my hard work when they have not even purchased my product.

Thats just my opinion tho. Sorry if it makes no scene, others have no doubt expressed it far better than I have. ^^;

 

I think the deal here is that people may not know the faces used in Mijn's art to be ACTUAL DOLLS. As written in some articles about her, she captures the moment (and one would think the model as well) out of thin air.

In the case of a Lenox vase. It would be good to at least credit it as being one, if not the full name of the sculptor or so. So people would know it's from some existing line of production (if that's the right term). It's not something the photographer made. I guess there could be times where a photographer takes artistique pictures of a sculpture or vase that he or she knows little about. But if they were to make prints and profit off it? I think they'd be better off going the extra mile to learn what they're photographing and mention this.

Toasters are bought for their usability. I'm not too certain if they are considered an artwork, but if there is some funky designed toaster (where the makers went out of their way to make it look unique, one of a kind and to grab attention) I'm pretty sure the makers would like it to be mentioned that it's at least from their line and not anyone else's.

 

What you're feeling sounds like apathy. None of us have the right or wrong to tell you how you should or shouldn't feel. But in this situation, if everyone felt like you did, no law suits would happen and no one would know about what this artist has done because everyone wouldn't want to waste their energy.

Some people express their disgust at the artist with a few choice words here. You've chosen to spend your time on expressing your feelings (your disdain?) at this effort by saying, 'who gives a crap!' So I feel compelled to ask, why do you give a crap if people want to spend time on this, be it 5 minutes or 5 hours?

If you can't understand why someone gives a crap about this issue, then I think many can't understand why you give a crap that others do.

 

I think the Mijn case is pretty clear-cut..the overlays are a classic test of tracing and IMO she failed that one, and if you treat people's work like stock art, you have to play by stock art rules.
timchener yes, it's a regular painting and done freehand--if I had used a projector the likeness to the Juri would have been a lot closer I do actually sell my paintings, I haven't made a print of this one because of the canvas texture, and the rather limited appeal. I think the 20% difference rule might apply here, though it's my impression that is a UK/Commonwealth law, and the US law is broader; it (last time I looked) was a rather dire "man on the street" test. I suppose if I had made a bit of money from sales Luts could come after me, and I could offer to buy a LOT of dolls as payment

In the US there is a sort of undefined dollar amount/number of impressions where it becomes useful (and prudent) to have permission, generally anything over ten grand USD should be vetted, and over 5,000 impressions. Most companies do a cost/benefit ratio as to who to pursue, quite apart from the merits of the case. (Unless they are the RIAA.)

I also wanted to add that the laws for "online image theft" are that the original copyright holder needs to be the one to file the complaint either to an offending website or a court, because they are the only one with legal "standing", though it seems perfectly appropriate for individuals to notify copyright holders that their work is being ripped off.

 

Going off of what people have been saying, the thing that bothers me the most is the fact that

a) Mijn Schatje does not seem to own a dollfie herself, but is content with taking others' pictures,
b) Expressing that, she doesn't understand why we are angry, because she's doing us a favor:

and c) when she has stated that she has gotten permission, she states in the e-mail to the person she got permission from (Tanya) that "she wouldn't publish them or anything."

Not asking permission is one thing, but blatantly tracing dolls and telling the doll community that we should be happy that she's doing this for us, and promising not to publish things to the person who gave her "permission" is another.

 

When people ask you how you made that painting do you say "I used a life model/doll/Mr. Woody as a reference." or "I did it all myself. I'm that good."? When I make a painting or illustration I also don't disclose a long list of what I used or what inspired me, but I do give credit where credit is due, especially when asked. I agree that if you use a doll's likeness, you should credit your source.

That's a good painting, Fishcake. If you used a doll as reference for it, I wouldn't know unless you tell me.