Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

Well, I can tell you that one of the companies I contacted for permission to use their dolls in my book granted me that permission to use it for editorial use (the book) but not commercial use (for instance, using the dolls in an ad to sell clothing or something). And it was one of the companies mentioned in the mijn schatje case. Whether or not she can use the photos in her gallery works might be very grey legally and difficult and expensive to prosecute. However, if she did use them for playstation or the clothing line, that is in fact commercial use and those laws are pretty cut and dried, at least in the US.

 

geez,i didn't say anything nasty to you[and i'm drinking wine right now i "laugh"could say something funny any moment].look were all passionate about our dolls.i love mine you love yours.but how many times do people just not understand your passion.i'm aware my fellow artists laugh at me and my dolls its not important to them.but i love it.dollfies aren't renowned to everyone there a private joy weve come to experience.would another artist unfamiliar with dollfies hold them in high esteem as an artform?that was my point.i did not laugh at your notions or same damn thats wrong.your over analyzing my responses.look i know i'm a nice person and i wasn't mocking you.i do like the don quixote cartoon though that was perfect timing.i'm drunk laugh out loud.your analyzing drunk sarah.

 

I'm pretty sure that the reps are busy looking into this matter right now. (I've also never seen a Korean rep join discussions since their English isn't always clear.)

But, they might seem like forum responses to you, but I'm pretty sure that there isn't much else they can say at this point or much they would discuss with outsiders if they do choose to pursue legal action.

Not like Volks or Luts is going to tell us that they plan to sue, pretty sure they would just do it.

 

Seconded!!

drawntogether > If you truly had ever had your own creation stolen, I highly doubt that you would be defending her. I can tell you that even just having the concept or a small part of your art copied or stolen from you leaves you feeling sick to your stomach. It goes completely against the code of acceptable behaviour in artists' circles, as anyone who has received a formal art education can attest to.

The only reason I can fathom someone would be indifferent to having their intellectual property stolen is if they didn't care about it in the first place--which is a load... people who don't care are rarely capable of creating anything worth stealing.

edit: cirquemom, for the companies that gave you permission, what were their requirements for doing so? Like what kind of credit, if any, did they require? Just curious~

 

Mijn Schatje has made me so paranoid!!....I'd hate to find one of my dolls photos manipulated by anyone, then turned into 'art' and sold off for a large sum of money!
I've just pulled all of my doll photos off of Youtube and Twitter and I'm worried about my photo hosting site too!...
.....I really feel for the guys who's dolls have been 'used' by Mijn Schatje...this is a real case,
and I hope it gets sorted out very soon....


EDIT: I was able to BLOCK my Photobucket Album from Public viewing...this makes me feel much better!.....The only place to view my doll pics now is in the Gallery here on DoA....where I feel safe!

Edit: KOCHXBOS Gallery Amsterdam is exhibiting/selling Mijn Schatje 'Art'....also catalogues and posters are for sale.... 20 Euros for a signed poster!!!.....Bog wrap, I say!....

xen

 

grammar laugh out loud lucky if i can type.

 

....Did I say anything about that? At all? I'm providing refutes to your arguments. Recall what you said earlier:

This is argumentative debate. I'm not going to play nice in a debate because you're 'a nice person' or drunk at the moment.

(Don't drink and DoA, kids.)

Edit: Lelei, seconding everything you've said.

 

I respect what the companies and photographers chose to do. I also want to say I am glad to be hearing her side on her my space. I still do not agree with what she has done, but I did want hear what she had to say for herself and in honestly she seems to be reacting very calmy considering all the stuff that is going on.

 

Time to ignore drawntogether , and move on. It's quite clear it's a troll for the sole purpose to kick up flames. There's nothing mature about anything they've stated, and despite multiple solutions, they keep coming back and blabbering about the same junk. If they aren't serious about the topic, then they can kindly exit stage right.

Shenanigans. I call it as well.

Either way, I seriously honestly hope something comes of this. I don't want this particular 'artist' to start a wave of other people thinking they can do the same thing.

 

No one ?
So she's actually saying :

In the past few days there have been numerous allegations made against
me in regard to the fact I use photographs of ball-joined dolls as inspiration
and in the production of my art work. I have used many photographs of dolls
in creating my art, and in most cases I have had the permission of the creators
of the original photograph.
There have been a few instances where , mainly due to my poor English writing
skills a few years ago, I assumed I had permission from the photographer and I
did not. Beck Head from Blastmilk was pleased to allow me to use one of her
images in my creation and sent me her files, and I assumed she was aware I was
using images from her collection in my artwork.

According to Ms.Head she was not, and all images derived from her photographs
have since been removed from my collections, on the internet and from galleries
that show my work. I have also contacted the manufacturers Doll In Mind, Leekeworld,
Luts and Volks to have this cleared up with them directly.
I have always been a fan of ball-jointed dolls, and my art will continue to showcase
their craftsmanship and beauty as an homage and inspiration.
If you are a creator or photographer of ball-joined dolls and would like me to see your
work and perhaps use it in creating one of my paintings as some other did,
please let me know.

Thank you all for your support and kindness.

Mijn Schatje, Paris June 3, 2009

 

Wow, what utter lies. she's just making things worse and worse for herself.
(Psst, that link you gave requires people to log in. Not everyone has an account there.XD)

 

Sorry,
That's why I pasted it

 

Note she says "most cases." That does not mean all. Just because you ask for permission once or twice does not mean you have it for the rest of your artistic career.

Anyone else smelling BS?

 

Actually dear, there are next to NO "unique" elements added to her works. This is what I have found so far:

She re-uses the following images over and over and over: the sketchwork swallows (which I think are Dover clip-art), the Lotus blossom (I think is another New Age swipe but I have not identified the exact image yet), the magnolia blossom (could be from anywhere), the toy balloons, the hot-air balloons (also Lisa Frank I think), the pair of deer (Dover clip-art), the checkerboard background (could be from anywhere but looks very like a swipe from another popular stationary artist whose name escapes me, but who did fantasy stuff), the tiger (a swipe from a stamp), the boombox (a swipe identified uplink), the flamingos, the bunny, the goldfish, the pink shoe (a Lisa Frank swipe), and the jellyfish (which I think is from Scott Thom or Gilbert Williams). The style itself is 50s "space age" advertising and cartoon art with the "bendy" arms and legs. Basically there is nothing that is original to her. Not even the "big-eyed woman-child" look, which is a direct swipe of the "Keane Kids" big-eyed paintings of the 60s and 70s.

And it is not hommage. Hommage work ALWAYS cites the original sources. This is digital collage, the computer age version of people cutting and pasting pictures from magazines into a new composition. Which would be fine if she acknowledged that, and her sources, and better if she PAID her sources, but since she is not doing either, is fraud, deceit, and theft.

 

you don't think i'm upset.my friend stole from me.and sold 500 copies of a book.thats not upset.i'm incredibly upset about that.it was not only stolen from but mocked.how would you like it if one day your best friend not only steals from you.but writes an unflattering little portrayal of you and sells it to 500 people.and i don't know how that feels?well it feels @#%^y.

 

Thank you Rottenpony! That was what I was refering too. I do not agree with her, but I am glad she posted something. It seems a bit calm for what is going on imo, but I am not sure what one should expect from someone confronted *shrug*

 

Thanks for that, then. ^^ I can't say I'm surprised to see that response. She still seems to think that we're stupid or something,since she is *still* lying. It just keeps getting more and more frustrating. :/

 

I'm thinking about contacting my local radio station about this xD It's not that big, but hopefully it'll create a little more interest!

 

Unfortunately I've had the displeasure of a friend stealing from me and trashing my name behind my back, albeit without the use of media such as a book. It's life, and you can't take that crap lying down.
(Technically I think you could pursue her legally for defamation. Most sensible people I know would have contacted their lawyers after the book was published.)

Edit: Also, was that a point for your argument, or just letting the thread know how you felt?

 

...

There is one particular point in Ms. Schatje's statement up there that got my hackles WAY up (well, other than the numerous contradictions to her earlier statements). This part here:

...it's as if she couldn't fathom that people might not want her using their work.