1. It has come to the attention of forum staff that Dollshe Craft has ceased communications with dealers and customers, has failed to provide promised refunds for the excessive waits, and now has wait times surpassing 5 years in some cases. Forum staff are also concerned as there are claims being put forth that Dollshe plans to close down their doll making company. Due to the instability of the company, the lack of communication, the lack of promised refunds, and the wait times now surpassing 5 years, we strongly urge members to research the current state of this company very carefully and thoroughly before deciding to place an order. For more information please see the Dollshe waiting room. Do not assume this cannot happen to you or that your order will be different.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dollshe Craft and all dolls created by Dollshe, including any dolls created under his new or future companies, including Club Coco BJD are now banned from Den of Angels. Dollshe and the sculptor may not advertise his products on this forum. Sales may not be discussed, no news threads may be posted regarding new releases. This ban does not impact any dolls by Dollshe ordered by November 8, 2023. Any dolls ordered after November 8, 2023, regardless of the date the sculpt was released, are banned from this forum as are any dolls released under his new or future companies including but not limited to Club Coco BJD. This ban does not apply to other company dolls cast by Dollshe as part of a casting agreement between him and the actual sculpt or company and those dolls may still be discussed on the forum. Please come to Ask the Moderators if you have any questions.
    Dismiss Notice

Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

May 31, 2009

    1. I guess I can't say I'm furious at how Mijn copies, but it does make her a pretty bad artist. So, here's something to consider: what if she hadn't directly vectored, but looked at those dolls and just hand drew her own version of them? How I see it is, she isn't taking any money or fame away from the doll makers - they're completely different forms of art and if anything, she'll eventually draw attention to the original doll artists. I don't say I approve, nor am I especially angry about it. She has done something interesting with what she has found.

      Addition: Though I do find it extremely distasteful that she's making a huge amount of monetary gain on someone else's creation. If she was sharing it for less money or for free, then I'd be more okay with it, but she is claiming something as her own so she can make money off of it. That, I do find very disgusting.

      Another addition that is a question: I haven't looked at all her work, is EVERYTHING copied or just some of it? Is the copied stuff more recent or older?

      And another addition: Does anyone know her email? I'd be interested in contacting her in a mature, reasonable manner. I just want to know her justifications.
       
    2. PenguinCheese, Animeji posted this link, you might have missed it, it was on the top of the last page: http://eggtea.com/brycesucks/tomato/images/examples.html where the images are layered. Unless she's a photo realist, that's a trace.

      Edit: Aaaahhh, you edited to encoporate this! ^^;
       
    3. Doujinshi are not legal. There was that one case where pokemon caused an uproar by pulling copyright on a bunch of doujinshi artists. (Search: Pokemon doujinshi incident) Just because it isn't enforced doesn't mean its legal, that is the real problem with copyright: it is very complicated and changes based on the context of the image and what it is being used for. A lot of copyright infringment is due to the copyright holder either not knowing the infringment is happening or being unable to afford to fight it in the court room.

      Roy was doing a parody, and fair use covers education and parody. You can't argue this girl is doing education or a parody :)
       
    4. Lilly - I know it's a trace, I didn't word myself well. >< Sorry! I meant, if the case was different and she didn't trace but she only freehanded, what would that mean? I can see she did trace these, but would it have been different if she hadn't?
       
    5. I actually kind of find this sickly amusing because to the trained eye, these are SO obviously BJD sculpts! And yet she claimed at first that she had never even heard of them? And then later she claimed that she knew of them, but had never seen them? That's just a blatant lie...
       
    6. About Mijn...

      Ok, yeah, there's gotta be a way to contact all these companies she's selling her TRACINGS to. ><; It's so utterly obvious once the pics are side by side and just a brick to the head with the lay overs. Never heard of BJDs? In the words of Phoenix Wright....

      OBJECTION!
       
    7. It's being done as far as I understand.
       
    8. I saw one of a Luts Ari. There is only one doll I know of that winks and Ari was it. But she did do one of Ari!
       
    9. You know what I find amusing about the artist in question? She said on a blog somewhere "These aren't live trace"
      Well I tossed one of my pictures of one of my own dolls into Illustrator, did a live trace and... Yes they are. Oh. My. I am a horrid artist! I really am, I can't draw to save my life. Hence why I like photo manips.
      Maybe I should get back into vectors cause that trace feature. Oh man. I mean sure, you can do it the hard way and trace it by hand but I'm lazy as I assume this person is as well. Just alter lines, remove some points and what not and you have that crisp hair line and ect.
      Its amusing and disgusting all in one.
       
    10. This isn't legal, and neither is it appropriate. If you are tracing, you are expected to credit your source, whether or not you are a professional artist. If you are selling your work (as this artist is), then the original artist must offer permission and receive befitting recompense in exchange for letting you use their art in a composite. There's a reason for this: the person who does the work deserves the credit. The doll companies created these dolls from scratch, gave them faceups, and then photographed them with extreme care. Their work is being altered for the sake of profit, none of which returns to them. Therefore, they are being stolen from and this artist is a thief.

      It may not seem like the doll companies are "losing" any money here, but the truth is, they have a resource that is being exploited without their permission. It doesn't matter if you can pin dollars and cents on the value; theft is theft.
       
    11. Shes on Facebook, all her fan comments make me sick! Couldnt she just come out and say what they are, then at least they would be pretty pictures. All I can see is the traces and it winds me up. Are the companies that took the photos that she traced from being contacted?
       
    12. At least some of the companies have been contacted. Denny of DIM has replied and made mention that she did not have permission to use DIM photos. PIPOS also replied back with a message stating that she did not have permission from them, either.
       
    13. As for the artist you are discussing here, I think that it is not very nice what she is doing and rather distasteful. Directly taking someone's elses photos or ideas and passing them off as your own is not ok.

      As for the overall question. I am not sure it is so black in white. We get a doll and we piant a unique one of a kind face up on, through a combination of clothes, wigs, eyes, shoes and props we create a character that is unique and a part of our own creative work. In a sense, people are using dolls as a canvas to create. I am not sure they should have to give credit...if photos or paintings are their own design and the doll's style is their own desing but the sculpt is not, I am not sure what the right choice is. How about this...I am a writer and I have characters in my mind that I created before I ever saw a certain doll. They have physical characteristics that I had in my head and written down before I ever got a doll. Now, I find a doll that looks like one of my characters. I but it and paint it, dress it, and give it the same eyes and hair as my character. Now who owns my character? Do I need to credit the doll company for something I created before their doll came along? Seems a bit silly. Now, that is how I see it for some artists. They had their character in their mind and found a doll that they "painted" that character upon. So when they draw a picture of their character, which may look like a doll, do they need to credit the company? I see it as more of canvas for them. I dunno if any of what I just said makes sense to anyone but me, but what I am really trying to say is it is not all black and white.

      EDIT: Wanted to add, if someone took my unique combination of characteristics and a picture or painting I made using a doll as a model and then passed the work off as their own, I think that that is very very wrong (such as the lady mentioned above). I also think that it is more the creator of the character she is showing off (the person who took the pcitures and the overall designer of the chacter, not the mold) who should be credited.
       
    14. NabbeRain: That's an interesting point you brought up. However, if you had a doll you purchased from a doll company that was dressed in clothes/wigs/accessories that were also from doll companies, and someone on the street asked, "Did you make that item?" then yes, it's only fair you say, "I did not create the components, but I did assemble them." Or "I did not make everything, but I did make these specific things: the pants, the faceup..." etc. if you did make some of the pieces. Otherwise, people might get the wrong impression and believe you sculpted the doll itself, which in truth, would not be fair. This would be especially relevant if you were, for example, trying to promote yourself as an artist by way of said doll.
       
    15. I think the difference between creating a character and bringing it to life using the doll and creating art for both showing and selling is that we don't profit off our creations. Also, when posting photos, in our own way, we do credit the company by letting others know what the mold is and what modifications we did make. It's one thing to create art and be known for it when it is inspired by someone else work of art. It's another thing to become famous and make money off of the dolls and not even have the morals to credit the companies. I hope that makes sense. lol
       
    16. That is very true. I would probably say, this doll is made to look like one of my characters I created. The doll istelf and the parts are made by and obtained from so and so. You do not want to leave room for misunderstandings such as that. I agree ^_^, but I still wonder about actual paintings and drawings and how closely they resemble something might determine if it should be credited. As for a doll in real life, of course you should not claim it or anything made by others as your own creation or lead others to belive it is.
       
    17. I saw her work in a magazine called HI-FRUCTOSE a month or so ago and was like HALO THAR NARAE. That particular artist's work is highly derivative and really brings nothing original to the table; the keystone of each piece is a traced image of a doll. Her additions of limbs and torsos are jarring, her grasp of anatomy and shading is laughable at best. I'm really disappointed that this is the sort of work that is getting critical acclaim these days in the graphic design world.

      Are people really paying a grand for a print of this? If this artist were offering commissions in the Marketplace here, I wouldn't pay her $20 to do a portrait of my own doll... :sweat
       
    18. I'm a member of her fan page now on Facebook, ready to post examples of copied work if I ever need to. :) It makes me sick that she has 700 fans...
       
    19. Eh it wouldn't be the first time people paid big bucks for art that others consider crappy and derivative. There's currently a big trend towards designers and painters of flat, big-eyed girls (kendra binney, etc.) so if this artist is selling prints of similar then I'm not surprised she is popular. One thing I've noticed about the BJD community, or at least as it is mirrored on DoA, is that people in it have unusually high and demanding standards for what constitutes "good art" and what constitutes "originality" compared to a lot of other people involved in art. Maybe that's because of the large number of artists and art students involved in the community, or maybe it's because of the extreme sensitivity to "copying" that's involved with this hobby.
       
    20. Armeleia: Yes, I agree entirely. I also notice she has a lot of trouble with completing the shape of the head when it is not in the photograph. That's pretty telling, since the shape of a person's skull is not particularly variable. That certainly lends me to believe that she is using the photographs of dolls as a crutch, not as a "tool", as might be claimed.