Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

LINK FOR PICTURES AND OWNERS RESPONSES

Posting the site you can view images and responses from original photo takers on...

http://www.radiotrash.org/mijn/

I almost think we might need a new thread to discuss this. A thread with links to the artist in the first post as well as the sites discussing this so if anyone elses doll photo is taken we can catch it.

 

as an artist myself i must point out this.sometimes as an artist i'll recreate a classic image from a comic cover in my own style. its an homage.i'm not stealing as much as recreating and honoring an iconic image.
sometimes i'll copy something for myself but not for sale as this infringes on copyrights.
occasionally,i take a tattoo design from my favorite comic creators work and apply it to my bjds skin.he seems unaffected by bjds resembling his characters.in fact he kinda likes it.so as long as you have permission or the creator just loves viral marketing of his design.i see no problem with it.
i for one would be upset if someone turned a profit from my work.thats why i copyright my stuff.-sarah

 

If you do a portrait of Barbie, and call it your original character, you will get sued.

Barbie lawsuits go under this route:
Barbie is a cultural icon, not just a toy.
Barbie is being critiqued specifically by the artwork, therefore her use is covered under fair use.
If you aren't doing a parody or cultural comment about Barbie, and just using her beauty - that wouldn't fall under fair use.

In the Koon Case, he was doing a parody of the style or genre of photograph, but not Roger's photograph specifically. "Koons could have constructed his parody of that general type of art without copying Rogers' specific work. That is, Koons was not commenting on Rogers' work specifically, and so his copying of that work did not fall under the fair use exception." - wikipedia

I admit that as far as businesses go, I think they should have a copyright limit of 175 years maximum (assuming a full lifetime + 75 years after death that a normal person would have for copyright).

 

That is my beef with Mijn Schatje's work--the tracing of copyright works. The US law is pretty clear here that such use is not "fair use" but the creation of a derivative work, which needs permission from the original copyright holder (the photographers for the various websites, I would assume, perhaps not even the doll companies, but here you'd get into Korean law and I have no clue;-)
I do disagree a little with Ayusan in that it's my belief that if you own a doll, you have essentially bought a license to make images of that doll, and sell them--I've seen cases where collages were permitted for sale because the artist purchased the magazine that provided the images, and that surprisingly fell under fair use. To go back to the computer analogy, I use Poser, and the "dolls" in there are intended to be reproduced for commercial images, for sale, as well as private use, as long as you don't copy and sell the underlying mesh/computer points..very much like "Don't recast your Soom."

 

I know it has been answer - but just to illustrate - this is vector art (the line isn't perfect because I did this in a minute - but it could easily be made perfect):

The back (image) is a template - then what you draw is the vectors (the green line). It is defined by those points you see, and the curve is defined by those handles which you can see at her eye and chin. That green line could then either be filled with color or turned into an actual line. A shaded image would be composed of lots of these vectors (or a mesh - but that is another topic) As you can see, it is very easy to trace - it just can be time consuming. And as others have said, how much you scale it doesn't matter because it makes the image off of those vectors. That also makes it easy - but again time consuming - to do a lot of detail.

 

firefly5503 Now THAT is a great doll-related explanation of vector art!

 

wha? i have heard people diss amy brown, but i am not really into her so i did not care.
i had no idea she traced her stuff too!

you learn something new everyday unfortunately D:

 

wow. just wow.

I just saw her new "work" featuring the blatant Unoa face, full page advert, in my newest issue of High Fructose.
My lil brother came home from school the other day, and he was very excited to show me a pic he made. You see, they were starting to use photoshop and simular programs in art class. He is 15. He used exsisting images to make his pic. And even he, a 15 year old boy, explained to me how it was OK, as long as he didnt try to market it as his own, or make profit. He said it was common respect for the artists who made the work he used to inhance his own.
He is a 15 year old boy, did I mention that??? And this WOMAN cannot grasp that what she is doing is wrong, whether it falls into legal boundries or not, morally what she has done is not very nice. Point Made.
We can debate all day and nite about legal standpoints, but for me, it doesnt matter. This is not her being "inspired" by, or even using a general likeness, this is her, taking a photo, putting googly bits and glitter around it, and calling it her original art.

*Jen

 

My opinion is, that way too many people are getting involved in this. I am kind of tired of seeing Mijn schatje's name all over the place. People discussing this issue over and over.. causing very unnececairy internet drama. Too many people are getting offended and agry with something that they have NOTHING TO DO WITH. Did she use YOUR photos? no, she did not. She used mostly company photos, so this should be the COMPANY's issue to deal with. If she used your photo's, sure, you have every right to be angry if she did not ask your permission, you can get all your little internet friends to write angry live journals so they can stand up for you. But the honest truth is, the BJD company's whos pictures got used, they dont need an entire forum to stand up for them. They are entitled to their legal rights, and mijn schatje will suffer the concequinces eventually. Causing internet drama isnt going to help this issue at all, just ruin someones career. It will just break more than fix things. Bashing her is just a waste of time.

as an artist myself, I am not upset by this at all. In vector art, a lot of tracing happens, especially with faces etc. Sure, she was wrong not to ask permission, and also lie about it. But as far as I am concerned she still made her traced images her own, as some people have already mentioned, Collage art is still a form of art.

I just wish the BJD community would calm down, and leave it up to the companies and other people whos images she used. Now lets all get on with our lives, please.

 

I see nothing wrong with getting pissed off over the antics of an art thief. :\

Even if my photos weren't used, it's her actions that are appalling and anger-inducing. I don't have to have a crime committed against me to feel outraged about it when I read about it in a newspaper.

If it's getting you all hot and bothered, why are you causing yourself unnecessary grief reading this thread/following it? Just ignore it since it doesn't impact you and you can proceed with your life. 8)

 

As its already been pointed out:
It takes people REACTING and INFORMING the companies to start anything.

Also. As with so many things on the internets. If you don't like people whining about it, click away.

She may have the skill to make her own vector art. Or replace clip art as some people have started to look into. Stolen works are still stolen and when claiming to be a Vector Artist there is no defense of Collage Artist to stand behind.
So. Click away if it bugs you?

 

actually, I didnt read any of this thread. I wouldnt waste my time on your drama. I am just stating my opion, as the rest of you in these 16 pages are doing.

Everyone is just getting their knickers in a knot. Yes, it happend. It will be dealt with. People just need to calm down.

and its kind of hard to avoid this subject if every single person I know (most of my friends are in the BJD community) is bawwing about this.

@ oizys- So, why didnt they just contact the company instead? Instead of causing all this internet drama? Do you really think getting the entire internet in a rage will make a difference? as I said, people who shouldnt be involved are getting involved. And getting people scared that their photos might get stolen too, oh please. get over yourself.

and the same goes for you, if you dont agree with what this artist is doing, dont follow her actions obsessively like some of you are doing, dont go to look at her gallery, dont look at the magazines shes in, and dont waste your time on bashing her.

 

So you're taking a stand on something that you didn't even bother to read up about?

 

I'll never understand people who post to say, "I didn't bother reading what you have to say, but I expect you all to pay attention to what I have to say."

If you're not interested in this topic, I hope you'll enjoy the thousands of other active threads on DoA where this artist has never even been mentioned. There's no point seeking out discussion of an issue you've already decided you care nothing about, especially if all you intend to do is accuse people of stirring up drama without having bothered to read what they're actually saying. That, to me, seems a lot more trollish and drama-stirring than any of the facts and opinions that have been stated in this thread.

 

As she acquired these images through the internet, then that will be the location of her drama. Simple fact.

You might say "They weren't your images," but these were images that belong to friends and community members. We are angry because what Mijn Schatje did was wrong, but also because her dishonesty has directly affected people that many of us know and care about.

You may feel it's internet drama, and I do think some responses have been over the top, but by and large I'm proud to be part of a community that cares so much about its members.

Try reading the thread. You might understand more.

 

I have discussed this enough on my local doll forum, who also cant seem to talk about anything other than this right now. I have seen all the traced images, the things she has said, and I still keep my same opinion. It's not like the holocaust is happening all over again or something. I'm just saying some people are taking this way too far.

"You may feel it's internet drama, and I do think some responses have been over the top, but by and large I'm proud to be part of a community that cares so much about its members."

this is what I mean, some people HAVE taken this too far, yes, I have only skimmed through this tread. but I am fully aware of what is happening here.

I honestly think that there are more people here that have posted without reading this entire thread, because this is not the only place where this is being discussed.

I will not tolerate being called a troll, just because my opinion is so different from most peoples here. I am entitled to my opinion just as much as they are to theirs. And my opinion is, is that her actions were wrong, but that some people are taking this way to far.

 

And they have the right to take it as far as they please (respecting forum rules of course), just like you have the right to your opinion, and the right to not care about it as much as others.
*Jen

 

I've got to ask -- why do you think people are taking this too far? Exposing a fraud through whatever avenues are open seems, to me, to be the only proper way of doing things.

By and large, most of the responses to this thread have actually seemed quite rational.

Also, I'm sorry, but comparing this to the Holocaust is incredibly offensive and so far over the top that I really have no words to express my disbelief for the analogy even being used in the first place.

 

Tannie>> If you've had enough of this discussion in your own local forum, why are you actively seeking out more of it in another forum?

I don't understand why you're injecting yourself into a discussion that you're entirely sick of.

 

So are you trying to say that if the so-called artist took one of your pictures, traced it over and earning money without crediting you, and you will say, "Ah, it happens. Who cares."?

This woman is earning money and being dishonest to the public, saying that the works she did are original. Yes, 70% of her work is original, but it was the features of the elven-looking, big eyed girls in her works that caught people's attention.

She's earning money and earning publicity by stealing other people's work, tracing over and giving no credit. She didn't even ask for permission from most owners of the pictures she took.

I don't think we all are taking this too far. I feel we are taking a drastic and good measure to show how this artist is really nothing than just a fraud and a stinking liar.