Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

I think that the fact remains that she's making money off of this. Tracing is bad for any artist, but we all do it sometimes to improve our work or if we're just horribly lazy. If she was just tracing and drawing for her own personal use, sure, why not. But Mijin Schatje is making money and profit and gaining international recognition for work that might not entirely be hers. That is what is fundamentally wrong, in my opinion.

Also, I sould like to know who Katherine is. I have been in communication with Mijin Schatje, and she keeps on talking about this Katherine that's been speaking on behalf of the DOA community but not giving Mijin her side of the story. I would like to know who this is to confirm her story. Please PM me if its you. (Mods, if this is wrong and off-topic and does not belong here, please feel free to delete this post)

 

It doesn't really matter how the work was used from a specific technical standpoint; the significant thing is that the work is derivative to a degree of precision which indicates that the original work was--to a great extent--the barely-modified core of the final piece in question. As the original creator is rarely even aware of this practice (eg. the doll companies who have thus far replied), this constitutes plagiarism, for without that component, the final piece it missing its most distinctive feature.

 

Thank you, I updated two of the photos because the sources weren't the correct doll photo. However since it was still the same sculpt it still matched up pretty well.

Even if she did receive permission from her friends to trace her photos she did not ask the doll companies. And she not receive permission from everyone either.

 

I think many of us, including myself, have said it IS wrong and for many reasons. I think it is plagiarisim. She took others ideas and characters and used them to profit from and clamied them as her own. But, many people are also talking about an over all topic here as well that is not about this specific incident or artist. This thread did not start off talking about her specifically and there was a general question asked. Some of us are replying to both in our post.

 

I wanted to share a reply I got from Mr. Hans Bos, one of the owners of the gallery in question in Amsterdamn.

I honestly do not see how he can compare a satire illustration to these blatant and out-right tracings. I think he's being a bit ignorant of the real issue here... But perhaps I'm just too angry about this entire situation.

 

Wow, that is incredibly lame..... I can't believe it I mean, it's TRACING... traaacing! Tracing from copyrighted material is not gallery-quality art!!

 

i agree, i'm just kind of sad that these people are getting tattoos done of art by an artist they love. when they find out what's happened, they might not be able to look at their own body art the same way for the rest of their lives i know i wouldn't be able to.

i think the one that gives it away the most for me is the Pipos one. there's no mistaking that that is a Baha. it's really refreshing to see the members of the doll community banding together against such a ghastly art theft. nice work, guys

 

E.Hadrian: I know, it's extremely frustrating. I honestly think that some of these galleries have already invested so much time and money in this fraud, that they are just taking the easy, non-combative way out. From what I understand, her art may no longer be displayed at Hans Bos' art gallery. However, he could be selling prints for her. I didn't ask... I did restate our case, insisted he look at the photographic evidence we have... But at the end of the day, it's his art gallery, his decision. :\

This is awful for all parties involved -- the individuals and especially the companies. If I were them, I'd take her art and use it. Since they technically own the rights to their own images.

 

she does not has permission neither from those doll companies or private owner. I am very not happy about that . Is there anyway we can stop her ??

 

Tell him that she didn't get permission from everyone. She did NOT have Kallisti's permission. And using promotional pictures from 'factories', which really are companies, is also a no-no, since they are photoshoots, not just stock images like Barbie stock photos or Mickey mouse stock photos.

Yes, she might have been legal from what, 1/4 of them? It's still another 3/4 that's is NOT ok.

EDIT: also, she got permission for ONE picture, not the entire gallery. And Kallisti gave her permission to draw, not trace, the said picture.

 

Actually, I think what he doesn't understand is the "popular domain" of dollfies. I don't condone tracing or copying in any way, but I think he's lumping dollfies, whose sculpt and whose pictures are all done by individual artists, into a "pop icon" kind of category, where reproduction may not be liable as copying. If you explain to him the fact that these dolls are customizeable, and as such, works of art belonging to each individual/company that produces them, it separates them from the category of "Barbie," where they are mass-produced.

The problem in question is perhaps that he sees dollfies as mass-produced "Barbies," rather than customizeable art. If someone stole a picture of a customized Barbie and copied it, it's worse than stealing the pop image of Barbie herself because once customized, the Barbie becomes a "work of art" under an artist's copyright.

 

Greet! I've put up a brief statement on flickr, plus photo-comparisons for possible candidates. As well as two emails I've exchanged with Marie.

She contacted me, as she states, when she was an art student two years ago, and asked if I could share a hi-res image of a doll she could "draw" from. I've never seen this drawing of Merry Wink, nor heard from Marie since, but believe these other seven digital art pieces to be utilizing my photographs, without authorization.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/blastmilk/sets/72157619093901772/

I don't know what the legal ramifications are, but as an artist, ethically this makes me sad.

I'm sorry I can't say more right now, I'm at work

 

timchener - Wow, that is a little ignorant, I would be a little mad. They are very lucky they haven't been sued - Disney is known for suing anyone who uses their images or characters, no matter how innocent. I don't know the laws exactly, but since she is selling her work, I personally think she should have to ask the companies' permission even if she is just using a doll as a reference because they are very much an art in itself and she is selling the image of the doll. Is it technically legal to take a picture of say Barbie, and sell the image as art? I don't know - but I am sure just that would cause problems if someone was making enough money off of it, the only difference is it would be more easily recognized. (Edit - thanks Sharkyra, I didn't think so, I just didn't want to state anything I didn't know to be true ^_^.) But that isn't even the issue, it is that she tracing people's actual images. Grr, I know this has been said before, but him ignoring the issue has annoyed me. Like many I think I am taking this a little to personally even though it doesn't really have anything to do with me.

ALso, I keep hearing about how big her pictures are and how much detail there is and how time consuming it is - but that is not the issue. This makes me think that not many people understand vector art. It isn't hard to make something nice when you are tracing something nice - just time consuming (which I don't think anyone is denying). But just spending a lot of time on something doesn't constitute it as yours or a art. And it is very easy to turn a small images into whatever size you want. I think the only way this would be 100% okay is if she was the make the dolls, paint them, take the pictures, and then do the vector art (and permission would make it okay - but not that artistic). I understand this happens all the time in the art world but that doesn't make it right.

 

Well then I'll give Luts the email to the gallery and they can contact him themselves and let him know that they did not give her permission as her trace of their old Nara picture is being displayed prominently on the website.

 

Is size really an issue? It's obvious that she has some form of talent, dubious as it is. Wouldn't it be possible to trace on a small scale, blow it up to however large she needs it to be and refine it from there before adding all her cover-up details?

 

Wow, stop here! Never, never, never use an image of a Barbie in something you want to publish or perhaps even sell. Believe me, Mattel has a horde of lawyers who investigate only these things (just google Barbie and copyright).
Actually if she had traced photos of Barbie, she would have been sued by now.

 

Vector art is by its nature completely resizable without any loss of quality.

 

I was wondering if there were any magaiznes or newspapers or any other place we could get someone to do a story about this? I know in the academic world, once word gets out in the media, it spreads like wild fire. Even if there are not legal ramifications, the attention is enough to get the plagiarizer to stop plagiarizing. It makes me so sad that she is profiting off of other's hard work and talent.

 

But the sad part is that the Amsterdam gallery head seems to think that using Barbie's image is a-ok in art. :\ I mean, I can understand his protecting his investment, but that sounds like a shady gallery there.

 

armeleia>> Learn something new every day.

Well. That just brings her even lower in my estimation, if that was even possible.