Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

Also, I don't know if anyone remembers this, but when it came to the Soup can image Warhol did, he just happened to get his eyes sued out. So no, he definately did not get away with it.

EDIT: For clarity he was not monitarily sued, and I'm not sure what ever came of Campbell's "lawsuit". The art professors at my college don't seem to know either. XDD

 

This is why I DoA. Thank you so much for thoughts and providing info...Okies my computer just shut off...I am going to continue where my post left off lol...
Anyways, I really appreciate it. Your comments have made me feel a lot better and why the Warhol case gives an interesting perspective on this case, the differences are many and I feel comforted in that my original feelings about Mijn are justified ^_^
However, it does worry me legally still. Regardless of how we fell morally about this issue, she still may slide through a loop hole. But, as long as we are diligent and get the word out that we will defend our fellow photographers/sculptors/artists, then we can know we have done all we could. As some posted above me...she may or may not get in trouble legally, but her reputation will suffer greatly for this.

EDIT: Apparently he was not sued...oh my i am slightly confused! Sorry!

 

Even if nothing can be done about her legally, her reputation and possibly career as an "original illustrator" has been ruined, and now that people have clued in to the fact that the faces which are central and the most captivating part of her 'works' are not her original creations, I don't think she can have the kind of success she had in the past.

I would like to see legal action taken against her, but even if it doesn't happen, she can't market her overdrawings as original art anymore. Her prints have no appeal without the doll faces, and she will have to get permission from doll owners as well as companies if she wants to sell/display or use them for commercial purposes since the doll community and the doll companies will keep an eye on what she is doing. Knowing that she is not original and the potential issues involved in using her 'works', would any respectable company still want to collaborate with her? There are many talented, original artists out there who might not cost as much to hire/collaborate with, given how Mijn charges over $1000 for a print (ugh)


I'm disgusted to read that she is twisting words to mislead people that she has permission from the companies. I would love to see her bluff called publicly when Luts and D.I.M's opinions on her are made known, and see what further excuses she tries to cook up

 

I may be wrong, because I can't find a 100% definite answer, but I don't think they did sue him.

http://www.theartfulcrafter.com/art-one.html

"Wisely, in my opinion, the Campbell Soup Company did not sue Warhol for trademark infringement. They recognized the brand enhancement his paintings provided. In 1965 they even provided Warhol with actual soup can labels to be used as invitations for an exhibit. In 1985, Campbell’s commissioned Warhol to paint a series of their dry soup mixes."

 

Thank you.

Mijn Schatje is checking this thread as she sent me an e-mail.
I asked her to write a post for apology and take down the work based on our doll as I can find so many by serching her name.

She never did any apology, she must apology to those companies and people or she will be in trouble enough soon.

Have a good weekend.

Denny

 

Thank you! It is an actual picture of candy sold at an on line candy store! Their stuff is super yummy and they supply a local candy store by my work with their goods. Sooo yummy!

Anyway, back OT, I wanted to add that while I agree the original designers had a right to sue, I also agree that Warhol never claimed their ideas as his own. unlike this lady who seems to think it is ok to claim others ideas as her own creations. If she was just honest her reputation would not suffer the way it has.

 

Mijn just sent me an apology email and the comment will be taken down.
I have seen some evidence that she has been doing display at offline galleries.
(I didn't know, I thought the gallery mean as gallery at the Internet)

Anyway, if she posts her sincere apology to people who are taken their hard work from Mijn, and also if Mijn posts the true about her work in Doll art, it will be done with me.
I am sure she's lerned a lot lesson from this.
she will be busying sending apology e-mails to companies and people now.

Thank you and have a good weekend.

It's weekend you guys ~~ so please relax and have a good time.

P.S People at DOA are very truthful. Thank you always. I am lucky to know this place.

Denny

 

You're right. I don't think they sued him for money, but I know they put him out of commission for a while, and he got into a boat load of trouble. I didn't know about him doing the soup labels. That's ironic. I guess it was that whole "bad publicity is still publicity" I guess cambell decided to make a buck off of the art pop culture whiplash.

I hope that doesn't happen with our tracing friend. If this turns out to be good for her I just might spit.

 

Just wanted to post again to say please don't contact Mijn Schatje or her friends. At this point, things are in the hands of the companies and owners involved... and flaming, trolling, or otherwise spamming these people will only hurt the credibility of the people who are legitimately questioning her work (and will make her seem very sympathetic).

If you need to get something out of your system, please say it here rather than directly to Mijn Schatz et al. If you want to get the word out, please do so in your own corner of the internet (I know I'm blogging it) rather than invading hers.

 

ugh, this makes me ill. She's also featured on this website. I recognize volks and unoa

whoops! I see that's already been pointed out. I've blogged about this on both my personal and craft blog. blech, leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

 

I'm not so sure about that, because so far literally everything I've seen of hers (from what has been posted here- had never heard of her before) has been traced from somewhere else. So I personally have not seen a single example of her drawing skills. I kind of assume that if she could draw, she would have instead of simply tracing other people's work.

As for Andy Warhol- remember, that was actually quite a long time ago, almost 50 years ago. The laws regarding intellectual property were not so well-defined. Also, it was probably not likely that the cans came with a disclaimer on them "this can can not be reproduced in anyway without the express permission of Campbell's Soup"- while the images stolen from company websites clearly fall under the copyright/trademark disclaimer.

I'm not sure if now he could get away with the Marilyn Monroe portraits, since her image is trademarked now. But- again, it falls into that grey area of editorial usage. Mijn's work might also fall into that grey area- at least the gallery work. However- she could be in real trouble for the blatantly commercial usages (the clothes, playstation stuff, and calendars or cards she has sold, etc.). Sadly, playstation, the clothing companies, the publishers of the calendars and cards, etc., could also get sued along with Mijn.

 

Also we have to remember that taking someone to court (even if the country could be decided on easily) is expensive and time consuming. If she is ever taken to court, it would be/could be months before a verdict.

The only thing that may make it easier is that VOlks has a store in the US and her work has been sold here. But that will get gallery owners involved.

 

(apologies for the 3 pages ago quote!)

Firefly... totally. That was my first response actually: I'll do one and show her how its done, rawr!

Alas, I have high pressure day job as a designer. It don't allow me no slack, especially these two weeks. Oy!

*whistle blows!* Back to work!

 

I hope she does considering that'd be a step in the right direction. Other than taking down pretty much everything of course.
But Denny, I think it'd be a good idea to not delete anything yet. You don't know if what she's saying is true.

 

LOL The second picture is one of the stolen DIM photos.

 

I did some bored tracing of a stock art rubics cube the other night. Just fiddling around with it and after an hour (give or take, I had the TV on) I had a very pretty, neon colored cube!
It's a small element but It just goes to show the time that goes into it. Or more so doesn't. For me to actually draw a rubics cube?
Well okay I cant draw but getting it to look as perfect and exact free handing I would personally have missed some of the smaller details that I got tracing it without even noticing it.
Nevermind I did an illustrator live trace of my El. It's not perfect but it does work! Though a more two color would have turned out better then a full color picture but that is the nature of the live trace function. At least in my expierence.

 

I know! I'm not even completely up on all my dolls but I recognized that one!

 

I don't think they would be sued. They were victims as well. Someone who buys stolen property or plagiarized property without realizing it or having been lied to by the seller is usually considered a victim, not an accomplice. If that's not true then that really sucks. I would hate to have bought stolen property with no way of knowing only to be called a thief. I guess that does happen in some cases, but here we have proof of the dishonestly she presented. I doubt she went to sony and said "Would you like to buy my art and use it? Oh by the way it's all plagiarized"

 

Even if, heaven forbid, nothing happens legally I'm hoping that just bringing this to everyone's attention will be enough to halt her actions and force her to cease making these "traces." If we stay angry and enough people know the facts, people might abandon her. (Omg doll-obsessed moment - I actually typed "abadon" instead of abandon first)

Now that I've cooled down a little, I really agree with armeleia about not contacting her. I think this is super important, if won't do us any good at all to look like nasty swear-word wielding maniacs, we won't be taken seriously. Let's just try to stay level-headed and offer the facts on our blogs so that people can find out for themselves.

 

While it is true that doing this "tracing" can take time, you can also reuse elements. Since she reuses the same images (flipped and re-sized the x-mas trees in that one that we're still trying to figure out the doll in), she just has to spend a day create the images and use them as stock. Then all she has to do is resize, flip, re-color etc. So it can be a time saver, even if it takes you a while for each element.

Hmmm.. I wonder if Sony would sue her? I mean they have a contract for ORIGINAL work that they then have the right to use in advertisements. If there is a legal issue with the images, it means they might not be able to use something they paid for.