Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

yes, but its expensive to bring a copyright problem to trial and they are not a company that resides in the same country not speak the same language. It might be too much for them to pay just to get to trial. Such things have bankrupted artists and small companies in the US when they went to US court against an US thief.

 

And I have a feeling that between the Korean-English and whatever language-English she uses, things are mistranslated and confused. She might prey upon that. It's really disheartening. It's like she's thinking, "Well the other companies busted me, so I'll just pick on a different one next."

 

I can't wait to see what Volks reaction would be though.

 

I do hope Leeke would clear this up for us both. Did anybody send an e-mail to them to ask about this matter?

But one thing that still puzzles me is that people still supporting her despite all the proofs rubbing onto their faces.. But then again, people don't actually seen the website radiotrash did before they made their allegations. And I was reading this website, and people commenting stealing doll pictures is bad but not terrible. >.> Felt like replying to that comment.. *grumbles*

 

the comment crediting Leeke does however contradict what she said before about not having time to put credits on things so she just pulled them down. I'm disappointed if Leeke did give the go ahead to her. They could have told her they do not approve and please remove the images without a legal battle. Sure its likely she would continue using it, but on the other hand Leeke is in a bit of a similar situation.

Wonder if they get what they did was wrong now? wonder how Mijn Schatje would feel about having her work stolen for profit.

 

I do understand that many don't think that using another's photo is theft-- however, in this case I think it is exacerbated by many thinking that it's "just" photos of some generic doll. If they were photos taken of a human model (with all that implies-- hours spent doing makeup, hairstyle, acquiring and fitting couture clothing, setting up and adjusting lighting, etc.) I think people would see things differently. I don't many would stand for an adobe illustrator edited theft of Annie Leibovitz's portraits. These people don't see that the same type of effort is involved in making the BJD photos that have been stolen.

Then there seem to be another group who vaguely quote and misinterpret Picasso's comment about good artists copying and great artists stealing, as though that justifies these actions. Ugh.

 

It's a little disheartening to see her 'get away with it' in terms of the Leekeworld response, if it isn't more nonsense. However, in all fairness, I can't be upset with them. They may not want to pursue a potentially long and costly legal battle. With credit added in this fashion, it is bringing more attention to their dolls -- something that could bring in money instead of bleeding it out.

While I don't like what she did, and do hope something more than a slap on the wrist comes of it, I'd hardly blame the companies for trying to turn a positive into a negative. They're not -exactly- in the same position as the collectors and faceup artists whose photographs were stolen, as they can more easily turn this into an advertising opportunity for themselves if they choose to and the real truth about it all comes out. Is it an excuse for what she did? Oh -long list of swearin'- NO. But given the option of spending a small fortune on legal fees, or saying, "Don't do it again and add proper credits to these pages to drive customers to our site where they belong if they find this image so inspiring," it's definitely something I would consider from a business perspective. (Me? I'd still sue her pants off, but artistic integrity really is a sticking point with me personally -- one that doesn't always make the best business sense, though.)

 

You're right, sakuraharu. It's a shame some people can't recognize that fact. These owners take pride in their doll photos, and these gorgeous shots take a lot of work. To see someone taking them and reproducing them in this manner and then getting all the credit is just really sad. I really feel for the victims here, especially when Mijn's fans continue to support her and act like she's done nothing major, when the original photographers are in essence robbed and then dismissed like they don't matter because it's "just dolls." It's so frustrating that some of those people side with her even though they must have seen the evidence by now, and they still don't care.

 

If I had the money I would definitely hire a good Lawyer to represent the various Doll Companies whom she stole the image from and also represent the Owners of the original Doll-photographs.

I would be up to that challenge, gathering the letters from representatives and submitting them in a hearing. (With Photos to provide proof.)

Hmm... In fact, if I win the lottery, I will do just that.

 

This is downright rude! Who would do such a thing!? She knows how to work photoshop very well, a lot of images seem to be 2 stolen images paste together which is rather upsetting. She's not altering the images really either, I mean she is kind of I guess but not to the extent to give her complete rights, and she's rather wealthy by now so I'd assume she's able to give some sort of credit to the owners or something. I really feel she needs to be stopped, we should email each an every website/doll company with this and see how they feel about they're images being taken for someone elses gain. She obviously stole a lot from LUTS so I'm surprised these companies haven't done something about it....

 

Elysion gear - I Love your signature!!

If Leeke has really given her the OK then I am really, really disappointed in them. Mainly because she has ripped off members of the BJD community and we're all obviously really angry about it. If Leeke has given her the OK it feels like they don't really care about us, their real supporters - the ones who BUY their dolls and products and give them their day-to-day business.

 

Sadly it seems like they might have been blinded by the possible publicity it may bring them. That, or maybe they have come to some kind of $$agreement$$. Either way, it doesnt help to have any company actually supporting her actions, in fact it puts a major damper on what we are trying to accomplish here.

 

1st-don't go after leeke unless we know that's the truth.
2nd - small companies may not be able to take legal action due to expenses. Would you want a company to raise their prices to cover legal costs? Fire some employees?
sometimes in life you have to do something that might not be the "right" thing but the "better for you" thing.

 

The thing is...Leeke doesn't need to go to trial. All they have to do is say, "No. Seriously. I won't settle this and I don't agree with you using our pictures when you're just asking for permission now after you have earned money from it eons ago without credit to us. And this is plagiarism."

That's all they need to say. What she does with her art after that will then be in her ballpark. Right now, if Leeke really did say 'yes' after all that has happened...it would make me feel disappointed because I can't imagine how an artist can agree to something like that. Where is the integrity? I feel like anyone who knows what is going on and let's her continue with their blessing is supporting her actions.

But, like others, I feel skeptical about her words. And I hope we'll find out the truth soon.

 

Ditto.
I really would like to here from Leeke on the matter and if they really did give her the go ahead of if she has simply had to take down so many images that she now "has the time" to give credit to the companies because she's got so few she can use?
I mean. She could think that that fixes everything.
She could have sent them some money and now all is well. Which would really disappoint me because. Well she stole it in the first place.
Bleh. Sit back and wait for what Leeke has to say...

 

I won't be angry with Leeke if they gave her permission. If she got permission from them and she's now telling people what the model was, then it does give them publicity and she is citing her source. True, the fact that's it's traced doesn't make her a good artist. But my issue wasn't her talent but the fact she was stealing ideas and photos without citing. It's their choice to let her use their photo and their doll as inspiration/tracing fodder. Now, I think that the stolen user photos do need to be addressed and pursued but if Leeke wants to let her use their photo and their doll, then it's their choice and I respect it. As long as, of course, Mijn is being truthful about having gotten permission.

 

Please don't forget the following:

Creators of the stolen photos: You CAN slap every site showing your stolen picture with a DMCA takedown order. You CAN send DMCA block order on the sites to Google, Yahoo and MSN. It's not that hard. Google, Yahoo and MSN WILL honor the block orders. That means you effectively cut off all business to that site from the three major search engines. This will only cost you time.

The DMCA is completely clear on this point. ANY reuse of a copyrighted photo without permission or licensing, no matter how much manipulation takes place, is a violation of the DMCA. And according to the Berne copyright convention, posting = publication = copyright.

Also, the jellyfish image itself could be stolen. I am still working on that one. She can get all the permission from Leeke she wants, if the jellyfish is stolen, there will still be a copyright violation.

 

Well, at least we are getting through to some people. That makes me feel somewhat better...

 

Leekeworld maybe feels that they can't go after her and they should give permission because they have also plagiarized (Leeke Milch is made after a photograph). It would be extremely strange if they didn't give permission to use their pictures after they did the same (as in used someone else's photo to gain money). They may want to demonstrate that they think this is 'fair use' so they can get away with their own case...

This is all just speculation though, and I love Leeke - though I don't approve of what they did with Milch. So if this is too OT please delete the post

 

Oh wow. You know, it's moments like these that really just make the mind reel. The 'Minnu thing' referenced in the comments in MLBCHAN's link? That was a copyright drama related to the kind of work I do, and was in that specific art genre. (That one actually helped lead to rather large licensing changes at a site where I sell some of my stuff, so take some heart -- sometimes things do change in ways that help protect the artists, even if it's not in the form of 'sue the jerk into the ground'.)

Pardon me while I cringe about how teensy tiny the world seems just this second.