Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

You do have a lawyer on the forum (probably more than one) but a good lawyer would never comment on a subject like this (i.e. on the legality, infringement case, etc. - comments on morals and ethics and community attitude maybe OK), particularly on the Internet, for many reasons, unless possibly it was scholarly discourse with a group of other lawyers. It is not considered professional, it is forbidden by many legal employers, and it is bad practice.

Many years ago when there were similar debates about bad practices on eBay someone did get a lawyer to come on and answer questions for a day. It was called "Ask the Lawyer Day". The lawyer was a relative of one of the forum mods or participants. So he did it for a favor to his relative. So people asked the lawyer questions and he would not give a definite answer to anything. Example: Is such and such practice illegal? Answer: It could be, it might not be. It would depend on the specific facts. But he was answering like a good lawyer. I would be EXTREMELY suspicious of any lawyer who barged on and claimed to know all about the subject and proceeded to give their opinion everywhere, because that to me would show that the person was maybe not such a good lawyer.

 

Yeah I should have known Blonde moment!

Law is so daunting - there is just so much to know and when it's different for every case, it gets so complicated. Not to mention the different countries involved. What a mess. I just hope there can be resolution because the evidence is overwhelming. Doesn't it suck that someone can be ripped off like this and then have a legal mess to go through? If they can afford to at all? I really feel for them.

 

We are actually talking about two different things here; what will stand in a court of law, and what you can do online according to the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act).

The DMCA (passed by the US Congress) is CRYSTAL clear on this subject. ANY use of an image online, without the express permission and/or licensing of that image from the original creator/copyright holder, is illegal. No matter how much manipulation you do to it, the use of that IMAGE (photo, sketch, painting) is ILLEGAL, period.

The original creator can then issue a DMCA takedown order with the site holder AND with search engines. The former requires the site holder to remove the picture and/or links to the picture. The latter requires the search engine to block access to that site until the offending picture is gone.

No lawyers or courts involved here.

My agent issues DMCA takedown orders all the time for people who are posting my books online illegally; I am extremely used to doing it and how it is done.

 

Victoria Victrix: I wasn't talking about your DMCA takedown posts. There have been several artists opining in the thread on "this is infringement, this is not infringement - if I did such and such it would be infringement...this other thing is illegal" blahblah. I don't really see why you thought my comment was directed to you. Most people who spend a lot of time on internet forums or even on eBay are well aware of the DMCA.

 

Perhaps you should be the first to take this class, so we can all learn from you.

As far as the USA copyright laws go, and I am certain of this, one needs to obtain permission from the artist to replicate his/her art, even if it cross over different mediums.

The artist in discussion has been selling art in the US, thus the laws before mentioned apply.

~Gus

 

Interestingly enough, that turns out not to be the case. Many of the bloggers who have been cross-posting her picture were utterly unaware of the DMCA and how it could apply to their blogs and were stunned at my explanation. I have no reason to think this is not the case across the board for online users. You are in the educated half, it seems.

 

I've never heard of it. So I can see where a lot of people wouldn't, there really isn't much I haven't heard of.

 

And of course, suspicious of anyone who says 'my laywer says I'd definitely win this case' or similar. Anyone who had qualified would as lawyer would know not to say such a thing...So I would immediately presume there was no lawyer at all...Or the person had just not listened to them at all.

 

I wasn't aware that people weren't aware so I learn something every day. In general, though, I should probably also keep in mind that DoA is drawing a very different demographic from other forums I frequent. I am not an artist and many of the thoughts, opinions and ways of approaching issues on DoA are very different from what I get elsewhere. That isn't a bad thing, just different. It probably causes my responses to seem snotty or put some people on the defensive but I'm not trying to put people down for offering good advice like DMCA takedown information. I just don't want anyone to presume they know the law of infringement from reading a thread where somebody says "this is" or "this isn't". The best advice is always "get legal advice" and if you are an artist and can't pay, seek out a clinic or some pro bono help through an arts organization - there's a lot of that going around. This whole issue and thread has probably made a lot of people who put their work online all that more conscious of perhaps needing to protect their rights to that work.

 

There are probably some wacky lawyers out there who'd make all kinds of statements, but the prudent thing would be for everyone involved to handle it quietly just as some of the companies are doing.

I think I'll leave it at that because I don't want to get deeply into the topic carry on...

 

Witchylana just presented information to point out that there is no "percentage" rule when it comes to using reference... you can sue if you think your work has been used, but you have to have a big stack of money and a way to prove your allegations.

This situation is international, so many more variables come into play. Too many considerations for my little brain.

I think that this board is a lot more aware of copy issues and artist's rights that other places that I have seen discussing this situation. The one I really didn't get was the non-shampoo-using author who made it plain with expletives that he didn't care... I can't help but think that if he purchased the latest No.1 on the New York Times best seller list, whose author was being buried in praise and bags of money, and found that chapters of his books had been lifted, had a few words changed, and pasted into this other person's work, that he'd be singing and dancing a different tune.

 

The first post could be updated with the new information, the new letter by Luts should be linked for everyone to see, so that a new reader should not have to read the entire thread.

 

Speaking of that guy, I wonder if he ever actually posted the comment I left him. I bet he didn't.

It's that same "who cares, it's just dolls" mentality that drives me crazy with him.

And also, I love how guys like him reference older, famous artists using other people's stuff - what difference does that make, whoever plagiarizes sucks, no matter who it was or when. Not to mention, laws have really changed in these past CENTURIES. It's like they think that mentioning that will make us say it's okay. It doesn't. xD

 

I also hate all the people quoting Picasso's "Talent borrows, genius steals", as if it justifies what Mijn is doing. Who cares? It doesn't matter if a famous artist said it. It still doesn't make it right.

 

Interestingly there doesn't seem to be a verifiable source for that quotation ("Bad artists copy, good artists steal"), and it's been attributed to others as well, like T.S. Eliot. Morrisey (of the Smiths) had that exact quotation ("Talent borrows, genius steals") on one of his albums so it's even been attributed to him. But I think it's pretty obvious that both of these quotations are talking about the inspiration and concepts behind a piece, not about the goodness of plagiarism. Funny that the people repeating the quote don't seem to understand this.

"B-b-but Picasso said it was okay!!!!1!1!"

Here is Eliot's original quotation-- it's pretty clear what he's talking about:

One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest.

Eliot, T.S., “Philip Massinger,” The Sacred Wood, New York: Bartleby.com, 2000.

 

Good point. If possible, could the mods link the new letter by Luts and the new letter by DiM (on DiM's website) on the first post?

I agree with you and Sakuraharu also makes a good point. I find people use quotes from famous people as a reason for their actions when they're actually at a loss of what to say.

If we're going to use quotes from famous people as a life principle, then Picasso also said, "No, painting is not made to decorate apartments. It's an offensive and defensive weapon against the enemy." All artists should stop selling their art as decoration then.

If we should follow by example just because they're famous, Picasso was also a man of many mistresses when he was married and Vincent van Gogh cut off a piece of his ear at one point. Just because they were famous or popular does not make them right all the time.

 

When you take a picture of item X to create photograph Y, you are the copyright holder of photograph Y, but the copyrights of item X are not transfered to you by making a photograph. Someone else holds the copyrights of item X and you should get permission first before you make money of something you made with item X.

When a third party traces photograph Y, it does not magically transfer the copyrights of item X or photography Y to the third party.

Give credit where credit is due.

 

Well 200 years ago, I could legally own slaves, buy opium, marijuana and cocaine at the corner pharmacy. If I was male, I could legally beat my wife and children as long as I didn't kill them, set myself up as a doctor or dentist with little to no training, and run for Congress and hold office without even being able to read and write.

100 years ago I could STILL legally buy opium, marijuana and cocaine at the corner pharmacy, and while the Chinese workers I got from a "broker" weren't technically slaves, they might just as well have been. If I was male, I could still set myself up as a doctor with little to no training in several states, and as a dentist with the same lack of training in most.

So....yeah. Just because they did it "back then"....

I get a giggle thinking of some of the female apologists for Mijn using that argument and getting back "Well in that case, you can give up your right to vote, have a career, use birth control of ANY kind or even have any knowledge of it, and give up even the right to an education, cause that is what they did 'back then' too."

 

I have this urge to use this as a response to future "Picasso said it was okay" arguments xD

Quoted possibly as "Famous female Author" cos it's not exactly a published quote xD

 

Lol I was thinking the same thing. Well said Victoria Victrix, well said.