Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

Definitely.
It bothered me that even after the BJD community showed how unpleasant it felt about her tracing doll images, she goes ahead and makes 2-4 more. I just want her to stop It's been said she has very nice drawing talents and with the money she's already made she could get herself on the right track and buy BJDs (since she states in her profiles she has nice childhood memories of dolls) or even just their heads and take her own photos. She just keeps up the lies and deletes all the questions and politely written comments regarding her work.

 

Exactly! If she would just buy her own dolls and use them for the pictures it would be fine. Her art style is very interesting, and if she had been doing this without stealing other peoples pictures, she may have even become popular with ABJD enthusiasts. That's the really sad thing. If she had done the right thing we may be loving her, not trying to drag her reputation through the dirt.

It's such a shame, but you reap what you sow.

 

I hate to be a negative nancy here, but I just had a rather sad conversation with one of my coworkers. I showed him the pictures and asked what he thought (keep in my he in an international performing and recording artist and has many friends who are artist). He told me to think of Any Warhol. Think of the Marylin Monroe prints. He than said think of the grandchild of the man or woman who took that original picture and how they must feel seeing it in a museum or in a book. "There is the picture my grandpa took and we have never seen a cent form this." It made me think of this exact topic. If Warhol could take a picture, just change the color of it, and reproduce it and become famous from it, why can't this lady? My coworker even showed me other Warhol pieces that were less altered than Mijn's. It makes me so sad. It makes me fear she will get away with this and it is not right. I am posting this so you guys can cheer me up and counter the points he made because right now they are totally bumming me out. Tell me how she is different or how Warhol and similar artist are wrong. I need to reassurance on this topic and I want my feeling that she is wrong to be justified.

 

The thing with these type of law suits is it takes a while and it's often hard to prove a LOT of things.
What's been done here, the compiling of all the info, the lists of tracings, where the images were taken from, etc will be a big help to any company though they may be going about it on their own as well since we are/would be considered third party.

It also costs a LOT of money to hire a lawyer.
When I had to fight for my artwork I had two lawyers I could consult via friends who had them on retainer and I did'nt have to pay for them.

Another thing too is if she even for a moment admits guilt and takes one image down she can be found to be at fault by the court. This was told to me by the lawyers at the time ie since the person who stole my art complied and took the works down and out of circulation they had by such action admitted to being guilty and if it went to court would have been found at fault. Whether that holds true I don't know as I never had to take anything to court luckily.

The thing is if it had just been a few pics from the bjd community that she had stolen from it might not be such a big deal, still wrong and lousy but would have been harder and almost impossible to do anything about. In that I mean to fight these things you have to have money to do so. It sucks but it's true.
Instead she has stolen images from not one but many different companies and people most of who have money and time to make sure that their hard work does not get used in this manner.

And I know it's frsutrating watching all this and the waiting but it's gonna take time for all this to be compiled and for it to be dealt with as you are talking people in not one but several countries. It's hard enough to deal with copyright infringement in the states one on one but to have to deal with it like this I can only imagine the headaches involved.

Sorry to have rambled.

 

But did Warhol obtain rights or permissions to what he used? See I really don't know, I'm assuming he did, if someone who knows can verify...

 

From what I understand, he did not. I could be wrong, but my coworker said he did not and the fact that he didn't was of controversy when the pieces came out. He could be wrong though? I hope he is...but I can not say for sure.

 

The thing that bothers me about her "art" is that she represented these faces as original designs that she thought up herself. It's only after she was called out that she admitted that she alters images of dolls. She has not painted, drawn, or designed anything: she has merely photoshopped and otherwise manipulated existing photographs and images that she had no right to use and made collages out of them. Then she sold the rights to use the altered images as if they were her original work.

 

http://www.webexhibits.org/colorart/marilyns.html

The pic Warhol used was from a publicity shot for the film Niagra.

 

Well, I think the main difference is that Andy Warhol used images of pop culture or images from the media as a social commentary. He never claimed that those images were his own photographs, whereas Mijn initially caimed that all the images were her own original artwork and she drew/painted everything from scratch (then, later changing her story).

The main difference is, I think, artistic honesty/integrity. And that in itself can make a huge difference in legal matters.

If Mijn had done something like openly proclaiming herself to be a digital collage artist who was making a comment on... uh, *pulls some BS out of the air*... "the romanticization of consumer goods and how they are further romanticized by the beauty of the sample photography and accessibility of the internet, which draws the consumer to buy the luxury goods during a time of economic depression" (again, that was a made-up statement)... and then posted a big, prominant artist's statement on her site which documented which sites she visited and which products, or dolls, she chose and why... then it would be a whole different story.
She has been stealing images and trying to cover it up, even after some pretty damning evidence was uncovered.

Collage and 'pop' artists use images from media as images from media. Mijn was using other's images as her own.



.........if any of that was wrong, please correct me. I haven't had my coffee yet ^^;;

 

And therein lies the difference between Andy Warhol and Mijn Schatje; Andy Warhol never claimed that he created the Campbell soup can or Marilyn Monroe - he took existing items (in the case of the portrait of Marilyn Monroe, a classic iconographic image that was already famous by that point) and put his own spin on them. Mijn Schatje has stolen pictures that the mainstream media were ignorant of the origins of, and passed off her resulting tracings as entirely original and all her own work, even in the face of increasing evidence to the contrary.

That is what made Andy Warhol an avante-guarde genius, whilst Schatje is only a talentless plagiarist.

 

If anyone has heard of ArtandGhosts, she also uses BJDs in her pictures and photoshops or overpaints them. The difference is she actually gets hold of the dolls themselves and styles them. AND she credits the companies clearly so in no way does it seem like she's trying to take their work for her own.

I find it a far better approach than Mijn's way of stubborn denial.

 

I feel the Andy Warhol, etc., cases are slightly different.

Here, Mijn has back-tracked and clearly lied several times about knowing of these dolls, not knowing of these dolls, having permission, not having permission, blah blah... She is not making a statement or social comment (or even an artistic comment!) doing whatever else Andy Warhol may have claimed to have done... Warhol picked icons that were famous in their own right. Marylin Monroe was incredibly recognisable, and he knew that. That piece wasn't famous for its actual artistic skill, per se, but for what it was saying about Monroe, the power of image and icon, and commercialism. (Well, I don't remember my art history lessons very well, but... sort of something like that, isn't it? )

Anyway .... it's the opposite of what Mijn is doing X3 And the fact that she has lied so often now (Denny Kim and DIM's involvement being a rather good recent example!) makes her art so empty... it's sad. Sad on all accounts. She should quit whilst she can, and bow out gracefully... I'm so surprised she's got this far.

I am also extremely concerned about how this may affect the illustration industry. There is already debate about what is "reference" and what is "tracing" (it aggravates me so much when the two are mixed up!) All round, this is a big bunch of negativity and I hope it is resolved in a way that is favourable to all those who have been wronged

P.S. NabeeRain your icon makes me hungry!

EDIT: Whoops... I took so long writing my post... those above have conveyed the matter in a more eloquent manner!

 

Ah I see, I thought as much. I figured there was a huge difference here. Thanks Arkady.

I'm of the belief that she isn't going to get away with this - I just have a feeling. When investigations are going on, lawyers (or law enforcement) will ask the involved parties to keep mum (or simply not tell them anything for some time) so no one is tuned in to anything, like cirquemom mentioned. I know this from experience.

 

well i think she can probably get away with it. if you change even one single line on a picture, it cant be considered plagarism, you know think of tattoo artists, they copy stuff all the time and have been able to get around it.... i hate it too, but from a legal point of view i bet she won't have any thing against her

 

have you read any of this thread at all?
not trying to be rude, but the tattoo subject has already been explained.

 

Regarding the comparison to Warhol (which is a really interesting one).

I think it's great to get some perspective into the discussion, as it's easy to get worked up. However, in addition to the other arguments people have made about what differentiates Warhol and Mijn Schatje is also the issue of the purpose of the work you're doing, using elements from others' work: At least in Denmark ( where I'm from) there is a clear distinction legally between referencing/ copying a known work for art-related, non-commercial reasons and doing it for commercial reasons, which is the case here. This definitely distincts the two ( even though Warhol's works later has prboably made him very rich).

I also cannot help thinking of Roy Lichtenstein who used comic strips as base (without perimission or credit according to wikipedia) for his artwork, and who is one of the most respected pop artists today. Artistically his mission was referencing pop culture in fine arts and this to me is definitely more valuable than Mijn Schatje's communicating her supposed fairy tale world , but legally and ethically he has undeniably made a lot of money making other people's work the central part of his own, without giving them the credit we demand of Mijn now to give to her "stealees" (is that even a word...? )

Let me know if this post is sidetracking the main discussion - don't mean to set the thread off tracks.

 

Yeah, that's the big difference between her and, say, Warhol. Everybody knew what (or who) he was makeing a reproduction of. He wasn't hiding anything. It's the same thing with another artist I read about who used a bunch of company logos in his artwork. He wasn't claiming to have come up with it on his own.

Honestly, I think if she would have admitted it right away, said that it was part of her process or given some other good enough "artsy" reasoning for doing it, she'd probably be better off right now. The fact that she danced around it and lied is what I think people are going to be the most upset about.

 

I think she might get away with it legally. The thing she should be worried about, though, is if her reputation will hold up afterwards. That's what I'd be most worried about right now if I were in her shoes, anyway. : /

 

Tattoo artists do often use flash art and often create their own flash art.
Best description I can find...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_art

A tattoo flash is a tattoo design printed or drawn on paper or cardboard, and may be regarded as a species of industrial design. It is typically displayed on the walls of tattoo parlors and in binders to give walk-in customers ideas for tattoos. Much if not most traditional tattoo flash was designed for rapid tattooing, and was either drawn by the individual artist for display and use in his own shop, or traded and sold among artists. Hand-drawn, local tattoo flash has largely been replaced by professional "flash artists" who produce prints of copyrighted flash and sell them at conventions or through the Internet. There is no standard size for tattoo flash, but it is commonly found on 11x14 inch prints. Tattoo flash may or may not come with an outline, also known as a stencil. This outline is typically printed on a separate sheet. This is convenient for the tattoo artist, who would otherwise have to draw the linework for themselves.

Most flash today is found on the Internet, which customers can print out and bring to their own artist to have tattooed. Although this method is becoming commonplace, it can be a form of copyright violation, inasmuch as artwork found in books, magazines, or on websites is the property of the original artist and not in the public domain. In most countries, the original copyright holder can take action against the tattoo artist, or the person who illegally supplied the tattoo flash. For this reason, many of the top tattoo flash sites are now offering legal downloads of individual designs. More recently, web 2.0 websites have been spotted offering royalty free tattoo designs contributed by tattoo artists around the world, similar to the iStockphoto model[1].

More often than not when you ask for a particular peice of artwork to be done as a tattoo a tattoo artist will do it as a 'commission' peice ie it's a one of a kind peice they are doing for you and they are charging not for the art itself but for their work in putting that art on you.

 

I forget if I already mentioned this here or not but please don't contact Mjin or any of her friends regarding this matter. At this point it's between her and those she wronged and we don't want to be seen as harassing her or anyone she knows.

And thank you to those that have PMd/emailed me who they have contacted and more overlays/photo sources!