Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

I do have to agree.

 

It's also worthy of note that it's DIM's original creations that were copied, but that's neither here nor there in the end, because I agree with Lizzard. Also, that the Minimee service seems to have been originally designed to make likenesses of oneself or one's own drawings or family members. I've noticed no complaints about people, say, sending a portrait of one's daughter taken at high school to have a doll made for graduation -- even though it's as protected as any tabloid pic in that regard. Even pictures of oneself -- and it's hard to argue that you wouldn't own the rights to reproduce your own face! -- would almost always have to be taken by a third party. It's rather sad this came up here, IMHO, since there are already threads dedicated to that specific topic for discussion; it really is sorta irrelevant in this context to me.

 

Like others have said, DiM acknowledges that their sculpts are based on whatever they use for reference - Mijn has not done this, and claimed that her stuff was made FROM SCRATCH by her. Big difference.

Plus, bringing up the Minimees at all is unnecessary- to me it's the same as people who quote Picasso or mention other famous "copiers." Mentioning another potential theft does not justify yet another theft. Wrong is wrong. I know you're referring to DiM being angry when they allegedly copy too, etc., but it's not the same issue. And remember that the photographers who took the pics stolen by Mijn aren't the same people sculpting the Minimees anyway.

 

And this, I will agree entirely. I probably should have chosen my words more carefully in my initial post as I wasn't meaning to imply DIM had no business taking Mijn to task for what she'd done. They absolutely do, especially given the dolls she stole from them were their original creations. (I wonder if the world... or at least copyright laws... would implode if she ripped off a minimee head. >_> )

I definitely don't deny that Shatje is a liar and DIM most definitely hasn't lied about the source of their "inspiration." But the one thing they both seem to have in common that I find unsettling is that neither of them seem to have any sort of permission.

Volks has a well documented history of creating anime based dolls, and they do it in tandem with/with the permission of the original creators. It bothers me that one doll company can give the creators of their sources that respect and another can't but... it's "alright" because DIM doesn't say these characters come from their own minds.

I think Mijn Schatje has taken things to an uncomfortable extreme, and I can see how comparison to that the Minimee project probably pales completely to some people. It just seemed... unsettling to me that a lot of people are writing off as alright/nothing wrong with it/not even remotely "theft" all because DIM doesn't claim the characters as their own.

I don't know, maybe I'm insane by DoA standards... I just find it unsettling that the Minimee Project, which had started for people to create a resin likeness of themselves/love ones/original characters has become all about making profit en mass off the designs of others/celebrity faces. (The last one not really being a "copy right" thing of course.)

tl;dr - This wasn't brought up to negate what Mijn did because let's face it... it's pretty damn reprehensible, or to say DIM had no right to be unhappy with her. It pretty much just struck me as a bit of a contradiction that apparently I'm mostly alone in.

 

S_P, it sounds like, as usual, we're actually on the same page!

I hope at least one case will end up being filed in a court, if for no other reason than it would be a marvelous way to get the attention of more news outlets and galleries. I think many of the galleries, in particular, are hoping this will go away, but lawsuits are hard to sweep under the rug.

 

No, it's definitely not black and white, and Taco you raise a good point about fan dolls. IMO there is a big difference between commissions and creating original art. As you point out, the Johnny Depp/Orlando Bloom/Naruto dolls are not advertised on the DIM site, and while one can order a doll that has already been made, DIM has not put effort into letting us know exactly which dolls have been produced. Furthermore, to commission such a doll, you are supposed to send in multiple images so that the artist can get an idea of what the subject looks like from different angles, etc., just as you would if you were commissioning a statue of Kennedy or Martin Luther King, Jr., or whomever. There's no law against making a statue of a public figure, as far as I am aware. Another artist's creation, such as a specific character of manga may be a different case (e.g., a statue of Mickey Mouse), but again, these commissions are a private transaction. Nothing is being publicized, and no one is taking credit for the source image. All of this is a heck of a lot different from tracing a copyrighted photograph of a doll, and passing it off as an original creation.

Certain characteristics are going to be the same from photo to photo-- such as proportion of features, possibly coloration, etc., so certainly the final statue or doll will show some characteristics specific to the original subject. But this is true of any art made from real life people. But in Mijn's case it's different. Her images are exact copies of (or rather drawn on top of and therefore fully incorporating) copyrighted images.

There were a spate of Obama dolls made during the last US presidential campaign. I doubt that any of their creators were able to get Obama to pose for them so that they could draw from real life. Instead, they used a variety of photos and video images to get his likeness. There is absoultely nothing wrong with this. Shephard Fairey's poster is another case altogether, and that's why the AP sued. But even that is different from the MS situation, because unlike a DIM or Luts or Volks doll, Obama is a public figure, and certain images are therefore ingrained into the public's mind. That isn't true of BJD, and it's becoming increasingly obvious that this is what MS was counting on. Certainly the established art world had no idea she stole the images, because they don't have the same awareness of BJDs as this community.

 

I'd like to point out that Volks' anime dolls are complete including original outfits, hair, and eyes, etc to match the anime character, and are produced in the style of anime (like an anime figure), whereas DIM is making only a blank head which resembles the head shape of the anime character, but for the third time, is done in realism style, not anime style, and therefore will look a lot different....

 

Though, Volks has permission to do so. (last to my knowledge)

 

Yes they do and many of their dolls are run in collaboration with the owners of the anime. If you own (or ever have owned or happen to see) the box of any of said anime characters ( I haved owned 3, seen more), they tend to have the name of the company or owners of the anime. It is beleived that these copyrights are also what has kept us from getting certain characters outside of Japan, but no one is positive on this.

HOWEVER, I do think this is all a little off topic imho. Regardless, DIM has a right to stick up for themselves.

 

yeah I'm aware but an earlier poster said something along the lines of how it wasn't right how one company gets permission and the other doesn't... but I wanted to point out that they were producing something really different...

 

Also for anyone who IS going to be giving information to art galleries, please also remember that she's also used Totoro from Studio Ghibli and art from Audrey Kawasaki.

I think telling people that she's taken work from more then just BJDs is going to have an stronger impact in the art world.

 

I must have missed the other post.
I figured you knew that Volks has the right to create the anime dolls, I was just trying to figure out how the comparison (Volks to DIM) was relevant.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

I think too (in regards to why people are up in arms over Mijn and not minimees) that our own ideas of what lines can and can't be crossed will vary a bit from person to person (Mijn just happened to cross all of them, lol). Sometimes things come down to more than just what the strict letter of the law says. For myself, hypothetically speaking, if someone wanted to commission a doll of one of my characters I would be hugely flattered (and the company being commissioned would be neither here nor there--it's the person doing the commissioning that's responsible for having the head made). However, if someone claimed my characters belonged to them and they came up with the idea, I would be ready to bludgeon them over the head. To me, the biggest violation is having someone actually truly steal the character (or artwork) and claim it as their own. It's what really gets to me about Mijn--it's the dishonesty and misrepresentation of herself as an artist and her work. Abjds are so unique looking, and to claim that look as something she came up with herself, really really makes me angry and want to see her go down in flames.

 

Just a note about Volks' licensed dolls... in some cases it seems to only be the clothing and character "image" that makes the doll, since they've released some character dolls that are regular sculpts with special outfits (for example Yumi and Sachiko from Maria-sama Ga Miteru were released by Volks... and were actually Mimi and 4 Sisters SD13 sculpts with the character wigs and outfits), and they also made the Momoko from Shimotsuma Monogatari doll, whose head sculpt was re-used without using the licensed character name (though the re-releases did have official Baby the Stars Shine Bright clothing). It leads me to believe that it's more the whole character "image" that's being licensed (hair, outfit, props, etc), while the blank sculpts themselves are Volks' own, separate from the character license.

If DIM were making full character dolls without a license I think it would definitely be a problem. But they sell blank dolls and heads based on faces of people and characters without recreating the iconic outfits, wigs, and props that make the character. I'll agree that for 3D rendered video game characters it may be more problematic, though. Human faces are generally not copyrightable so I don't really see any issue with those (other than a vague creepiness )... but yes this is all a bit off topic. In the end, it would come down to the same jury test that has been mentioned in this thread already- comparing the original art of the character to the sculpted head and asking a jury whether the two are recognizably the same.

 

Hm.. there is a thread on D.I.M minimees if you wish to discuss it more. (Just do a quick serch and it should pop up)

But in the meantime. please keep this thread on topic. The mods may close it if it starts going off topic.

( Mods: I apologize for posting this up. it sounded like it was starting to wander off topic.)

 

This is the most stomach-turning case of persistent, reoccurring art theft I have ever seen. I'm glad that word is being spread about it, that's vital.

I agree that, as Taco so keenly put it, our personal boundaries regarding "crossing the line" vary greatly. And I think it is infinitely important to realize that no matter how we may feel or where our lines are crossed, we are still bound by the legal system. Meaning that even if Mijn Schatje believes she did nothing wrong, she still has to deal with the consequences. She is still responsible for her own actions, and she is liable for all the damage she has caused whether she likes it or not.

In terms of the actual legal aspects of the situation, how is such an international potential case handled? I'm nervous about the logistics involved, it could take ages before everything is coordinated; especially considering the many different ways different companies and individuals have been victimized/lied to. I know there are options, but I think it's obvious that we all want justice (not revenge!) for the many sculptors, photographers, artists, and owners that have been so wronged.

 

I agree. It would be like someone dressing up a doll like Spock. It's Spock. You KNOW it's Spock. We all know what he looks like because Star Trek is all over the world. There's no question... he's a Vulcan and he's Spock. But what she's doing is more akin to taking someone's picture of Spock and saying, "This is my original character Mr. Happy Love Love who came out my imagination..." Then hun, you're dreaming about Star Trek because THAT'S SPOCK, not Mr. Happy Love Love... that is so unlike Spock the Trekkies will have a field day with you.

Edit: And they shouldn't give us the story about how Mr. Happy Love Love came to them in a dream and he chases of the fire pixies with his magical eyebrows and that she's never heard of Spock. The picture IS Spock. The image depicts Spock.

 

I beg your pardon, but I believe you just re-stated what I had said. (However, perhaps the word "take" was not the best one to use, considering how I meant "take" in the original sense of "laying hold of it with one's hands and placing it in front of them" as opposed to using a camera and snapping a shot)

Again, my main concern here is accreditation, which in the DIM case is present and in the Mijn case is not. I'm not a professional artist by any means, but I do draw a fair bit and come up with my own characters, and seeing other people's renditions (which, to be honest, are pretty rare, but what can you expect...) of my own characters is very exciting. Now, no one, including myself, makes any profit off of my own characters, so it's not entirely the same. But I think that general feeling transfers off on fanart, sold in very small numbers. (And having recently sat in an Artist Alley at a convention, I can vouch that 95% of attendees' money goes to the official merchandise anyways)

I have little knowledge of the Minimee rules since I've never really been interested in the first place, so that was a mistake on my part.

 

I think it's a shame that the Minimee issue has come up. Regardless of the legal position Minimees come under, DIM still deserve to have their original work protected from theft. It's also good to see someone publicly stand up to Mijn Schatje* at last, although a cease and desist demand from a real live lawyer would have a better effect.

I think visiting the places she is going to hold exhibitions and calmly and politely providing evidence to show she is an art thief will only work if the person at the arts centre or gallery you speak to believes you're representing a large enough section of society, sadly. If they believe our community is small and Mjin's theft only covers this small minority, the gallery may decide that it's worth continuing with the Mijn exhibition because the visitors coming to the gallery won't know (or care about) the subject matter she has plagiarised in enough detail to know she has stolen art work.

I think the only way to stop Mijn from stealing art work is to hit her in the pocket, sadly. She clearly isn't stopping out of a sense of shame or honourable defeat, so perhaps losing a lot of revenue and her reputation might work? I hate to see anyone's job/hobby/livelihood destroyed, but she has had plenty of time to own up to her actions and apologise.

*Lovely Dutch members...how do you pronounce that name? In my head I keep saying "Meen Shat-yee" but I'm probably wrong

 

The 'ij' sounds more like the 'i' in 'mine' (although I must say it's still not correct then, but it some closer) The 'g' is pronounced very differently. Try choking, and there you have it
With 'je' the 'e' sounds more like 'uh'.
Sorry, don't know how to explain otherwise...