Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

she traced over it but it did not remain the same which was my point.i saw unique elements added-sarah

 

But it is *still* a tracing. That is the point. She is tracing people's photos, adding things here and there, and then presenting them as her own work, without permission OR acknowledging where they came from. Tracing something and adding bits and bobs to it does NOT make the result original work. A lot of those "unique" elements are stolen/traced, as well.

 

Tracing an image and adding even more little traced images does not art make.

 

if it were a photocopy of the same thing .i'd say thief.but the electronic modification makes it distinctly her own.was it right not credit probably not.but does the guy altering the mona lisa feel its necessary to point out its origin or does the similarity speak for itself.its derived from the original but its not exact

 

Please delete: I will rewrite this message.

 

if the whole things stolen all the bits and pieces i concede its not original but i can also see the the collaging arguement

 

The guy altering the Mona Lisa doesn't have to credit it, because it's the Mona Lisa: a well-known work. Mijn is in the wrong because she is not crediting the work of lesser-known artisans.

 

Yes it IS exact. These are exact tracings of company and owner photos which are simpy vector traced. The guy who does a painting inspired by the original Mona Lisa is NOT claiming that he created the image out of thin air and that he's never heard of the original. He's also (presumably) not going into the Louvre, putting tracing paper over it and tracing the thing. The main issue here is that mijn is pretending that she gets the ideas for these images out of thin air with no reference made to the source material.
ETA: She is not calling herself a collage artist, which I might concede she could possibly be considered IF she were being honest about anything. She is supposedly a vector artist who creates her own original work, which is complely untrue.

 

Just because she traced digitally doesn't make what she's doing right. Pretty much what you're saying is that I can take one of her images, trace everything, and make some color modifications and stuff and it would be okay? I highly doubt that. I think she would be making as much a fuss as we are about someone tracing her works.

You keep bringing up the Mona Lisa. There's a law [and I'm no good with laws and all, lolz] that says something about after so many years it's okay. These dolls she's tracing does not come under that law, I know for sure.

 

Yes. Because these photos were so obvious in their origin that it took about four years for someone to finally go "Oh hey! Something looks really familiar here...". And what do you know, the people who actually noticed were doll owners.

As for the whole collage thing, that's been brought up. Fact remains that she does not establish herself as a collage artist, but a vector artist.

@tarkle21 - I believe it's 70 years after the original artist dies.

 

She has stated in articles that these are her own, original, characters. She's been caught in her lie.

We've already established that copyright law states that if an artwork is re-created in another medium, and the "average person" can tell it is a recreation of that work, it is a copyright violation. She doesn't have fair use of critique or parody, because she isn't critiquing or doing a parody of ball jointed dolls.

 

many renaissance artists the big name ones had lesser known apprentices .that would fill in or be the basis for the masters work.some hit it big despite being lesser known and sometimes the master who was well known would ride on the fame many of the lesser known people were lost to time.life isn't just.you can work your whole life on a piece and a style and a greater more renowned artist can do the same thing and they'll rocket to fame.you can work your whole life and be called an emerging artist at age 60.life isn't fair and sometimes those with more power and fame are those that are noticed at the expense of others.thats all i have to say.i don't think its a great enough crime to warrant this many posts.and i agreed with obama poster statement.life sucks then you die.the only way to survive is to be tougher and more original until someone says by god its great.a more constructive thing to do then debate is action if enough facts support a suit.the obama photographer sued the poster maker it was on yahoo and newsday.but it dimished not the poster makers fame and hes obscenely wealthy he was on either colbert or the daily show i forget.-sarah

 

The Mona Lisa!!! Oh you cannot be serious!? What a silly comparison!

This woman has stolen peoples photos of their dolls, traced them (and used other stolen pictures in the case of the tiger and the baseball cap for example) and sold them on for many thousands of dollars, then lied about it! She is also potentially going to cause some serious hell for Sony Playstation advertising department too as they bought some of her images.

This has nothing to do with life being unfair, or masters using the work of their apprentices 400 years ago. Just because someone else has done something bad in the past does not mean it is okay for someone to go ahead and do it again. It is also obvious if something uses the image of the Mona Lisa for example, it is one of the most iconic and famous images in the world.

I sincerely doubt this will work well for her as a publicity stunt. What has happened is she thought she would get away with this and someone has noticed. I believe she will find herself hung, drawn and quartered in the financial sense. And so she should. Dispicable behaviour.

 

So your argument is as such: People copy each other all the time, life sucks that way. Oh well.
Got it. Thanks for playing.

 

drawntogether, you are so missing the point it's not even funny. Do you actually have anything meaningful and relevant to this thread to say, or are you just trolling? Because right now you are really not coming across in a very good light at all.

 

How the renaissance artists ran their studios has little bearing on this issue, as this is 2009 and there are ethical and copyright issues that apply to today that have nothing to do with how things worked centuries ago.

I also feel that it is perfectly normal to discuss it here on this bjd forum, as the issue is something that effects our community--not to mention that there are constructive things being done, but that doesn't mean that people are finished talking about it. Also, pointing out that life isn't fair hardly negates the discussion--yeah, life isn't fair, but that doesn't mean everyone should roll over and throw in the towel. That's just a recipe for apathy in all areas of life, and that's just not right or healthy.

 

drawntogether > So your justification is that "life's not fair, deal with it"? Thank god the police don't adopt such lackadaisical attitudes when someone's killed... :/ From what you're saying it sounds like you know that what she's doing is wrong, but that you think it's okay to do whatever it takes to become successful?

What do you think is the purpose of modern copyright and intellectual property laws?

 

i want to laugh right now.because everyones so serious.its a dollfie.i love them dearly.i was just offering an alternative stance.i don't see the doll manufacturer on here complaining and in this bad economy does anyone have the money to take on a sony playstation giant over one lousy altered dollfie pic.its like don quixote going after a windmill.i love argumenative debate its fun, but thats all i've got.

 

I'd wait until the notifications reach them before saying they aren't complaining.

 

drawntogether look at it this way--people put a lot of money, time, effort and creativity into their dolls and doll related photography which is also legitimately an art form. What this person did was rip off other people's art and profit hugely from it--of course people are going to be upset! It's the same as if someone ripped off someone's sculpture, or painting or plagarized someone's book. Just because this revolves around doll images doesn't make the issue any less serious.

Oh, and someone posted a link that included responses by some of the doll companies, and they didn't sound happy about it either. What legal actions if any will be taken, I don't know, but either way that doesn't mean that people shouldn't put the word out so other folks realize what's going on before they unknowingly buy any of her merchandise. If nothing else, her reputation may at least take a hit.