Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

If they're a toaster collector, they might. That's the thing. It has to be easily seen by the average person, not just by people who know the product really well. Which, doesn't really make much difference in this case because it can clearly be seen in the comparison pictures that I saw of her work and the doll photos.

However, on a side note, it's kindof a shame that individual rights are being slowly taken away more and more and being given to big corporations. Especially since that's not how copyright was intended to work. But, hey, if I wanted to do a painting of my husband and a toaster, I'd do it even if it was "wrong". And I'll also paint my dollies, or anything else I've purchased because it's mine and I'll do whatever I want with it.

This has nothing to do with this particular case, however, maybe more to the original question on the thread. The dolls aren't hers, the photos aren't hers, and she clearly traced them. I honestly don't know what's going to happen, but I assume she's going to lose a lot of credibility.

 

Discover it through her? Discover what exactly? How can anyone frigging discover anything when she doesn't credit them. When they're claimed as characters in her fantastical fantasy world?

THIS is exactly why we are upset isn't it? She said herself that many people don't know about bjds, and yet she abuses their beauty and their current low profile to profit. Listening to her story? Is this after how we bring people's attention to her thievery and how she lets them know of bjd after having to cover her back?

Her reply makes me rage so much :/

 

Yeah, I think at this point, she's just trying to cover her behind.
I'm really interested in seeing what happens to her over all of this.

 

Sorry- I read a few pages but not all 15 due to time constraints. So if someone has already made this point please forgive me.
My understanding is that people are objecting to Mijn Schatje's use of copyrighted images in her artwork. I can understand that point of view. However, I used to be a collage artist, and that's basically what these pictures are- digital collages. So I for one do not find her use offensive. If she had simply manually cut out the faces with scissors and glued them down with the other elements of her pictures, would people still be upset?

On the subject of suing, as in Mattel- there have been enough cases that they have lost in terms of editorial usage of Barbie that I think it's fairly safe to say that such use is considered protected. HOWEVER- just because a company will probably lose in court does not mean that they will not still sue. Most companies have far bigger legal resources than most artists, and being sued, even if you win, can cost you a lot of time and money. So you have to balance if it is worth it.

As far as crediting doll likenesses- I show and sell my artwork based on my dolls almost exclusively to people outside of the hobby. I always include a reference to the doll manufacturer and sculpt on the artwork (I do wood block prints). I am always very specific, for instance, "60 cm Elfdoll Red". I do it because it encourages conversation about the dolls and lets people know outside the hobby that each doll is a unique mold, that there are a lot of different manufacturers, etc. That helps educate people who have never seen these dolls before that they are not just generic dolls.

 

She should have thought of that before she marketed traced, STOLEN photographs.

 

The thing is, she's not a collage artist. She claims to be a vector artist and her stories are all mixed up, first saying she doesn't know what BJDs are, then saying that she uses them as references for her own original vector drawings and that she has the permission of multiple people to use their images (which she didn't). In her interviews they claim she gets the ideas for these pictures from thin air.
IF she was a collage artist and IF she referenced the images, sure, I'd have no problem. But the point is she is not a collage artist, and she does not reference the images to anyone but herself, and until very recently when specifically asked if she has permissions she had not mentioned the apparent source of some of these images.

 

I agree Although it seems to be, from her responses and situation, she either felt like she was a) genuinely doing nothing wrong (which I find hard to believe seriously) or b) thought the community was so tiny no-one would notice! WHOOPS.

I do think perhaps she may gain some respect back if she admits to it.. a lot of these replies on this thread are to do with the outrage that she's in denial. But then, if she really, honestly, truly believes she isn't doing anything wrong...she won't feel as if there is anything to own up to.

 

In the US, I believe works become Public Domain 70 years after the creator has died.

Of course, all works that were previously in the public domain before the rule change to this are still public domain.

Regardless, none of the images Mijn used are in the public domain in any country, and she does not have permission to be creating derivative works and making tons of money off it.

It would be a different matter entirely if she just confessed, I think. People wouldn't be so outraged if she said "Oops, I'm sorry! I'll get permission from now on!" or whatever. But the fact that she continually denies the accusation of the obvious tracing is what I think is getting under people's skin.

It's much easier to forgive someone who gracefully admits their mistakes and then works to correct them than someone who stolidly refuses to accept blame even in the face of what seems to be incontrovertible proof.

 

I agree with what Kiyono said a few pages back. Many seem to think this would be okay if she took the pictures her elf or got permission from the owners but I do not agree. If we go back to the Barbie example - if you buy a Barbie, take a picture, trace over it and try to sell it as your own art - your own idea and creation - you will have problems. Now, Barbie is so popular that no one could get away with that because they are easily recognized. But if someone did manage to make $1,000's off of it I am sure he or she would be in for a lawsuit. Now, if you had one as a small accessory in a picture, or if you were using it as an accessory to sell something like an outfit I am sure it wouldn't be a problem (but I personally would give credit), but that is not the case here. What makes this worse, in my eyes, than the Barbie example is that these dolls are not made by a rich, massive company. They are made by hardworking individuals. Even though these individuals don't have the lawyers that Mattel does I don't think it should be treated differently. If you want to make money directly off of someone's art (not just copying the image but the sculpture itself) you should ask permission from those who own that copyright not just those who took a picture (though a lot of time goes into that to so if you were to use the picture like Mijn did she should have clearly asked permission of that).

I am a very empathetic person - I often feel guilty over everything I do or think wrong. It is hard for me not to feel sorry for Mijn and feel like the attacks should be stopped. Not to let her get away with it - but I can imagine how I would feel in her position. Then again, I would never put myself in her position, and I doubt she feels like I would. So for those who feel sorry for her and want to defend her that is fine, just also think of the hard working artist who spent months sculpting perfecting their dolls, who probably invested more than can be explained in just monetary values into the art. Even though I am sure she does that vector art by hand and it is a very time consuming skill, it does not take away from the fact that she stole from these artists.

 

Once again I quote her from her Infectuous website page :
"I read a book a day when I was very young and I was convinced very early on that reality is what you want it to be."

From her description of her work, and how she likes to pull out the story about her childhood on every website I see as a selling point for her photos, I've come to believe that Marie is still rather naive.

 

she really pisses me off to the near brink of disgust.
she OBVIOUSLY traced these. i remember seeing her artwork years ago (randomly, not exactly sure where, might have been google?) and thinking "these look familiar..." but thought nothing of it.

i seriously hope that the companies take legal action.
she needs to be shut down.

and OT, but i never knew emily strange was a rip off!
now i feel incredibly ashamed having bought so many things years ago D:

 

firefly5003 wrote:

Actually the court has said that this type of use is protected as so far as the reimaging of Barbie goes, though the specific case I am thinking of was photos--as I recall (imperfectly) it was a diorama of something like Trailer Trash Barbie, and Mattel's greatest beef was with the "defamatory" nature of the presentation, rather than the likeness violation. In this case the judge ruled that as an expression of art it fell under the First Amendment, and Mattel had to stfu on that one. I apologize for not being able to cite the case name, and it is OT only in that dolls-as-objects can be used in art projects and there is a precedence in US case law.

Image theft is another can of worms, though. Shepard Fairey, the Obama poster guy, has some really interesting ideas about image re-use that if you have an extra hour or two and want to delve into copyright law, can be read about here:
http://obeygiant.com/headlines/update-shepard-fairey-vs-the-ap
I'm not comfortable with all his conclusions but it's worthwhile reading.

 

I'm sorry- I apologize in advance for my ignorance, but could someone here please define in a few words exactly what vector art is? I wikipediaed it but still can't quite grasp what makes it different from just computer-generated art. Or is it the same thing?
Thanks!

 

Did you know Amy Brown traces Brian Froud? If you compare her fairies to Brian's you'll find many look like recolors of Brian Froud's Faeries book. She'll change wardrobe and backgrounds and stuff but if you overlay the images the body lines all match up, even the facial features. This caused a huge hullaballo years back. There was a comparison website and anything. I'm not sure where it is anymore.

 

I saw on her facebook she is posting some new works...we should all keep an eye out for what she is doing in case we spot someone else from our community being ripped off.

LINK: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mijn-Schatje/119214295108

I think that new one is an Unoa, but I am not sure...

 

Cirquemom yes, it's done on a computer, usually using a program called Illustrator--you use a pen to define points (and you can trace over an imported image in the program) and the computer connects the points with lines (vectors) that can be scaled up and down without getting pixelly the way a photo or a bitmap (the computer version of a photo made with pixels instead of dots of ink) would get "dotty" (or pixelly You can also tell the computer to generate gradients of color or repeat pre-created shapes. Many Illustrator artists create their own content, but the majority of commercial ad illustration you see is done by tracing over photos, because it's fast.
(Apologizes for non-doll answer)

 

Actually using someone else's photo of someone model or otherwise can get you in a heap of trouble with copyright infringement etc.

Photographers own the pics they take and HAVE to get permission from someone in that photo to use said pic in an advertisement or to use as a peice in their portfolio. This is something standard in the industry and is a must if you plan to profit from said photo.
To use another person's photo you need to get permission to do so.

Models make their money from their faces and photo's are one of the things they tend to need to do this with, again they sign contracts with photographers allowing the photographer the license to use their image and as such it's bad form to just use their faces without permission.

The above is if you are using something flat out ie copying the whole image with no changes etc.

Using something as an idea, ie you see the pic and go 'hey that would be really cool as the basis for something' and then you go and create something loosely based on that image then no it's fine at that point, you've created a work of your own that the original inspired you to do.

 

@hyschara I hope that's just a persona created by/for her by the media (or Mijn Schatje) for publicity purposes, the same way every single article I read about Tori Amos seems to use the word "kooky" and play up how "odd" she is. But who knows, in this case.

Should this really escalate, it won't be her that has the final say anyway, I guess. So perhaps it won't matter too much what she herself thinks...

 

That's odd .... because years ago from the most serious source I can get in France, the person (that I knew very well) told me straight, that's illegal, it could be seen a legal IF that painting is never shown in public place and kept strictly private ! As soon it become public seen/you make money with, you are totally illegal

And honestly trust me, you would steal my pic ( you doesn't me "you as agnes-agatha" but that's a general "you" , and paint it exactly or whatever, be prepared for me to press charge against you ! Because there is always a little law to protect everything.

And you would say what in the supposed case ? I stole the pictures to do profit, without permission nor anything, I'm not an artist but a copy cat I want to press charge because people flame me for this ? o-O ...... they will have a good laugh

Come on, she is not an artist and will never be, an artist is someone you should be able to respect, and it's far to be the case. An artist isn't an ugly copy cat, yes you learn by copying but if you are not able to do something else than just copying in your life, then stop to be named an artist.

She is in a total denial of what she is doing and honestly, either she perfectly know what she is doing and will make money as long she can, or she is super naive and then it's scary ......

That's not because that's dolls she can do what she wants, they are meant to be sold, they are properties of their companies as the pictures.

The fact she doesn't want to admit what is obvious, except if you are blind then yes this will never be obvious, doesn't help her at all. It remind me a bad story from DA about tracing, a great and famous artist has been caught tracing another drawing .... she finally admit she did traced it and removed everything, the fact she admit she did it help to calm down the situation a lot ! Ok the reputation is down now, but what is better ? Reputation and money or the pride to have been able to say : yes I did it ! I'm sorry !

But even with owner permission something doesn't work, the doll still stay "property" of the company .... please try to understand what I want to say I have no clue how to say this in english that's like your credit card ( well I don't have a CC but a debit card I buy I pay voilà .-. ) , never saw that entence on the back of the card ?! : stays property of the bank (something like that), but you paid for, every months or once per year. At last a card isn't free here, you must pay to obtain one, you keep it in your wallet, you use it, you .... and this for years, but in all case it is not your property but the bank's one.

What I wish to say is that if you don't have permission with Soom ... pick a random name lol ...... you don't have nor permission nor a deal with them, why do you think you could use their works to make your own profit ?! You made nothing bad ? If the world would works like this it would be chaos !

I hoped I have been clear in my words o-o .... oh well this is my opinion and nothing more, no envy to debate my opinion. Yep I am coward XD

 

Thanks fishcake! Non-doll answer is exactly what I needed. I'm 55 years old- and the rate technology has developed in my lifetime is unreal. I did graphics and fashion illustration professionally before my children were born, and commercial art in those days (late 70s, early 80s) was a completely different animal.
So for me vector art is like..."huh?'


So back to the issue here. From what I am getting- this artist is trying to represent what she does as completely original? And not traced or reproduced from other images? That she conceived of and "painted" these images from her imagination? If that is true- that's a bit disingenuous.