Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

Someone should contact her asking how much of a percentage they get of her sales if their image is used.

 

Ah, well, but her latest statement goes against what she claimed in her past interviews and online profiles about how her work is all original, that she doesn't reference anything, that the faces in her images are all from her own imagination, doesn't it?

I have to wonder what she will do if the companies state publicly that they do not allow images of their dolls to be used for commercial purposes without their permission, given how central individual doll sculpts are in this hobby and their business. Not sure where companies stand on this, but Volks will likely be furious when they see that Fornarina collection. Even if certain friends did give her permission to use their photos, the companies still hold the copyright to the sculpts, so her friends don't have the right to give permission for 'digital art' that was based on doll photos of the companies' sculpts to be used for commercial purposes

 

What makes me sick about that comment is that she is still being deceitful and not acknowledging that she did anything wrong. She says "inspiration" when in reality it is a template for her to trace from. And she makes excuses due to her English skills but I think everything was pretty clear and that is not the whole story. And removing the files doesn't undo what she has done. But, that bolded line makes me sick above all else. Trying to use this to get more business is disgusting. She probably realized she can't just take any old image anymore so now needs people to give them to her. I still think she should get permission from the sculptor (or company) and faceup artist (if she is using the faceup) regardless of who took the photo and if they gave her permission (or course using someone's exact picture is wrong too). If she admitted it from the beginning of this issue I wouldn't be that mad but she keeps lying about it and dancing around the issue. That is the worst part.

Edit - instead of double posting I just wanted to say that I completely agree with Lelei. That is what I am trying to get at - she just wrote it a lot better than I did.

 

Fairey vs the AP has been mentioned in reference to this case with Mijn a few times and it's kind of been on my mind because of her refusal to acknowledge that she's stealing from other people's OWN art...

I think Fairey's case is much more open to debate than this situation with Mijn. The one initially asking for compensation was the AP, not the original photographer. The photographer has stated that he had no problems with the Hope posters and in fact was pleased with its usage and success. Fairey thought it was fair game because the photograph's purpose was that of reference or news reporting--not art or propaganda, as Fairey's poster is. Since the usage of the photograph was intended to benefit the photograph's subject, and the only other person involved--the photographer--has no objections to its use, then I see no need for the AP to pursue compensation "on the photographer's behalf."

But in the context of this debate, Mijn wasn't trying to make an ad for the dolls, to help them sell. She claims that she does help them sell, but I've never seen her so much as mention their makers or link a company's website. So how could anyone possibly know where the dolls are from? If underneath every drawing, there was something like, "MiniFee Shushu, http://dollfairyland.com/" I would find that to be a more acceptable excuse for her usage of their photographs, and more comparable to the Fairey case.

But it was not even readily apparent to the people writing articles about her work that these were photographs of actual dolls. Someone said they look like dolls, but that is a different thing entirely from being able to say, "That's Barbie/Blythe/Ronald McDonald." When it is something clear-cut like that, it's a little more acceptable in my opinion--even though if you used Barbie/Blythe/McDonald you would most likely get sued for damages. Furthermore, if her art featured a human model who never signed a consent form, nor ever even knew he/she was being made the subject of her art, the model would perfectly within his/her rights to sue for compensation.

The intent of Mijn's drawings seems to be art. And the "meaning" of her art, as best as she has explained, seems to be: pretty girls from her "fantasy world." Thus, if the meaning of her art is only the faces of these girls, and the faces of the girls are entirely the sculptor's creation, then the meaning of her art is entirely the sculptor's. Which I think makes this an incredibly clear-cut case of direct "art" to "art" theft.

I hope that even if no one else does, that Volks fully pursues this. Being the largest of the doll companies, they are undoubtedly in the best legal/financial position to do so, and Liz's face on Fornarina's clothing is probably the most profitable offense.

Sorry to soapbox... it's been days, and I just can't believe she's still in such denial about this.

 

I... Can not believe this women.

I almost wanna e-mail her a picture of my Unoa and say she can use it if she pays me, those who sculpted the doll and Pepstar providing they all okay it as the sculpters and face up artists!
Maybe she'd get the point that more then one person has invested time and effort into the creation.

Okay probably not but it's a nice thought.
I'm just. Baffled by how she is using this to her advantage. There shouldn't be an advantage.
Maybe someone should quote that in an e-mail to her named companies and see if they really did okay it?
Has someone already? I'd like to know if it's being done or not or I'd go do it myself now.
No use swarming them with the same e-mail.

 

Well, I was under the impression she was in conversation with them.. which to me means she's trying to persuade them to let her continue what she's doing or something, but whether they've agreed is an entirely different matter.

 

I guess an interesting side question is... how would you feel about a company who gave permission after this whole game?

Oh... and does anyone want me to move the Mijn Schatje discussion into its own thread so that the original generic topic can still be discussed here?

 

even though i doubt that will happen, i would be extremely disappointed in the company :/

that might be a good idea.

 

I think it would be a good idea to have a new thread since this one topic has taken over the original discussion.

 

I second both parts of that.

 

I feel that if she gets permission from the company, photographer, and faceup artist than it is ok. It her taking with out permission and making money off of it that is what is wrong. If the sculptor, photographer, and faceup artist do mind their work being used than who am I to say no? As long people are asked and references cited and reimbersments made where desired by the creators of the original pieces.

I would like a new thread please and it be great if we could provide the links in the first post so people could easily find the stuff. That way people can keep an eye out for their pictures and others and the orginal topic could still be debated free of all the congestion.

Thank you so much armeleia!

 

I am spreading the word on the Danish dollboard (including links to this discussion thread, the Radiotrash site, and the facebook group), and I have encouraged all my facebook friends to join the group.

 

Yes, I agree a new topic would be good.

I would be really miffed if a company okayed it after all this. I mean, she's obviously a liar, who would reward that?

 

I don't know about "ok'd", but Bluefairy has already accepted defeat.

 

Which I don't understand because it's obviously their image that she used for their work. Clearly, they didn't know someone took their image to 'recreate' to sell for thousands of dollars. So pretty much now they're giving any person who wants to make a few bucks through art a chance. That's nice. >

 

before your critical of me do you know what an homage is.
say you got a classic star wars drawing.an illustrator for seinfeld comes along and reillustrates it with seinfeld characters.
say youve got the mona lisa smiling.then you recreate it with a changed expression.say you got mad magazine cover and you reillustrate a movie poster to be satirical.
say you got the death of supergirl cover george perez illustrated it years later alex ross paints the same iconic image but slightly changed.are you calling alex ross a thief he "laugh" can buy and sell people.
did the content stolen remain completely the same or was it altered.
the whole concept of the dollfie hobby is altering and modification.would you consider your doll the same as factory specs if you say scarred it tattooed it added putty horns.is it still the exact same intellectual property.what if say you had a dollzone mo you modded it so much it no longer ressembles mo.
barbie say you take a barbie melt it mod it dress it in alittle outfit unbecoming of barbie.say you can no longer even tell its barbie.are intellectual properties rights intact.
my friend has an old ceramic piece unfired i pug half it.coil build around it.is it the same intellectual property.
ever read a mystery novel no originality anymore.just the repetation of six central basic plots.does the guy that made the original plot own intellectual rights because he was first.can he sue progress writers.
???????i'm not trying to antagonize with this response just trying to meet a middle ground.
the planet does man own it because they shaped it and conquered it [modded it] or are we the greatest art thiefs of all [ thats going to far to prove a point the moderator can mod that,though i claim the intellectual property behind that idea and i'll sue "smile"i kid]-sarah

 

Tracing someone else's photo and claiming the resulting drawing is "original" is not homage; it is theft and the act of an incompetent artist.

 

Paying homage to someone is also crediting somewhere that you were inspired by them, not suddenly bringing it up when people are on your case. I pay homage to my doll by stating that I own a DZ Megi, that he's my character but the doll was not created by me. That is paying homage, never once acting as if it is all made by you.

 

I wonder if they are just trying to avoid conflict. Which sucks for Bluefairy, but that's their decision. However, I'm not so sure Mijn will be as lucky when it comes to Volks and Luts.

@drawntogether - Did you even bother to read through this thread? It's been established time and again that this a case of TRACING over someone else's photography. Literally putting someone's picture in Illustrator or whatever program it is, and drawing over it.

 

But it *isn't* an homage,drawntogether. I'm fairly sure we're all familar with what an homage is, thanks. This is TRACING oher people's photos and passing the results off as her own original work.
Modifying a doll is not the same as what is going on here. Once you buy a doll, you own that specific doll and can do what you ant with it. You can put it through a wood chipper, if that's what you choose. That does not involve stealing anything, only changing something you own. This is something entirely different. The people who took those photos own them and she has no right to use them without permission, claim the tracings made from them as her own work, and then claim no knowledge of the original material. Inspiration (as most of your examples are) DOES NOT EQUAL theft of people's photos. Creating a piece inspired by another piece is one thing, outright theft, copying and lying is quite another.