Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

If they're considering legal action, they may not be able to speak up without possibly complicating the case or damaging themselves. Don't assume nothing is happening, just because companies aren't posting about it here--it's just one of those things that they can't plaster all over public forums.

 

I don't think it's a matter of not having guts; I think it's a matter of proceeding with caution. I imagine that a wronged party would want to make sure all their legal arguments were lined up before going public with accusations. To do otherwise would invite countersuits for libel/slander. The evidence that has been presented seems pretty damning, but like Dollyholic said, the last thing one of these companies needs is to be slapped with a suit for "ruining MS's career" or something to that effect.

As far as pursuing legal action, that's also something that should be done with caution. Successful lawsuits (in the US at least) can take years. They're expensive, time-consuming, and can be won or lost on a technicality. And did I mention expensive? Should one of these companies or artists decide to go this route, they will want to make sure all their bases are covered before taking that leap.

I'd like to think that all of the wronged parties here are taking this very seriously, even if they've not released a public statement, and are exploring all available options.

 

It's not really a matter of having guts or not. Like a few others have said, if there's something legal in the works, that often means that things cannot be said until there is some legal judgment. We're not the court system, and if something more serious is to come of any of this, we're not the ones to try the case or render a verdict. That's far beyond the power of this forum.

 

I've done graphic art before and done work for hire, I've also done work on commission where it's a one on one peice of artwork for someone who is a fan of a particular character or person and it was a one of a kind peice.

The thing about commission work and work for hire is that you are being hired by someone with a specific want or interest to a single job. You are not making multiple peices of artwork off of someone else's hard work to get huge amounts of profit.

Again what this woman has done is theft plain and simple, to be more definitive, and I apologize if someone in this thread has posted this already, this is a direct lead from your wiki post...

"A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable."

When I did do a commission peice it was with the understanding that while I would do a picture of a character/person it would NOT be a direct copy and would however be something different that depicted that character/person.
In essence my take, created by me off of the idea of the character/person my customer asked me to do.
It would NOT be traced, it would NOT be the same pose, and it would be something that I and the customer both agreed on that was a toal different take on the character/person.

Of further note and even more to the point of what is being discussed here...

"For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work. The later work must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the later work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality."

and...

"Copyright infringement liability for a later work arises only if the later work embodies a substantial amount of protected expression taken from the earlier, underlying work. The later work must take enough protected expression (it does not matter how much unprotected material is taken, for the latter is open to the public) for the later work to be "substantially similar" to the earlier work."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

Even with all of that and the fact that almost all of us agree she has stolen and used artwork not her own it will remain with the court system and the companies themselves as to whether or not she will have to make reperations and if they will determine that she did do something/anything wrong.

I am not condoning what she's done, I frankly think she is a theif, dishonest, and unwilling to do the right thing but again that is my personal opinion.

 

I know from experience (although on a much bigger scale, a murder investigation) that when something like this happens and action is being taken, the parties involved are silent or say little at all. If lawyers or law enforcement are investigating something, it's kept secret, sometimes even from the people directly involved, for the sole purpose of safeguarding that information so that neither party can get in trouble, find out too much or use it to fight back.

It may not make much sense, and it's frustrating - but understand that silence does not equal inaction, and it's often when things are quietest that the most work is being done behind the scenes. The involved parties simply cannot say anything, so that Mijn doesn't find out, because they have most likely been advised to do so.

 

True... and as with the case with a murder case to have an unbiased jury. If there's much hullabaloo they will have a tough time finding a jury or a judge who hasn't already heard about it and can render an unbiased opinion. Probably not the same as in a civil case, but most cases I know wait until AFTER the trial to write their memoirs.

 

QFE, well said.

 

I think the problem is that many people are doing the TL;DR thing with this thread-- not bothering to read all the replies (even though that is the polite thing to do) because its soooo long.

Would it be possible to edit one of the replies on the first page to explain the current status of this thread, and why it's evolved past simple debate and into more of a status thread? I have a feeling most people new to the conversation are at least stopping by the first page before replying with their own (likely-already-been-said-several-times) thoughts on the matter.

 

For me, it's not even that people are doing the TL;DR thing. In the case of Andy Warhol and Campbell soup compared to what Mijn Schatje does, a person doen't have to read this thread to realize that it's comparing apples to oranges. All it takes is 10 seconds to really think about it and it's pretty obvious that the situation doesn't compare well at all.

Personally, I feel like Andy Warhol has become so famous for what he has done that anytime anyone opens their mouth to mention art and plagiarism in the same sentence, someone else feels the need to bring him up. Relevance, it becomes moot.

 

That's a very good point. The day Mijn is as famous or influential in the art world as Warhol, I will eat one of my Mecha Angels.

 

I've been lurking here for a while but I just want to say that if anyone feels that he/she has been ripped off by Mijn Schatje and doesn't think that he/she can afford to get a lawyer, here are some links to help you out.

If you live in the Washington, DC area, there's the Washington Lawyers for the Arts, which is a great organization that will provide legal advice either pro-bono or very low cost to artists.

If you live outside the DC area, the same organization has a page full of links to similar organizations in other cities.

For those of you who are worried about why the affected companies haven't spoken up, I just want to say that most lawyers will frequently tell a client NOT to speak publicly (including posting anything on the Internet) about a possible or pending lawsuit. Anything that the client says in the public sphere can be used by the other side against that client in a courtroom. (I have a brother-in-law who's a lawyer and he frequently gives this advice to his clients.)

And lawyers are generally not happy when a client does speak freely about a case. One example of this happened with former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich when he was indicted for selling Barack Obama's Senate seat and he was impeached by his state. He disregarded his lawyer's advice by appearing on a bunch of talk shows the week his impeachment trial took place and his lawyer resigned from the case as a result.

 

Just another site to add to kimpossible's excellent links: Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts. They're based in NYC but can help refer you to an attorney in your area.

 

my comments were obviously completely misunderstood.
I certainly do not expect any compnaty or artist to come out and share allt he details of whatever action they are considering. I agree that would be foolish.

However, I do think as a courtesy to their loyal collectors, I believe they do have somewhat of an obligation to not just let this pass with no comment. I realize that proper legal action can take a long time and it's a complicated process. I didn't mean to suggest that should be compromised. Also, keep in mind, that legal filings are public record, so just saying "we are doing something about this" does not jeopardize a case!

But..... in the meantime, it's nice to know if the artists and companies who are being ripped off are taking this seriously and doing something to proctect their product and name. I appreciate posts like that from DIM and repsent them all the more for it.

In a different situation, I have just about lost all respect for a company for saying nothing at all about a likely ripoff situation. If a company doesn't care enough about their collectors to protect their copyrights, I have no desire to buy their products.

 

I agree with you. I understand that the best thing is to avoid stating anything thats important for their case, but just like DIM I think more companies should post the, at the very least, terse news on their sites in order to spread awareness to other BJD owners. I'm sure it would also stop the repeat emails the companies keep getting: as dollyholic said " I have been contacted several times about the Narae images used by this artist."

 

The only thing they could really say is "We have been notified about the use of our images and action is taking place." Anything more could get them in serious trouble. Saying something like, "This Mijn person stole our photos, tell your friends" could backfire and be incredibly stupid.

Trust me on this, it's in their best interest to say little to nothing at all. One wrong thing, and Mijn would pounce on it.

Legal filings being public is irrelevant, and they only indicate the basic procedures, not the beliefs, hunches, and personal comments on what's going on - I have extensive personal experience with this, and believe me when I say, you are simply not allowed to broadcast the information everywhere.

While I praise DiM and Luts for being aggressive, I do worry about what Mijn might do with what they've said. As I said before, I really have a lot of experience with this kind of thing, the best thing to do is keep your mouth shut until it's done.

 

It's nice to know, but if they don't feel it's in their best interest to say anything, then they shouldn't say anything. The most important thing is that they are able to do something about this legally--keeping bjd hobbyists notified really pales in comparison. Of course no one likes to feel that they've been left in the dark when big issues like this come up, but it's just one of those situations where we're going to have to be patient. We're not the main parties here. While, I really appreciate the info DIM and LUTS has given us, I don't think it's fair to expect that every effected company will do the same.

Without knowing all the legal ins and outs of a given situation (which nobody but the companies themselves and their lawyers are going to know), I don't know how you'd be in the position to accurately judge whether or not a company wasn't trying to protect their copyright.

 

True. You are paying that lawyer good money for their advice. If they say be quiet (and they generally do), if you're smart, you stay quiet.

Yeah we'd all like to be in the loop, but we won't be. And maybe not hear anything at all for a good long time yet either.

 

I do agree that they don't need to tell us anything. And I would never expect them to say anything confidential or that would compromise their legal status.
However... they should be willing to accept the fact that folks will continue to notify them and it would be nice if they resopnded pleasantly to collectors who were trying to do the right thing. (I've been on the "dont bother me with this" response receiving end and with a very rude brush-off and it was quite unpleasant and really soured me on the company)

 

About using BJDs in art, If you're not directly tracing the doll like Mijn did and you were using the dolls as inspiration, maybe using it as a model, would that be okay? Would it be okay if you didn't give credit to the particular doll you used as a model? Because lots of artists use wooden manequins or certain toys for their art, and they don't credit them.