Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

I totally agree!!
I think she might be good at put all this stuff together, I mean she has good taste in choosing subjects (of course she does, since she uses BJD) and the final result is "fine", the compositions are good to see, and this requires a minimum good "graphical-sense", but still, of course the beauty of her so called "art"of, it's all because of the sources used...
It she would called her pieces "Fan Art" I would say: Good Job!
But since she claims them as originals ... then she's just a copycat.

 

I would love to get her art, those laptop covers are amazing.
But since she uses the pictures without permission I won't buy them.
I wish she would just ask permission and take care of all that stuff zo that it's alright what she does, 'cause I really really like her art.

 

Mikustar, there are people in the Marketplace you can commission who will do similar drawings/art of your own doll and then you can use a company like VistaPrint who can put this image on anything you like; mousemats, pens, note paper... The possibilities are endless and the copyright of the doll company is protected because you've paid the doll company for your doll, you've paid the artist for their services, you've paid the stationary company for their work and you've bought a personalised product not intended for resale. It's only if you mass produced mousemats of your doll and sold them on the Marketplace here (or on Etsy, or anywhere else) that you would need to secure permissions from the doll company and from the artist who did the artwork, and if so, you would have to be prepared for either of them (or both) to say no.

 

That is a really good idea Jescissa I will have to jot that down in my notes. I might be able to reproduce similar pieces for my doll when I actually get her lol, but I'm not sure the interpretations of the dolls that Mijn put up just kind of go back to the whole stereotype thing lol, and some of her pieces are creepy to me.


~Mark

 

I think its the hair she puts on her work, The straight black thin hair, kinda like the grudge....

 

autumnwolf used a can of pepsi as an example, and I chuckled and thought about this... 20th century art saw the use of iconic images, and popular objects in works that became what I like to call, art with a capital A. (And let's not forget using found objects. Using a wooden chair that had been hand crafted and built by a carpenter- are we to dismiss the chair as not someone's art?) For those of you who may not be as versed with art history, here's a famous example, Andy Warhol. Campbell's soup any one?

The debate that raged over these art movements, the debate that raged over when photography gained a foothold, is esentially what is at the core of the Mijn debate.

Yeah, I know the mods want to keep this debate about Mijn only (I mean look at the title of the thread), but come on, you cannot discusss her works, and her method of creating them without the historical and social context! Art (whether you think it is or isn't) is never created in a vacuum.

So let's play devil's advocate...
I think that where the debate should be, and that's where it is. Are we to dismiss certain art movements because artists re-arranged someone else's work? Did these artists contribute nothing? Does Mijn really have nothing to offer as an artist?

I know every one here is NOT like me, and is longing for the days of the Caravaggios of the world. Where are the people who do like Warhol? Now that'll be a debate, rather than a bunch of us coming together to say we don't like Mijn.

 

So take it to the original thread about artists and images. That's where the debate you are interested in is going on.

This thread has evolved into discussion about the copy points of mijn's work and how the community is dealing with it. Maybe an area change is in order but it should be obvious the posters here are no longer debating and more actively gathering information and coordinating the posting of that information.

.

 

One of the key differences between Warhol's Campbell soup and MS's compilations is that Warhol was using an iconic piece of American culture. No one looking at his work would think that he had designed or created the soup can or its distinctive label. In using that particular visual, he was making a statement. The same could be said (moreso) about the use of Marilyn Monroe's highly recognizable pictures. Knowing that the images used to create the whole were derivative, the viewer is left to ponder the meaning of their selection and the execution of their rendering. In general, modern art elevated the idea above the creation process... which some might argue is one of the greatest failings of the movement (and much of what came after).

Collage and Found Art artists are generally forthright about the fact that they are arranging pieces that were made by other people. Sometimes the brand labels of the found object even feature prominently, which can be good or bad for the maker. Even if they don't credit the maker of the object, it is generally made clear that they did not originate the components themselves. (It seems most of the legal cases have been made in where it has not been made clear. It seems that one of the tenants of Fair Use is that you cannot misattribute the work; even in Sheppard Fairey's case, he never denied using the AP photograph.)

By contrast, MS's work is derivative without admission; she chose a niche, subculture object and presented it as her own creation, birthed from the depths of her own fertile imagination. Unlike Warhol's Marilyn Monroe, it didn't need to be a Lishe. It could have been anything. The specific doll that she lifted wasn't integral to the message. Viewers looked at the pictures without knowing that they were derived from photographs... without even knowing that they were derived from actual, tangible objects. This means that viewers are crediting MS with a lot more ability in drawing, composition, and creativity than she actually is demonstrating.

In my mind, art using found objects can be perfectly valid.... and can be very powerful. However, dishonesty on the part of the artist devalues the work. One of the reasons that originality is a hot issue for me is because my belief is that art is a form of communication; plagiarism always feels like someone has stolen someone else's voice.

While art is created from a world's worth of experience, I don't believe that there is nothing original. I always feel frustrated when people try to justify copying by saying that "it's all been done before anyway." Every day is new, and every moment holds something to be captured. I don't think it's possible to create Art without believing that.... and artists who feel it's okay to copy have probably never created anything worth being copied.

 

I actually do like Warhol - very much; in fact, enough to study his work and the Pop Art movement quite intensively in my academic career. What makes his appropriation of the soup can different from MS? Meaning and content: throughout his career, Warhol engaged himself with questions of identity, celebrity, mass production, and the role of art in contemporary society. While much of what he had to say publicly was encoded in banal statements, "in the future, everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes" has proven to be a chillingly accurate prediction of the state of media via YouTube and 'reality tv'.

What I am not seeing in the work in question, is any content other than plagiarism for a pretty. Is that enough? I don't think so, but I have a lot of bias. And, given the amount of attention MS has garnered from the very community from which it has appropriated, I may be mistaken. In the end, it's not creativity, integrity, or sincerity that matters - it's getting people to look at your stuff in the first place.

 

I think it's important to compare apples to apples. An iconic product like the best selling soup at that time is not comparable to the bjd images MS appropriated. They are not widely known outside of a relatively small community, and IMO, MS was counting on this. Also, Warhol drew his pictures of soup cans from "life." It wasn't someone else's photographic image he manipulated. So there are too many differences between that work and MS' to compare them.

However, Warhol did take a copyrighted image-- that of Jackie Kennedy ("A Sorrowing Family Marches Together") which was published in Time Magazine and copyrighted by its photographer, Henri Dauman.

http://www.artnet.com/artists/lotdetailpage.aspx?lot_id=133863A3F278A6EE

Warhol used it to make silkscreens leaving the image recognizable as Dauman's.

http://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/figurativefigural/figurative-5.gif

When Dauman found out (quite a few years later) about the unauthorized use of his image, he sued Warhol's estate and won.

 

Caulfield sues Warhol over use of photograph:

http://books.google.com/books?id=2x...=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#PPA85,M1

 

Note that after Caulfield's case (Warhol settled) Warhol ventured into photography to avoid having to deal with further copyright issues.

According to his collaborator, Gerard Malanga,

"Andy realized that he had to be very careful about appropriating for the fear of being sued again. He opted to start taking his own photographs. His entry into photography vis a vis his creation of silkscreen paintings was done out of necessity."

(as quoted in Andy Warhol Photography, Edition Stemmle, 1999)

Edit: I think the Caulfield case is a better comparison to MS than Warhol's 16 Jackies, because like the BJD images, the flower image Warhol appropriated was in no way iconic (unlike Jackie Kennedy). It was just a nature photographer's image of hibiscus flowers, just as the images MS has taken are "just dolls." This really parallels MS quite well (apples to apples!), and importantly, Warhol seemed to learn a lesson from it.

Maybe MS is about to learn something, too.

 

I think this whole side discussion comes down to...
"would you jump off a bridge if your friends did" type side issue.

Just because others may have done something similar doesn't make it right or means it should be allowed.

To me its simple: she traced/digitized etc a photo of a bjd and claimed that it was a creation of her imagination (a claim that she later changed to "used as a model"). Her history is to rip off images of others work, modify it (by digital manip to look "painted") and LIE.
I can't do anything about Warhol, don't care... I can do something about HER (or atleast support those who can do something).

 

Let me not get off topic here. After re-reading the first entry and following all the other comments about "artist's in general" taking liberties with another's creation, I can say that as an artist myself, in many different mediums, I use images from other sources to make art, but this I will say, nothing I create as a final product looks like the image I started out with. In other words... a used image is a beginning note, not the final product and it shouldn't look like it was part of a "stolen image from another artist." Plain and simple. If another artist has created it, then you have no reason to use it with out notification to the original creator. Certainly not to have it look so much like the original piece of art. Gallery's that show copy's of another's work under a lack luster artist should be ashamed of themselves not doing enough research to check out such errors in the artist code of conduct.

 

Thanks everyone for such a thoughtful converation on this topic. Many of you verbalized so clearly what I have only responded to intuitively. (Go Armeleia) It's great to have devil's advocacy on here as well. It really crystalizes for me what specific factors make M.S.'s case so clear-cut, and adds some good artistic introspection to our outrage.That way we can do it *better*. It's so important to make real art, to discuss it, and to fight for it.
My artistic mentor used to say,"Uplift the Genre!"

 

How many times is it that Warhol and his stupid cans have been brought up in this thread? Is someone going to bring up Shepard Fairey for the tenth time as well?

Unless I misread, Armeleia has already stated previously that the reason this thread is staying in debate, even though it has evolved past a debate thread, is because this is a locked area of the forum while general discussion, where it may be more suited, is available for anyone to view.

If you really want to argue because you truly believe what Mijn is doing isn't wrong then go ahead but please don't come in here to try to be cool and play devil's advocate. A lot of us consider this the thread to come to for updates on the Mijn situation and it’s a bit frustrating seeing people discussing things that have already been debated 20+ pages ago and three times over. That’s the reason that there’s a general debate thread about this exact same topic and this thread is specifically about this one ‘artist’.

 

Aside from the technicalities of what other artists have done, which is way beyond the copyright knowledge of most of us.... I am way more curious about what might happen to her with Sony and Fornarina (?) with her licensing to them.
As someone said way way earlier in the thread, when you work for companies like that, you sign contracts that have a clause in them where you affirm *you* own the copyright to the artworks. One doll company I worked for wouldn't even let you use copyrighted print fabric to dress a doll, which really would be ALL prints!
If I were her I would be petrified of Sony coming after me- after all contracts like those really only protect the bigger party, and they no doubt have lawyers who are permanently employed and just looking for stuff to do
Also, to anyone who think they may have been wronged with having their pics stolen and used- many years ago I had problems with a doll company I was designing for who were doing shifty things, and I found an association called Lawyers for the Arts or Lawyers for Artists or something, who do some cases Pro- Bono for artists. I had a chat to one of their guys over the phone after they reviewed my faxes to them (thats how long ago it was lol) and thought I had a case they could take, but thankfully it never got to court. For someone who has had their pics stolen (eg, MilkBlast) and can't afford a Lawyer, it might be worth investigating, even if it's just a cease and desist letter.
Oh and just finally, just because she's licenced to those companies doesn't necessarily mean she's raking in the $$, royalties don't always mean big money *Morally* though, it is so so wrong she is making *anything* off other's ideas and work, and any $$ she gets should be shared, IMO.

 

I have been contacted several times about the Narae images used by this artist.

Please remember that companies cannot make a public statement without opening themselves up to being sued or countersued by that very person who could have taken their images. It's not that we don't care or have no feelings about it.. we care very deeply and theft hurts all of us.

The discussion is a good one, and we'll see what comes of it.

: - )
Catrina

 

I cannot understand why any company/artist whose images were so blatantly ripped off would not have the guts to come out and say so. We can sit here and speculate and debate and sdiscuss all day long, but that doesn't do any good until those hove been ripped off stand up for themselves! That kind of "we're afraid to speak up" attitude is exactly why it's so easy for artits like MS to use the images with little fear of consequences, imo.

 

They are not afraid to speak out, per se, I bet..they are afraid to mess up their case. Pending litigation means that everything has to be under wraps, because everything, all discussions, communications to anyone (not just the people involved) has to be documented very carefully. I'm sure they have been advised to do this by their lawyers.