Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

I would also argue that the debate over what can be done in the situation that art theft is discovered and the perpetrator is using the stolen work for financial gain is valid. There have been a number of differing viewpoints on how to handle this situation, after all.

There have been a couple of pointed rebuttals to statements and logical processes, as is wont to happen when an issue arises that pushes people's hot buttons, but as a whole the tone of this thread has been laudably civil. Far more civil than some other debate threads I've been involved in, for certain.

 

I don't think she's breaking the legal copyrite law here. If she were to actually use a BJD in a photograph then she'd need the bjds companies permission and print the companies Copyrite. But to use a bjd as inspiration for an illustration then why not! The whole world over, artists are inspired by many things. On the other hand if it were a highly realistic illustration showing the face then it would be curteous to give a credit. On the whole though I think good on her for being inspired to do a painting using a bjd, I don't have a problem with it.

 

But tracing isn't the same as inspiration. ._.

 

The point is that she's not using it for "inspiration," she's blatantly tracing, and that constitutes an unlawful derivative work, because she doesn't have permission from either the photographers or the companies who the molds belong to.

 

I'm not sure you understand what has been done here. She has not used a doll, or even a doll picture, for inspiration. She has traced doll owner and doll company photos in a digital form, directly, then added on silly embellishments, and then claimed that these were all directly out of her imagination. She is making plenty of money off other people's art. That...doesn't seem like art to me, but art theft. As the eye placements and eyebrows, etc, etc line up exactly, that seems like a darn sight more than 'realistic illustration.' That is the definition of copying. No paintings inspired. Direct digital copies.

 

All legal issues aside - being an artist myself I don't understand how that woman can take pride in work that is, for the most part, not hers. From the way she traced those images you can tell her skill isn't even nearly on the level that "her" works display (I'm talking about flaws in her shading etc.).
It's sad to see how some people seem to need recognition so badly. Just lame.

Anyway, I think it's great that DoA members seem to be taking action and contacting galleries and such.
Some people have been mentioning "ethics" and tried to defend Mijn - I think what she is doing is unethical and shouldn't be tolerated.

So keep spreading the word!

 

Ugh, I gotta' say, since I'm only just hearing about the recent "Mijn thing", that I think it's rather disgusting myself (making money by deceit always is), but that's all I'm gonna' say about that. Period.

I'd rather speak more generally and I'm glad this thread is here for that ultimately.


Okay here I go.

There is a huge difference, as most have stated, between tracing ("vectoring"?) and referencing. Mainly that tracing involves direct copying while referencing is done without remotely overlaying anything.

Ooh...this is useful to avoid confusion. Sorry if it's already been done.

From my Mac's Dictionary:

tracing |ˈtrāsi ng |
noun
a copy of a drawing, map, or design made by tracing it.

copy |ˈkäpē|
noun ( pl. copies)
1 a thing made to be similar or identical to another : the problem is telling which is the original document and which the copy.

reference |ˈref(&#601rəns|
noun
1 the action of mentioning or alluding to something : he made reference to the enormous power of the mass media | references to Darwinism and evolution.
• a mention or citation of a source of information in a book or article.
• a book or passage cited in such a way.

reference point
noun
a basis or standard for evaluation, assessment, or comparison; a criterion

Please note the continued mention of the word "cite" (credit) when describing "referencing". I found that extremely interesting myself.


I've only been to one small formal art class, but I'm smart enough to know that tracing isn't all that useful for learning to draw as I've tried it. I never got better by sticking my paper overtop of another image and copying it--I only ever improved by setting the image in front of me and trying to draw it by my own hand and even then I added my own embellishments, style, and in the end it looked nothing like the original (mainly because back then I really sucked at drawing) but I learned a lot! I was able to figure out that "this looks like this" and "I should try drawing it like this." Rather than if I'd traced it learning something silly like, "I should hold the paper up to a light to see the original lines better!"

It's like in those coloring books where you see a drawing in a grid saying "draw this in the boxes below" and the grid below is larger than the original. They aren't telling you to trace because they want you to see the lines for yourself. Sure you're still copying the original, but you are doing it with your own skills. That's how you learn.

I for one would never post something I even referenced without crediting. That includes stock. And if I didn't have permission, I wouldn't post it. Tracing, copying, or otherwise submitting something that you yourself did not create is stealing. Referencing (say for how something looks, a pose, or influence of style) and truly making something your own is perfectly acceptable. It's as simple as that. Anyone who thinks otherwise, in my opinion, might have missed that lecture in their English class about plagiarism (which applies outside of writing too).

Okay I'm done.

The opinions above are mine and just that, opinions. Please don't kill me. I'm aware people like to think tracing helps, but I don't feel that way at all.

Thank you for your time.

 

Has anyone considered making a "Mijn Shatje is an Art Thief" group on facebook? Then people who search for her will see that page too, and click out of curiosity...

As far as I can see, the more people who know about this, the better, so that if for some reason she is allowed to continue, her reputation is ruined (as it should be). She is making money from what isn't hers, aka stealing, aka a crime, aka she is a criminal . I don't understand how there are people here that can defend her.

 

Actually, hand-tracing images can be very helpful in establishing muscle memory for your hands. I'm not saying as a form of artwork- merely as an exercise to learn control, especially when it comes to curves, etc.

As far as this discussion (or any) going too far, I would like to point out that by the time I got up the comments already spanned 15 pages. Because I have a real life and relatively slow satellite internet, I simply can't go through all 15 previous pages.

A discussion that goes on for 20 pages is not likely to be the same five people commenting over and over. It's more like a discussion around a large table in a public place- the original people start discussing, others come in and sit down, the original people wander off, the new people make comments, more people wander in, and so on. It isn't a constant, it is an ebb and flow.

It isn't really fair to say, if you weren't here in the first two hours, you don't have the right to an opinion, even if it is inadvertently restating something said ten pages ago.

As for the artist in question, to be honest with you, all this talk just means more and more people now know who she is (I had never heard of her before all this). How many people on DoA actually buy fine art in the $1500 range? Their opinions may be interesting, but bottom line, unless the doll companies and/or individuals who can prove they owned the original images go after her in court, it isn't likely that all of the negative comments will either hurt her OR stop her from continuing.

 

I feel that if she weren't breaking any sort of law, then the doll companies that have responded in email wouldn't be angry. And it's quite clear that they are.

That said, I am incredibly angered and disgusted by this person making such a profit from someone else's' art. I am a full time freelance artist and referencing is one thing, but outright tracing is entirely another. Tracing is a tool commonly used in the comic industry by inkers, and vector artists and such because it is their trade and their job. Only in that circumstance do I ever acknowledge it as an 'art'.

Copying is entirely different, and that is what this young lady is doing. Overlaying and copying photographs without permission, contracts, or any sort of citing. Those photos were not meant to be under "Fair Use" and were not "Stock" photos. If she didn't realize this was illegal, she sure will by the time this situation is over.

Fact of the matter is, is that it's sort of sad to see. She has enough talent with Illustrator that she wouldn't need the use of underlying photos. But instead has put herself into a rut and doesn't seem to do anything WITHOUT them. It's a common thing among young artists who use tracing as their tool of learning... after doing it for so long, it becomes mandatory for them.

Personally, I don't feel tracing of any sort is a helpful learning tool. Those that do it as a child, soon grow out of it, or they end up getting caught later in life if they don't. I referenced, and eyeballed more then traced as a child, and even in my early teens I knew better then to just outright trace someone elses work...because I wanted to make my OWN unique work. Although I digress, this is just my opinion.

I honestly hope she's brought to justice and learns a valuable lesson.

 

Neolucky- you're right, actually. I didn't mean tracing as in placing paper over the image and tracing that. I suppose what you said, "referencing and eyeballing" is more along the lines of what I meant. I didn't have access to any art training at all until I got into college, so "referencing and eyeballing" was critical to me growing up to learn how to draw. That said, that was ONLY done as an exercise, never passed off as my own art. In fact, I will still do that with Leonardo Da Vinci's drawings, for instance, as a good exercise to get my skills into shape. My art is nothing like his, at all, in any way, but doing that is still a useful exercise. Kind of like doing scales on a musical instrument.

As I said earlier, I didn't read through all the pages of the discussion. Have the doll companies responded and is there a link for that? Thanks!

 

No problemo haha. In any case, the response I think can be found here ---> http://www.radiotrash.org/mijn/ scroll down and you can find some replies =). yeah it's a lot of pages of a forum to read! But I think it's more or less people venting their frustration at this topic, and it's a very good discussion.

 

Well it isn't only the doll faces she's copying. In "Ready to Dance" the pink shoe is a direct lift from a Lisa Frank image--one reason why the positioning seems so awkward. I don't have a scanner, so I can't scan the picture it's lifted from, it's an old one from about 5 years ago (when I was buying girlie things for friends' kids). And I think the jellyfish is either Scott Thom or Gilbert Williams, very popular New Age artists in the 80s. I am going to send the link to the image to Scott Thom (and Williams if I can find a contact) to see if either of them recognize it.

 

*raises hand*

I bought a Volks Cecile the Scar Face this year, for actually more than $1500. I consider him a piece of fine art and would be very put out if someone had done something like this to one of my photographs of him.

To me, the dolls themselves are examples of fine art.

 

So what do you think? Should she and other artists doing the same thing admit they're using BJDs as references and the like?

Nope. Not unless she's tracing, in which case that's a no-no. But referencing a doll, human, mannequin, animal, place, setting, etc, is perfectly fine. After all, an artist can only draw inspiration from the world she lives in.

It would be very considerate of her to mention the dolls as an inspiration, but she doesn't have to.

EDIT: I checked out more of the thread and saw that the artist in question traces. This is unacceptable!

 

Lol!
I thought of that as I was writing the comment.
It's actually one way I defend the price of my dolls to non-doll people (that they are really fine art, given the amount of hand work in making one, the limited editions, etc.).
I should have said, "Two dimensional fine art".

 

I don't know how to type this in a way that will utterly not come off in any way as mean. Or if it even will. So. WARNING! THIS IS NOT MEAN!
Sorry but. Text sucks like that. lol.
Anyways. Maybe I'm just a really quick reader. Maybe someone has too many other things going on to read all the pages. Maybe I can ignore far more distractions then someone else.
I personally didn't find it hard to read all the pages here. My comments with their typos? Yeah I don't have spell check everywhere which may also point out that I'm not browsing from one location but while waiting on other things. So maybe thats why it was easier on me to read this whole thing?

Anyways! I think reading from say. Page 9 on would help with some useful links.
But at the top of. I think. Page 16 there is a link to a website with e-mails and what not that were sent and the replies. And on that same page there is a like to a flikr (or is it one ahead) where some pictures were posted of their own e-mails with this "artist".

I'd grab them myself but this computer wont actually let me for some reason so if someone else could! Otherwise, hopefully I'm right on the page 16 having the right links. It's about there at least. Middle of the page for the flickr...

But I think the links and the e-mails are why reading the whole thread (or at least a lot of it) is... A good idea. I wont say required, we aren't required to do anything obviously so long as we don't attack people while having no information about what's been said/linked so far at all (here or anywhere).
I think the big issue (from my point of view here!) with people not reading is that you (general use of the word) can then come back and say "this is doing nothing" Well. People have been allerted. E-mails have been sent. Granted even with reading people have said that. I personally don't agree. If anything at least talking about it here as prevented 100 people from going and e-mailing, say, Luts, saying OMG YOU STUFF WAS STOLED which could get really annoying.
It's nice to see people doing more then just complaining. E-mailing local news papers, companies, even galleries though they haven't responded well as someone posted an e-mail from one.
Granted, if this had its own thread with the first page updated with all the links and what not, sure the reading all the thread wouldn't be as needed but. It's not. Which really is my huge arguement for reading at least most of the thread.
Okay. I'm rambling. Shutting up about this now.
One more warning.
I'm not attacking anyone! Just staing my own thoughts! Kay, thanks for understanding. Silent now XD

 

Mijn Schatje?
plagerism. Tracing is not acceptable for profit, especially not without permssion -- or in worst case scenario, not even admitting to such crimes when evidences are obvious. All the pictures: http://eggtea.com/brycesucks/tomato/images/examples.html what more does one need? Also looked through her works, and the truth is her "art" is too different in contrast. The face is far too elaborated and blackground baby-ish. The body parts seen that were drawn by herself (or assumed) are very out of proportion and flat compared to the face. Far too much contrast. Not possible. This is more than "just referencing".

There's no debat here. get this news out, and fast to every place possible. Every LJ person, every DA person, every blogger who is against this should make it clear on their pages. Mijn Schatje is not just simply tracing. Mijn Schatje is the definition of classic plagerism.

I really deteste people who does this... many people would agree because this is pretty much stealing money. A begger who doesn't have any talent by itself. Tracing could be fine for a beginner artist (though I'm against that as well, but more importantly so for selling and displaying.)

Edit: hope I'm not being overly emotional in this post! Rage is hard to tone down ^_^"

 

If she were making this art for fun for herself, it wouldn't bother me, but once she started to accept money for the images she copied and represented them as her original designs, she crossed the line. After reading her responses to the various questions, I don't think she "gets" that she was wrong to copy and doesn't understand why anyone is upset. I like to make crafts from altered images, but I only use images that are designed for this purpose, or images that are free from copyrights. Having permission to use an image for inspiration is very different from using that image as a commercial product. Tracing is not the same as painting.

 

I think what should really happen, sadly, is that the artists who were wronged should get lawyers and Mijn should be served with a 'cease and desist' notification for each photo in question.
I work in the music merchandising industry and one of our clients has a very iconic image which gets bootlegged all the time. He has his lawyers send out notices constantly.