Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

Well it has certainly made me rethink how I will respond to future requests for usage of my photos. The email Becky got from Mijn two years ago is very similar to 3 emails I have gotten over the past year or so asking for permission to use a photo of mine as reference in their art (digital or otherwise.)

I usually say yes, as long as I'm credited, but now I realize that even if people follow the common sense of asking permission first, they may not follow the common sense to not trace the images directly, and that permission for ONE =/= permission for SEVEN. Or for commercial use.

I try not to be paranoid, as I don't really think my photos are super-special-amazing, but it would make me very sad if they were exploited like Becky's were. So I've disabled the full-size view on my flickr account to everyone but those I've marked as 'friends' (as working off a 500px max image would probably be a bit more difficult for potential thieves.) And recently I have started putting a small watermark in the corners. Kind of sucks to have to do that, but... c'est la vie...

 

The moon in the background. Where is that from? I've seen it in her other works and I know it from somewhere but... Ugh it's one of things I just can not figure out. Driving me nuts...
I mean okay, it's a circle with a face on it but. I swear I know it from somewhere anyways...

 

I won't take down my stuff (and honestly, my doll photos aren't really all that stellar, anyway), though it did make me suddenly think of my artwork in general. I have nondoll stuff posted in other places--I wouldn't remove anything, but it does really bring home the fact that there are some very dishonest people out there using the internet for the powers of evil : P It's a double edged sword--on one hand, it's wonderful to be able to share with others so easily, but on the other you have less control over your images. I'm beginning to think watermarking images may be a good idea.

 

She uses that moon in about every image so its possible you recall it from every other work of hers? ^_^;;

 

well, my girl is not here yet, but to be honest it is making me think about things more :/
i will probably just use large watermarks, but if anything ever gets stolen, i will definitely take it all down.
stealing pictures of myself is one thing (and i have had it happen), because i can easily prove that it is my picture.
but with other photographs it would be hard.

 

I'd agree if I hadn't thought of it the first time I saw the moon in the first of her works that I looked at.
It looks like the moons that you see in a childrens book.

It could actually be hers though because. Circle + face = moon and just look like. A moon in a childrens book. It is kinda "her style" after all...

 

Junkets, I did take my pics down from my sites yesterday! and have blocked another from public viewing...this makes me sad...and has made me feel uneasy about my dolls. I haven't been able to focus on doing a photoshoot this week at all.......I'm usually so inspired...
I hope some good comes out of all this turmoil..........

I have not emailed Kochxbos Gallery in Amsterdam re: the selling of Ms Schatje's 'Art'......it was still up for sale yesterday......

xen

 

Don't forget that it is very common, especially for someone under stress, to create "sockpuppet" accounts for their Facebook in order to have what appears to be an overwhelming wave of support. Just because she got 20 new "friends" it doesn't follow that these are anything other than a wave of fakes.

 

I don't think so. Reading that makes me think they want to let their lawyers handle it.

 

It could also be people against her wanting to be alerted to updates she makes like notes and image submissions...

 

Also, even if the accounts are real, it doesn't necessarily cancel out the potentially large number of people who are very unhappy with her right now. Granted, I'm sure there will be some people who will defend her no matter what. However, if galleries and other companies previously interested in her work see her as a potential liability and/or if a company does take her to court, then she's in major hot water even if she can drum up some support on Facebook.

 

I think I just found her butterflies....

 

That's how I read it -- that they don't want a flood of angry, possibly contradictory emails of varying levels of coherency coming in since it could possibly undermine what their lawyers are trying to do.

I don't intend to pull my photographs down. I'll be honest -- I am no kind of a genius photographer and my dolls are very run-of-the-mill, so to speak. Common molds, some unusual details here or there but for the most part they're nothing supremely outstanding. I'd be shocked if she chose one of my amateurish photos for her "artwork". I may, however, start watermarking them. Just to be on the safe side.

EDIT: Victoria Victrix, I find the fact that the butterflies came off a rubber stamp set to be hilariously ironic.

 

I hope their lawyers do get involved it spreads a message across the entire of the community that this kind of behaviour is not going to wash, even in less popular communities and cultures.

It’s great that the companies are actually getting involved. This really is no different from her copying over a Pepsi photography advert or a cover from vogue. No matter what the subject is if you trace over a copyrighted image, photograph or not you are infringing their rights.

It’s awkward if you are an individual amateur artist as you will likely only have the most basic of copyright protection all individuals have, but Companies will have their own patents and such as they will have invested a lot of money into their business and advertising, For BJD’s this is demonstrated by the extents they go to to shut down recasting companies. It’s all the same deal.

I hope she gets fined or something rather then just a cease and desist. It’s shameful to all the communities involved and she should be ashamed of herself, surely she was taught about plagiarism at school!

Now my brain is buzzing with so many high profile plagiarism cases. Some that even made it into UK stores, I remember buying a notebook that was Discontinued because the artist was sued for using other peoples art.

Editted as I used the word: Plagarism too much and it made it sound like some kind of speech. XD

 

As far as taking things down or not putting things up goes, this probably won't affect me. I've always been careful of what I post online, and even so, I've had images (of paintings) stolen before. But I always try to only upload smaller images, or if I care about something a lot I simply don't upload it. All of my doll photos are resized to be pretty small before I upload them, and I don't mind at all if people draw the images (or even trace), but I probably would never send somebody the higher resolution image. It just wouldn't sit right with me.

Also, as far as paintings go, I also resize those images before I upload them. When I would upload the bigger images, I had problems with people taking some of them, and even though they're paintings and it would be very easy to prove that they were mine, I still didn't like the thought of people having such large copies of my stuff.

I've never used watermarks, though. I find that if you're going to slap a huge, annoying watermark in the middle of the image, what's the point of even uploading it?

I think the best thing that people can take from this is to use caution when they post stuff online. You shouldn't be afraid, just cautious.

 

I could be wrong, especially when it comes to online/digital media but I was told in a Creative Writing class that a Creative Commons copyrite is slapped on your work the minute your pen hits the paper and you slap a name and a date on it. This prevents others from stealing your work/ideas and gives you the ability to sue if it is stolen.
If that is in fact correct, could the same not be said for the original owners? I'm talking at a very basic level. I mean, yes she traced them, that fact is obvious, and we all know that they didn't give permission and we hope/assume that they will press charges, but couldn't this law alone be enough to press charges?
I'm babbling sorry. I was just reading everyone's comments and the thought came into my head about the creative commons so I thought I'd mention it

 

No, you only have a Creative Commons license on your work if you choose to use a creative commons license; otherwise it is automatically copyright to you with all rights reserved.

 

I don't intend to take down my pictures. My photobucket has been locked since I first signed up because I never liked the idea of people rummaging through to see what all I have in there. On rare occasion I'll allow a person into a particular folder, but not for the main folder, no way!

My more recent photography on DA has a watermark on everything, put there by DA.

And in general I only really show small pictures. I reduce most of mine to 12% and post that instead of the 2000x3000 several megabyte original (actually a bit bigger). They get smaller and harder to see detail.

 

It's a good idea to lock down a Photobucket account if you have one anyway, because according to Photobucket's own TOS any pictures posted publicly become public domain and you are surrendering all rights to them. It's why I stopped using Photobucket.

 

Well so far as my own photography is concerned, it is so bad I have no fear anyone would want to steal it!