Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

You can't copyright face shapes. There's something natural and organic about it. Not to mention that some people have very similar facial shapes thanks to ancestry. 80% similarity... that's like the difference between myself and my sister's appearance. And what similarity is that? Some of our facial features are the same but then again those are similar to every other member of our family. But our eye color is different and our hair etc is very different as are our noses. We are two different people. The recognition is there, but it's not an exact match.

Just because two figures have the same nose shape or jaw shape does not make them the same. Minimee doesn't aim for 100% accuracy. If anything it's "something similar but not exact." It's vague enough that the same mold could be MANY different people or characters. If I had them make my face, the same head could be used for Shirley Temple. Same mold could also be a younger, more German version of my English grandmother since we have the same nose. There's a facial recognition website that matches your features and face shape to celebrities so you know who you look like.

On the other hand, MS traces. There is 100% accuracy there.

Edit: I just did the face thing on two different recognition sites... I'm 72% resemblance to Ryan Phillipe... another site pegs me as Dakota Fanning.

 

sharnofshade>> I suppose if any of DoA's threads can be necroed, it should be fine to necro that thread as well. ^^;; Especially since it's relevant.

If you don't want Mijn to use the Minimee thing as her own cannonfodder, isn't it best to take that debate there where it belongs? 8)

 

I don't think anyone is refusing to discuss it. There wouldn't be a pre-existing thread on the topic if no one was willing to discuss it. It just doesn't need to be discussed -in this thread-.

I'll see if I can check in with a friend of mine later re: character design and the law. He's done some style guides for marketing for D.C. comics, so he's likely a little more well-versed on the specifics of what legalese is directly relevant to the matter and comment on it there.

 

I don't mean to drag out the digression any further, but it hadn't looked like anyone had made this comparison, so I wanted to share it.

In order for DIM to make their Minimee heads in the same fashion that MS traces her artwork, they would need to have obtained a pre-sculpted head of the celebrity, used it to make a mold, then sold the resulting cast from that mold.

Since what they do is sculpt the head by hand, it would be more akin to one replicating a picture by freehand. There will not be 100% accuracy, and the creation still requires a good deal of talent and effort by those involved.

 

This is the case I was referencing: Rogers vs Koons. Referenced in this very thread as a reason why translation from one medium to another is not a defense against copyright (not trademark or anything else).

Good for the goose, good for the gander. If it's an argument against Mijn (and it was), why doesn't it apply to everyone else doing the same (actually, moreso the same) thing?

Minimees are not 'coincidentally' similar to characters, so the 'every face is unique' claim is completely spurious. DIM 'reference' photos just as closely as Mijn, and promise to get things as close as is possible. You could line up photos of Minimees with the reference photos and (if you get the angles right), they would line up. No one has done this because the only people who own Minimees are the people who buy them (coincidentally, the people who defend DIM). Also, Mijn's artwork is not '100%' the same - she alters colours, hair, various details, etc. '100%' the same would be Mijn selling prints of the original photos unaltered, which is obviously not what she is doing. She certainly doesn't alter them enough to be visually different, but then, Minimees are just as recognisable as their sources.

I don't see the point of discussing this in a different thread when I'm not interested in Minimees - I'm interested in why Mijn is considered deserving of ire, but artists we benefit from aren't. My discussion is centering around Mijn, not Minimees.

 

Except that's a single, complete image, reproduced in all of its elements with the purpose of resembling that specific image in three dimensions. It's laid out right there pretty directly. This is not the same animal. It may have four legs and a tail, but it won't breed true.

 

Well, I'm glad the dA post is popular. The one person's comments ticked me off though, about not wording it right in her eyes or whatever. Besides the fact that the evidence on radiotrash's site makes it glaringly obvious she's a thief, I asked at least three times for someone here to write me something to post, and no one did. I wasn't confident in my ability to write it properly, which is why I asked. But baseless finger pointing? The stupid title links - it's not my problem if people can't see it. Read slower, or something, I mean there's a freakin' www. image next to it.

And like I said, it's OBVIOUS - talking about people deciding for themselves? THE IMAGES decide for you - it's so blatant.

Anyway, I want to thank sakuraharu and the other comment posters for backing me up - I cannot check that post a lot (actually TWO relatives had heart attack/stroke last night) because I'm really busy with a lot. (And frankly am just not in the mood for dealing with them!)

So thanks again, I really appreciate it.

 

Since this debate thread is apparently not allowed to actually have any debating in it (wouldn't it be better in discussion or news, or somewhere else, since it seems to be more of a 'collecting information about Mijn' thread than anything else?), I don't feel like I can comment further.

I do disagree with you though. The situations are exactly the same, in intent, and effect. I suspect that the original copyright owners would agree with me on this, no matter how much fans might wish they didn't.

EDIT: I just realised this post sounds really snarky, and want to apologise for that. I was feeling like this thread was being very hostile to a different opinion, and felt a bit misled by it being in the debate subforum when it really doesn't seem to have any room for debate in it. But I don't want to be a stirrer, and I definitely respect the mod decree in this. I won't post further about Minimees in this thread, and I truly do apologise if I was coming across aggressively or snarkily.

 

The person in this case took a photograph that was copyrighted to someone else and made a 3D statue of it.

Celebrity faces aren't copyrighted or trademarked. Many people of their same ethnicity or family can look nearly the same because DNA makes us that way.

On the other hand you CAN copyright a picture or a portrait taken of a face... but not the face itself unless there's something remarkable about it that can be identified to ONE person or character. Maybe... an upside down nose? That would be pretty identifiable as one specific person. Otherwise they pretty much look like everyone else. High cheekbones plus square jaw doesn't always equal Johnny Depp.

So MS took the picture of the face which was owned by the person who took the picture. It's much different than using a human face since there's only so many skull shapes and muscle depths and fat deposits and no face is really unique... they all pretty much follow the same anatomy.

 

It's not your fault that people refuse to read. The convention of underlining links is universal-- people are just lazy sometimes. As for the quality of your post, you don't need to defend it. You got your point across well.

As for that one person's comments-- some people live to pick apart other peoples' work. The internet lends anonymity, so maybe they think it is okay because of that. And then there are people who just like to troll. It's to be expected when posting something, especially as the popularity of a post or author grows. Take it as a compliment, or as evidence that the story is reaching people.

Sorry to read about your family members-- hope they recover quickly.

 

Marie AKA Mijn LIES about stealing photos, DIM are completely open about where the source material came from, right down to the names. It's not 100% kosher, but it's certainly not exactly the same as what this woman did. Similar issues, different extent.

I do not how you can support this woman with all the lies she's told so far. DIM have NEVER lied about where Minimees come from.

Forget any of the legality, I have no respect for liars. Personally I care just as much about the endless lies she's told as the copying. Which is why I have no bad feelings about DIM, I've never known them to lie.

 

I don't support Mijn. I never said anything about supporting her.

Honestly, I'm really starting to wonder how this can be a debate thread if someone can't post anything without being attacked for 'supporting' Mijn (despite not, anywhere, saying ANYTHING about what she's done being acceptable!)

My entire point was that if Mijn is in the wrong, a lot of other artists who are supported on DoA are also in the wrong.

If you make a statue of Mickey Mouse, it doesn't matter one whit whether you admit that he's Disney's property - you'd still be breaking the law.

 

You are supporting her by posting this stuff publicly. She reads this thread, she'll use whatever dirt she's found in it.

I thought you were perfectly aware of that. Sorry for presuming.

 

But we're NOT supporting Mickey Mouse. Mickey Mouse CAN be trademarked and belong to someone. Human beings cannot, especially if all you have that's the same is facial similarity. Human beings' faces aren't perfectly sculpted by an artist... unless it's a cosmetic surgeon. Our faces mostly have flaws and many artists gloss over that fact in attempt to idealize the face.

I have yet to see people sue over two human faces looking very similar. There's mention of it in the Parent Trap "That girl has YOUR face!" Turns out they were supposed to be identical twins... still shouldn't be sue worthy with identical twins fighting over the same face.

She's not finding two people who look alike... she's actually using a photo entirely. A single source. Most 3D artists I know use MANY references and they still don't know all the details unless they can examine the real person and touch their face to find all the curves.

 

(First off, I apologise if what I said has been said over and over again. This thread is hard to keep up with!)

I think sharnofshade is trying to ask why is Mijn's work different than that of commerical artists, and she's just using Minimee's as an example. I think it's a valid question. This tom foolery with Mijn does raise that question.

Commercial artists often find themselves sculpting, drawing, designing for another person's vision. Concept artists may create pieces based on pre-existing characters, render environments for a popular video game series. Animators make someone else's character move. A close friend of mine considers himself a commercial sculptor. Among his work, he's created action figures for pre-existing comic book characters who have a well-known image that he has to keep in mind while creating a new product.

Is what he does, and what other commerical artists do, considered art? I think most of us would say yes. I say yes.

With Mijn's partnerships with major companies, one could consider her a commercial artist. She did pieces to push products. It looks like most of it was advertising design.

So why is what she's doing wrong? I think it all comes down to the legal issues behind what she is doing. She did not have permission to use some of the photos/dolls that she's used to create her pieces.

I do graphic design work, and love doing vector pieces. I've used photographs and creative images as a basis for them. These photographs have either been from the non-profit I work for, or aquired from Getty Images or Corbis when we had an account with these stock image services at my previous job. While it was highly unlikely that I'd ever get busted for using copyrighted images from these services without paying for them, it was made very clear to me that it is legally possible, and to not do it.

As an animation student, we could use pre-existing characters for projects (in fact we were encouraged to do so because it shows we can animate someone else's character) and put them on our demo reel. (For example, I could animate Winne the Pooh bumbling about.) But try to get that piece into a film festival, try to make a profit off of it? Not allowed in the slightest and Disney could rain fire and brimestone upon you.

As a fellow vector freak, I can't support what Mijn did in the slightest. This issue has nothing to do with whether or not I like her work (that is entirely subjective and should not be the basis for whether or not you disagree or agree with what she's doing) and everything to do with her process, which seems to me awfully illegal.

 

If you believe what D.I.M is doing is wrong why don't you write them the a letter?
if you are so incised about Minimees, why don't' you write a letter to every single company/artist that used the reference from? With a bit of luck you would single handedly bring down one of the most beloved BJD companies.

Of chourse a lot of people would want to defend D.I.M.

(( Modds, I would suggest locking this thread for awhile, it is still going off topic despite your warning. ))

 

I don't feel that it's going off topic at all, personally. (Caveat, though, is I'm not a mod, like you're not.) It's a very valid discussion and debate topic: why is what Ms. Schatje doing wrong when other, potentially similar forms of expression do not fall into the same category?

Additionally, as this is the thread where new violations and reports of action are being placed, it seems wholly counterproductive to lock it for any given length of time.

 

I agree. It should be left open, for those reasons and because it's an excellent source of information and updates pertaining to the issue. Also, we're alerted when people like Mijn submit similar copied art on the internet. I think it's vital this thread stay open. Personally, I find the discussion engaging and interesting.

 

Here goes my opinion:

A talented artist won't OVER PAINT images. If you can't create anything using your own ideas and imagination, then sadly you are not an artist. Mijn Schatje is not an artist.

Anyone can download a picture, create a layer over the original picture, start to over paint, blend the colors togheter, put some fancy filters and adds two or three small details in the end. The result will be good because the previous art was good to being with.

Sadly, things like this happens everyday and the people affected can only "watch" in most cases.