Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

I've taught a copyright law module for a few years now, and every year someone presents me with this arguement.
The percentage varies (as low as 20% and as high as 90%) - but most of my students have been told, at some point - usually from a media studies teacher - that it's OK to start from someone elses work and change it.

I start by telling them that their Media Studies teacher was a moron...

For a work to be considered "original" it must be produced entirely from scratch.
If someone elses work is recognisable as yours - you can sue them (even if it's only vaugely like yours) - however, the onus is on the accuser to prove a connection between your work and them (for internet stuff -this would involve tracking IP numbers to prove that they had been to your web site).

If this woman is copying copyrighted images and passing them off as her own, original work - then she's breaking the law. But the only people who can do anything about it are the owners of the images being copied - and it's very expensive to sue...
Most small businesses just chalk it up to experience.

 

careful, bashing her doesn't do any good. and there must be some people out there who consider her a great artist that produces art and true beauty. Few and far in between. But they're there.

or maybe I was just traumatized by people yelling "keep it to yourself!!!" in the past.

well. at least bashing her makes me feel better. That indigeous $#%*@( has -10 for talent.






on a side note, are there any other groups or whatever to help spread the word? I joined that facebook one, hopefully has somewhat of an impact.

 

for this post

 

Oh wow,....Does anyone even have to question this one?

I'd say art theft. The photos of the dolls, that the makers/companies took, are indeed works of art. Wonderful inspiring pictures they worked hard to take. Emotions that were really hard to capture.

This "artists" works are no more than poorly done photo manipulations of those pictures.

It's the photographers that lose here.....

I hope it gets put to a stop!

 

See my post upstream.

For everything ONLINE, all the artists and doll companies have to do is submit to the host site, photo sites, google, yahoo and MSN under the DMCA, citing the relevant picture, to get the site blocked and/or the pictures removed. Time consuming and tedious, yes. Expensive, no. It's the one and only time I know of that the DMCA is doing the "little guy" any good.

This will not stop her from selling OFFLINE, but will block business not only to her, but to galleries that advertise her prints and her shows ONLINE, and galleries that sell her prints ONLINE. The fact that their business is being blocked will make them far less likely to continue to sell her work.

 

I love you for posting this. I genuinely do. It is an incredibly common fallacy and a disturbingly high number of people buy in to it. It's entirely possible this is something she believes and thus she thinks she's safe... but.

 

not sure how many people would buy prints from plagerists. but good point here. so we only have to spread the word and put pressure on those galleries and inturn, MS.

 

There's a nice piece on derivative art and the law here

Basically it reiterates what Witchylana said. The crux of it being this:

"Please note that the law is unequivocal: "Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work." This means that, if you want to get technical about it (and I assume you do, or you wouldn't be reading this) an unauthorized derivative work is illegal from the moment you create it. It doesn't matter whether you publish 5 copies or 5,000. It doesn't matter whether you sell the collage for profit or give it away. The act of creation is the infringement.

There is a doctrine called "de minimis", which states that copyrighted material can be used in a derivative work without permission, if only a minimal amount of the original work is used. This sounds like it should be the answer for collage artists.

Unfortunately, the law is rather vague on this point. There's no clear definition of how much is too much, either in terms of a percentage, or total words or square inches. Even a tiny amount of copied material can exceed "de minimis" if it comprises the essential part of either the original work, or the derivative work. "

 

The "rule of thumb" is "No more than 10%". However, you would be insane to fight Mattel over a Barbie image however small it was.

 

Thank you. This seems to be one of the most persistent myths about copyright law, and I'm so glad you posted this.

In regards to the issue as a whole, it's just kind of sad to me.

 

I second (or third?) the opinion that someone should do a News article on DA. I would, but I'm bad with words and it would come out sounding bad.

I'm more than happy however to post a news article if someone wants to write it up for me? If you do, send me a PM~

 

Ah that's a good idea. So then yeah, if anyone wants to write up something, either bluemana or I can make a news post with it. We just have to be sure to just present the facts and evidence and not bash anyone or name-call. Also I'd be careful with wording, and say like, "alleged plagiarist" because even though it's glaringly obvious that she is, we don't want to get ourselves in trouble over a technicality.

 

http://xxbeckyangelxx.deviantart.com/art/The-Dreamer-125012363

That kind of makes me sad....

----------------------------------

Please for the LOVE OF GOD do not flame this person or write mean comments to her. We don't need to make ourselves look like evil witch-hunters out for anyone's blood. I just posted this to show the affect Mijn's having on some people. This girl actually states that the picture belongs to Souldoll and she did the work soley as a fan of the doll. She is not the enemy, people. She did what Mijn didn't have the brains to do: just say that the picture doesn't belong to her.

 

I did a quick google search on Mijn and found two blogs mentioning her that weren't listed as having been contacted on radiotrash's site - All I did was include a link and say "Please read this website, it concerns allegations that she may be a plagiarist."

If anyone else does this I STRONGLY suggest going about it in that manner, don't get angry or accusatory or start "flaming," just show the facts.

 

Okay how about this - I will volunteer to note that deviant and dicuss it in a civil matter. Sound good?

Edit - K I sent her a note that was very nice, just explaining the situation and linking the website - I'll let you know if she responds.

 

I'm not really sure if it was really necessary to contact the deviant. I didn't post the link so people would tell her all about the evils of Mijn. I don't think it will really mean much to her if she is a true fan of the artwork. I don't think it's wise to cause any more aggrivation amongst outside people, including people that like Mijn. It could be extremely detrimental to our cause in the long run. I just wanted to exhibt the long reach of Mijn's art even into the doll fandom. (The deviant seems to like BJDs very much)

 

Agreed. I mean the girl didn't do anything wrong, really. Granted the company could tell her to take it down and not do it again but being that she's gaining nothing and they losing nothing (aside from her enjoyment and them a little more word of mouth advertising) so why say anything? I saw it as a good example really.
People can do their pretty vectors based off pictures, give the proper credit and have a great time. People here have even said they like the work Mijn does if only she didn't steal and lie and what not.
For all we know this person could love the art and not approve of what Mijn did wrong.
Sorry, just really don't feel like everyone needs to be sent something about this because they do something similar if they're not doing anything wrong.

 

I live in Portland and this gallery

http://justbecomplex.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=25_255

is apparently still selling her works, at least online. They promised another poster they'd be taking those down almost a week ago, but haven't, so I thought I'd stop in tomorrow and see if her works are on display. I have no plans to confront them, btw, this is just a fact-finding mission.

 

First off relax. Second, as long as she gives a reference its okay. Theres nothing wrong with her being inspired by the dolls. If she copied images of dolls then no it isnt okay but if she made it her own its fine.

 

Just a friendly question...

Have you read any of this thread at all? It isn't about her not referencing, it's about her using images without permission, claiming them as her own creations, and then selling them for huge profits.

Read the thread please before you say things like that -_-;