Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

I'd join too.

 

i approve

i've been following this thread for news and i think it might be a good idea for whoever made the original post to add some info about what the topic has turned into at the start of the thread to save late-comers the hassle of asking the same questions and having them repeatedly answered.

 

Unfortunately, what she's done isn't actually illegal. Taking someone else's photos, manipulating them and claiming they are yours is copyright theft, but if you take that same photo and trace over it, in the eyes of the law you have created original artwork - and you don't even have to ask permission of the original photographer or acknowledge your sources.

So, on a technicality, she is above the law. Morally, however, is a whole different ballgame. The only reason she's gotten away with it is due to the low profile BJDs have had thus far in mainstream media, but the more we make a fuss in the public eye and draw attention to it, the more damage can be done to her reputation. I'm thinking someone like Jonathon Ross - who brought BJDs, specifically Volks, to the UK public eye, would be quite interested in this story.

 

Actually, transforming a work from one medium to another is a copyright infringement - see Koons vs Rogers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons

I also see people using "stock photos" as if you can rip them off without credit. "Stock Photos" are photos where you can use them if you pay a licensing fee, not photos that are free to use. Rodger's photo was a "stock photo."

 

That's a brilliant example. Thank you for posting this. Just because a few aspects of the photo were changed, it does not make it an "original piece of art" -- even in the eyes of the law.

 

I think this is a brilliant example in many ways. One being that if it's recognizable, then it could possibly be an infringement. Another being that even if it was changed slightly from the original, it does not comment or refer to the original in any way, so it should not fall under fair use.

I'm no expert on art law so does that sound about right? I ask because I'm trying to get a firmer grasp on the bits and pieces of the copyright law.

 

I think US law is different than Aussie laws for copyright (Commonwealth countries actually try harder to protect individual artist rights), but generally, if you have a 2d image and take bits of another pre-existing 2d image "as is", your image is considered a "derivative work" and you either need permission from the original photographer or artist or to get a license from them with the terms of use spelled out. And example would be if you wanted to make a tiger with wings, so you found a photo on the Internet of a tiger by a wildlife photographer, lifted that out, flipped it, made it purple and added wings. Even with the changes, if someone could overlay the original tiger image with yours and get a matchup, you need to get permission to use the tiger. Interestingly, the POSE of the tiger is not copyrightable, so you can take a unicorn and match the tigers' pose and tail position and be legal. Titles are also not copyrighted, which seems odd but that is how it is. (Hence movies with the same title but different plots, like "Boiler Room"..one about telemarketers, one about Wall Street.)

 

As a professional artist myself, I think I'm more baffled than angry. How can she truly be proud of her "work" if all she does is trace? It's so tedious, and the end result is simply a replica of someone else's hard work. Why on earth would she find satisfaction in that?

In my mind, art is creation, not replication. Even if you're using someone else's character (which you should still cite), putting them in a pose/situation of your own making is at least still creating something new.

Truly saddening, though, is that she's bamboozled the industry into thinking these are all her original ideas.

 

I'm wondering if more than an evil intent to steal other people's images and defraud the people who buy her art if it's all just based on....creative laziness?

Because seriously, if she sells her artwork for that much, one painting would pay for a pretty nice doll. If she's an artist, she should have no problem doing her own face-ups; she should be able to operate a camera and take her own pictures to trace.

If nothing else, I wonder why she didn't at least attempt to change the images she did use? She could have cut and pasted features from various dolls to make one that would be unrecognizable or unidentifiable. I mean, I'm a total idiot when it comes to computers (as proven by my above comments), and even I could figure out how to do that in photoshop. So to me it's baffling why she would be so blatant.

One thing that might help the face-up artists here who have been ripped off (like blastmilk) is the concept of intellectual property. Most well-known face-up artists have a certain look and you can tell right away who did the face-up. I would think that if you are an established face-up artist, your face-ups would be considered intellectual property and thus protected. That might be a way to approach this whole issue if you are one of those artists.

 

This is exactly how I feel. It would be like some cover band claiming they were Queen or something.

 

I am under the impression that she traces every subject of her "art". The flowers with the Tiger are all the same image, just rotated, so I a willing to bet those are traced too. I found the boom box she took too - http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2456/3593853887_28cc5522db_o.jpg. I don't think tracing a boom box is a huge deal (especially as opposed to a doll's face) but I think it just shows that nothing but the composition of this art is really her's.
It's a shame - she is obviously creative but I guess she didn't want to put in the time to learn to create great work on her own.

 

Yikes.

All along I've been thinking how sick and furious I'd feel if I'd bought some of her "art"*, then found out she was a fraud. I can't imagine what I'd do if I'd gotten a tattoo of it. o_0

* Seeing as none of my doll photos would be a target for her theft. Yay for being a very mediocre photographer?

 

Well, I'm hesitant to make that facebook group because it says groups attacking a specific person will be removed and your account will be banned... And nowhere could I find any sort of link to ASK facebook.

Of course, they're thinking of things like hate crimes, groups like "I hate gays" and stuff like that, whereas this is an activist group with something important to say.. I dunno if it would be considered the same.

I don't know I really want to do it, but if someone wants to make a fake account to make the group, that sounds like a safe idea.

 

the frak?
the rubix cubes were probably traced too for all we know
ugh. she disgusts me.

i really hope someone makes a facebook group, i want to join.

 

Oh yeah and also, anyone whose images she stole, you can report her pages to facebook for copyright infringement, and fill out a whatchamacallit form (they have the link to it).

 

I'd note that however strongly folks might feel, my opinion is that accusing someone of criminal behavior in an online post (i.e. "So and so is an 'art thief' ") might be opening the door to them taking repercussions against you, including legal repercussions. Just pointing that out, especially since there doesn't appear to be any legal holding anywhere yet that she is in fact behaving illegally or stealing. I'm sure Facebook and its legal team are sensitive to that sort of issue as well.

 

Groups are pretty easy to make o.o I mean I could make it right now XD

 

This. I think the Facebook group is a great idea, and I'd totally join it; but it needs to be named something less inflammatory. Heck, even calling it "Is Mijn Schatje an art thief? You decide." would be good.

 

IMO I would leave it alone at this point--since large companies have been entangled in what could be a court battle, you probably don't want to get involved, even on the edges--giving a deposition in court is no fun, and you don't want to get roped into some "defamation" countersuit. The really useful task of informing the people whose work was copied has been done, and from here on out it is up to those parties to choose what they will do.

 

Sheppard Fairey seems to live for this sort of controversey and has a long history of tracing and profiting from others work. Some have been considered fair use, but some have also been settled out of court for fairly substantial amounts of money.

He's an interesting artist in general - he seems to be pushing for more and more Fair Use acceptance... unless someone's infringing on him. I think the Fairey v. AP is interesting because if Fairey wins, it could set a precedent that basically says that photographs don't belong to the photographers. Between that and the orphaned works act, I just don't feel very comfortable with the protection of artists in the US.

It's interesting to look at these issues in terms of where one person's rights end and another's begin... and there is no clear-cut way to look at it.