Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

Uh, sorry, did you not see where it is TWENTY FIVE (minimum) traced images,and that she has not only the playstation deal, but also ones where her stolen images are being used in a line of clothing as well as displayed in art galleries?
This *is* serious, because she is making money off of other people's work without so much as crediting them for t he photos.

 

Ok, since apparently this bears repeating for the upteenth time: http://radiotrash.org/mijn/

It'd do you well to actually read this considering it has responses from the doll manufacturers. Here's a preview: They aren't happy about it.

 

See also, art.

I see... so just because our economy is bad makes it okay for people to give up their artistic copyright? When Sony finds out that Mijn traced the art they backed, they may not even back her any more. When did this turn into 'against Sony' instead of 'against plagiarism'?

Also, have you even looked at the Radiotrash site? There isn't one altered dollfie picture, it is Mijn Schatje's almost entire body of work.

 

i wasn't being all that serious anyway.no one had an alternative view point.being nasty to me and telling me i'm trolling does not make you look good either .i responded for some mature debate.as i said i did not think it was right i was just providing an alternative stance.thats all.

 

For mature debate, it's always a good idea to have your arguments lined up if you wish to play devil's advocate. You'll find that members have very strong feelings, particularly on this very real case. Here we do not have a hypothetical situation, but reality, and you must expect members to respond in a realistic manner. Just something to keep in mind.

 

It's probably a good idea to skim the previous pages too, to see what the issue is
If anyone here is a working artist (or plans to become one) it's important to your career to understand some of the nuts and bolts of copyright law, because (hopefully) you will be dealing with serious contracts for serious money, and when you reach that level you need to have all your ducks (and images) in a row. Stock art and your receipts for the art, as well as model releases are oh so your friend in that case. Keep all your records where you can find them. (and not like me on the computer..a hd crash is still messing me up).

 

i respect your strong feelings.as i respect people of different political or religious stance.i was not intending nastiness behind it.my nicknames sassy i'm oppositional by nature.if everyone agreed it would stop. and be boring.i'm not a people person,i'm a loner.

 

(In case anyone wonders, I moved the Mijn Schatze content to its own thread - there's so much going on here.)

 

Thanks, armeleia!
Would it be possible to put all the important links in the first post?

EDIT: dur. you beat me to it xD

 

http://radiotrash.org/temp/t/fromlutsmail.jpg

Might this be something that you were looking for? I think considering legal action to be the ultimate form of complaining. (And they aren't even Volks, who've had their traced pictures put onto a clothing line.)

 

Unique elements like this tiger maybe?

 

Friend of the artist eh?

Seriously, your arguements are not working because they do not apply to this situation or the situations that have occured before where people found their photos for sale in galleries, books, purses, ect. First off, if you take a copyrighted image and use it and sell it, there's a good chance you will end up having to pay for that. Can bet you the Seinfeld people would be paying Mr. Lucas for that use of the Star Wars images.

There are a number of images that are in the public domain. Artists can use those. So siting those as examples why it's okay for people to take other people's work that isn't is not a valid arguement.

People knew that the Renaissance Masters had people working under that that did a lot of the work. Same thing happens today. Who do you think did a lot of the extra stuff for Warhol? But at least they disclosed what they did. Mijn didn't.

If you knew anything about copyright you would understand what is covered by it, the Berne Convention, the fact that the taker of the photograph is the person who owns the copyright for it and "Copyright which subsists in a photograph protects not merely the photographer from direct copying of his work, but also from indirect copying to reproduce his work, where a substantial part of his work has been copied" (from Wiki but it is found elsewhere).

It's not the same as taking photographs of a Barbie dolls with a bunch of french fries. One knows what Barbie, they get that it's a commentary on the commercialism of Barbie. Taking someone's photo, attempting to cover it up using computer programs and claiming it's your original art is not the same thing.

Manufacturers are not happy and have stated so. I believe people have pointed you to this.

"Tilting at windmills" that is so familar. That may be why the word troll was used, because pretending to be someone else instead of who you really can be considered trolling. And it may be that some people question just who you really are. It would make sense as to why you are continuing to use these illogical statements.

 

(Credit to xkcd, hotlinking permitted.)

There's a time and a place for everything. Sometimes it's worth it.

 

xkcd has won the thread, hands down.

drawntogether, it's possibly also worth noting that if you were looking for 'mature debate' it was probably not the best notion to essentially tell people that their opinions were laughable and trivial because "it's just a dollfie".

I'd also say that this bad economy is a really GOOD reason to go after this artist. Why should she be making profits and not sharing with people and companies that could use them, hm?

 

Using the "economy" as an excuse not to go after blatant copyright infringment/art theft is pretty weak, imo. Art theft is VERY serious business, don't think that because it's on the internet and because it's 'dollfies' that it's not.
Figuratively speaking, drawntogether, and I speak figuratively because I know nothing about you: If you were an artist and you had a painting, photograph, or sketch ripped off by someone who traced and photoshopped it half to death, I doubt you'd be all flippant and sardonic, sunshine.

And just so you know, the companies HAVE been informed. Luts is considering the possibility of legal action because Mijn Schatje used their images without asking for permission. Maybe you should do a spot of research before making assumptions like that, just because some information has not been spoonfed to you.

Also, better grammar would make your arguments more compelling.

 

thats informative.but i'd love it if a rep logged on to this to add there point of view.
look i wouldn't like it if it were done to me.but i've had my art lampooned by several cartoonists who turned a buck on it.even my own best friend wrote alittle autobiography comic and ripped me off.the fact is there was nothing much i could do about it.because she changed it just enough. so i can understand it would be a hard battle.its not that clear cut.perhaps i get this stance of defeat from that experience.
i saw way back in the begining you had a couple of responses from the manufactorer in email copy.it just seemed so form letter. i hope one opens a reaction thread on here.i suppose a manufactorer could hire better lawyers.i've just seen alot of people get away with it and that was part of my point.but is this really something we'll crack open in newsday and read tomorrow.or will they just make a tiny settlement to keep it quiet.while the person who did it gets away.

 

I'm calling shenanigans here.

 

Hello !

Have you seen this ?

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=93320265377&ref=nf

 

Multiple times now I've seen references to art and artists from previous centuries being used to argue that there are no morals in art, or that the specific morals being argued for in this case are wrong. As a historian, I'd like to point out why this is a poor debate tactic.

• The artists of previous eras, just like the artists of today, had both codes of conduct and laws by which they operated. The fact that those codes and laws were slightly different than what we have now does not change the fact that historical artists, just like modern ones, believed there was a standard of morality by which all should abide. Artists who did not abide by the codes of their era were shunned and criticized just as Mijn Schatje is now beginning to find herself shunned and criticized. In short, historical artists paid the price for going against the accepted code of behavior, just as modern artists do now. The specifics may have changed, but the artistic spirit has not.
  
• In general, it's a bad idea to point to the moral code of a prior era and claim that because attitudes and laws used to be a certain way, it's OK for them to remain that way now. (This is known as the But-They-Did-It-Back-Then-So-It's-OK-Now defense among some historians.) Renaissance Italians felt it was acceptable for art students to complete the works of their masters, and for painters to copy elements from other artists. True. But Renaissance Italians also felt it was acceptable to deny that rape was a crime against women, and limited criminal suits against rapists to those filed by the father or husband of the victim for property damage. I doubt anyone would argue that this terrible attitude toward women is appropriate for today's world, so why is the Renaissance attitude toward art supposed to carry into the modern era? You cannot pick and choose. History is not a cherry tree from which you can pluck only the fruits you like best.

So where does this leave us? Back where we started. Argue for modern morals with modern examples, or at least understand that when you open a bucket of worms, you may get more slime on yourself than you intended.

 

Reps don't have all the time in the world to log onto a doll forum and add their two cents. There's business to be taken care of, and now, most likely, lawyers to consult. Anything they have to say on the matter would be posted on their website.

For someone who's had their own artwork ripped off, you sound very defeatist. I'm sorry that that's happened to you, but shrugging and going "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE THERE'S NOTHING I CAN DO" is admitting defeat from the get-go, and letting art thieves continue to get away with what they do.

Trust me. There is money involved in this - quite possibly large amounts of money that the doll companies are losing because they've been stolen from. They're not getting any royalties from stolen images, royalties that by all means they should be getting. I'm certain most of them will do their best to ensure that A) They're not stolen from again, and B) They will be properly reimbursed.