Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

The thing about deviantart is that it's never had much to do with catering to a particular collecting hobby. So I can understand that some members would find it out of place when it seems to only concern doll collectors.

 

It is so disingenuous of her to blame her 'poor English' when she has shown how good she is at twisting the replies she got from BJD companies.

I don't believe that 'poor English' excuse for a minute.

 

Could you put a link in the body of the news post, and actually mention Audrey Kawasaki in the article proper?

 

Oh apparantly *I* was the one "harassing" Robbergirl, not Mijn. Three politely worded emails pointing out the facts of the DMCA...trust me I was extremely polite and kept to nothing but the facts. Unlike her flaming replies.

If that "lawyer" at NewMedia is advising her this is harassment, I seriously doubt that they are very expert in anything. And I have doubts it's even a real lawyer.

 

I've just remembered something else:
I saw her work in a gallery in Amsterdam. It was a long time ago but I think there was another piece that looked based on a Pipos doll there (not the cat in the hat).

I can't find a picture of it online but I believe it was based on the Pierrot Baha (customised by Docshul). Does anyone who has seen her work in person know the one I mean?

 

Unfortunately the OP can't edit a news post, but posting a link in the comments would at least leave an additional resource (though there have been some catty/unnecessary comments about that left at the post)

 

Gyaah...since my internet is all wonky right now (thanks computer crash!) I haven't been able to go show my support over on deviantART since my current browser can't handle it... At least I can still follow along on here. I wish I could read the specific comments, but I suppose if you've seen one bad reply you've seen them all, right?

Ah well, the computer's going in today to have the hard-drive cleared up so that should solve everything. (At least until they come out with new upgrades that make our newer browser obsolete.)

 

Raww, my problem isn't that she's using the dolls likeness in general, it's that she's not getting permission AND is making a crap load of money off of the art! Using the likeness of a doll isn't wrong, per say, if you get permission and then pay the respective artist what they deserve. Denying that you even ever used the pictures as reference is just LOW.

 

The site has been linked multiple times in the comments, so I think catty people are just going to be catty and not look at what's right in front of their eyes. And a lot of the comments I saw were surprised and appeased when she mentioned the title of the news post linked to the article.

 

Yeah I cannot edit the news post. Tried, can't. Nothing I can do. I already linked to the news post, and sakuraharu linked it again on the last page.


Also about the link: THE TITLE OF THE DEVIANTART NEWS POST IS THE LINK TO RADIOTRASH'S SITE. I'm sorry, but it's been really frustrating because people keep saying "where's the link?!?!?!" IT'S THERE, I'm not that dumb.

I'm a little miffed right now, though, about people's perception of doll collecting. I understand that everyone has a different opinion on things, and that's fine. But to bring it up when there is absolutely no need? Rude. I wouldn't seek out a post on something I didn't like and make a comment about how much I don't like it, it would be STUPID. Ugh, I hate people. I knew I'd get comments like that, though, when I did it. Still ticks me off, though... Obviously xD.

 

I have not read the all the posting but my first thought was it would be fine if her artwork had BJD in them as long as they were her dolls and her photos of the dolls that she then used as tracing/computerized.

For the crediting part I don't think you should have to credit the company who sculpted the doll. Like I said really she should have just bought and used her own dolls.

 

Larien,

That person is so obviously a troll. He either gets off on starting trouble, or he is trying to get people to click on his DA page. I'd guess the former-- he seems seriously immature. Don't worry about idiots like him. It's sad that there are people like that who feel the need to share their negative opinion over and over, without being asked, and without it being relevant to the conversation, but the internet's anonymity can bring out the very worst in people. Despite this, consider that most people who have replied to your news story have been very supportive. As they should be-- your story was informative and needed.

 

You should go back and read some of the previous posts. The point is that you DO have to credit the company that sculpted the doll because it is their product and it is protected by law. Not doing so is illegal, especially if you are making money off of the images. That is why what this person is doing is wrong. She is making money off of images and dolls that she did not create.

 

Reading the thread before jumping in would be helpful, TreeLore; a lot of the photos she traced were company photos, as well as those of individual doll owners such as Blastmilk. She did not ask permission for any of the images she used until this whole thing blew up in her face; she has since asked DIM, Luts and Leeke for permission to use their images and been told no very firmly - she's then twisted things around to give the impression she had permission all along, when at first she was denying even knowing what a BJD is.

 

Also, she said she had permission from Blastmilk. Fact is she only asked permission to draw just one of Blastmilk's photos. So she's spinning all kinds of lies all over the place.

 

And then it turned out she used that photo over a year before even asking for permission, or something like that, right?

 

Even if her artwork contained her own pictures of her own dolls, it would still be an infringement of copyright laws. To copy someone else's art, even if in a different medium (sculpture into painting) it is wrong. For instance, let's say someone writes a poem and it becomes a song, that is plagiarism, no matter how you slice it.

I am a painter myself and I use BJDs for inspiration. Nevertheless, I would never produce a painting that is an identical portrait of one of my dolls, for instance. I suppose I could, providing I would never sell it.

That is my understanding anyway. The gallery that shows my work would never agree to sell a portrait of one of my dolls.

~Gus

 

Right, the company still owns the sculpt of the dolls themselves, so they need to be asked for permission. In this case, she's very well known and making a lot of money, and when she traces these things she leaves in the cropping angles and everything, so she's very in the wrong. It's not a matter though of feeling one way or the other about crediting - regardless of whether or not you like it, it absolutely must be done.

I keep forgetting to mention this:

A couple days ago I looked at that one tracing of hers, can't remember which doll it was (I think a Volks girl) but anyway I noticed something I hadn't caught before. You can actually see where she traced and included the interior eye-hole beveled edge that signifies the inside of the head is hollow and an eye is in it's place. I just thought it was funny, considering how early on she claimed to not have used doll photos.]

Ah I found it, it's a BlueFairy girl: http://radiotrash.org/temp/t/bluefairy.JPG The part I mean (which she does on most of her stuff but on this one it's really pronounced) is the eye on the right side of the picture, the rightmost corner.

 

I understand that there is a moral and ethical problem with this entire issue but I just wanted to point out that the blanket statements about copyright infringement and so forth are at best a huge gray area. The bottom line is until you have a court case and the judge (Or the jury if a jury trial) decides, the most you can say is that some fact pattern is "likely infringement" or "probably infringement". As I have said many times before, the copyright law is in a state of flux due to digital applications raising a whole new slew of uncertain issues. As far as people's own situations go they should consult a lawyer who will give them advice that is personalized to THEIR situation, but that does not necessarily mean that they can apply their own understanding to someone else's facts and assume the same result holds.

 

It does seem like everyone has a different take on it - the one post from the person who taught a copyright class is the one I choose to believe, since they seem to be an expert. But I do think the parties involved have probably talked to lawyers on their own about what to do, and they're not exactly following our lead. And VV posted that thing about infringement online and what to do, which I think is helpful.

Honestly I wish we had a lawyer on this forum who knew all about it!