Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

No no. Way upstream someone who has a background and teaches courses in artistic legalities basically said "If you were told this, the person that told you is a moron."

This is a myth and has been debunked several times in this thread. The myth persists because the lazy, talentless and clueless want to use it to justify their actions.

 

Since I've read this thread, I came across these two videos of a reception for the opening of one of Mijn Schatje's exhibitions last year. It just looks so surreal now to see the traced over/purloined images in the background since I learned about the controversy. What's more, many of the partygoers are wearing name tags or buttons that look like it maybe have come from one of the questionable "art" pieces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtWEP6Bze0Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Oy1AaKoQMA

I wonder how many of the partygoers shown in these videos would react if they learned about this scandal. If I was one of those partygoers, I would be shocked. (I'm just sayin')

 

She has a new work in progress on her face book.

 

Unbelievable. Anyone recognize the face? And what's with that jewelry crap? Wow she's got a lot of nerve.

 

oh god. I looked at her flickr account and people are just falling over themselves to tell her how wonderful she is, how her 'art' inspires them. Quite honestly it makes me pysically sick D:

Another new work? wow, she's lacking a conscience I'd say.

 

If she has half a brain, she's limiting herself to using her friend's doll pictures, and not company and artist photos that she has swiped off the net...

[rant]

I wish she would stop using the bio:

"While other little girls were playing dolls, Marie Blanco Hendrickx AKA Mijn Schatje was making wishes and prayers on tombstones in the woods at her grandparents at le chateau des Ifs in the Paris area. She lived a tale of her own in that castle..."

It really irritates me... that bio makes a point of the fact that she chose tombstones and flowers over playing with dolls, while her fame can be directly attributed to the doll faces she appropriated for her art (my personal opinion is that without the doll faces, no one would have given her work a second glance).

[/rant]

 

Ugh, this makes me kind of sick. This sort of thing is the reason why I have nothing to do with the art world anymore even though my degree is in art history. Successful "fine" artists are very often successful because they have found something to exploit for their own purposes.

 

Maybe she's hoping this will just all blow over. Maybe she thinks the letters from the companies involved will be the extent of their action, and that if she just keeps acting like nothing is happening that nothing will.
Legal action is not instantaneous. I am hopeful that the companies are taking this seriously, especially in light of her continued actions.
One would think that if she had any sense at all, she would lie low for awhile. Instead, she starts making jewelry. Unbelievable.

 

I have been following this thread from the very start, and have read through every post.....I applaud all of you that have been working/researching so hard in keeping us all up-to-date with this situation....I for one would not have known any of this plagiarism was going on right under our noses.......Thanks so much you guys.....Keep up the good work....

I do know that weeks ago when I searched Google for 'Mijn Schatje' I only saw her own facebook/flickr etc with her info....now when I search I find so much information about her plagiarism it's enough to put anyone off her 'art'.........This has to be damaging her reputation for sure and certain, for anyone in their right mind would not purchase any of her 'art'.

I do know the art world can be a fiickle place, but the good and honest art dealers/lovers out there ( and there has to be thousands of them) will not go near her (MS) with a forty foot barge pole!....... She will be losing $$$$$$.......

I do think, with time, she will have to come forward and own up to what she has done, and credit the artists she has plagiarised....here's hoping.....


xen

 

So I feel like I've been following this thread pretty well, so forgive me if I have missed this and this is a repost.

So, we've seen the collage art being sold but it looks like some of these cute sculpts just keep getting passed around.

While searching for doll clothes on Etsy I stumbled across this piece of art. I read its description and followed onto her online portfolio and DA page.

Like MS, she's using BJDs as her source of inspiration, but unlike MS--she acknowledges this. The only "problem" I saw was her lack of specific credit. She labelled this work on her DA as "Dollfie" but there is no credit to where the mold originated.

The pose is the same as the original photo, but I feel that it isn't traced, just drawn free-hand to its likeness. (Though, I could be wrong)


Should Ms. Ania Tomicka be contacted about this lack of information? Or what should be done?

 

Well about Anja Tomicka...
one of my best friend is very close to her: they attend the same School of Art in Florence and I can say that she really does draw all of her pieces free-hand...
It seems to me that she doesn't own any BJDs herself, and she use her friends' but still, she never traces anything from original photos... so I think that she shouldn't be compare to MS
Still, maybe she could specify the molds she draws... that'd fair, but she really is an artist with talent...

 

The work looks free-hand (plus the materials used don't really look like it can be used to trace ) but direct credit really should be given, that's one of the -big- issues with the MS situation.

((Anja Tomicka is similar to MS only in the fact that she uses dolls and didn't credit. She is UNLIKE MS because she 1) actually drew instead of traced, 2) hasn't used her work for commercial means, 3) hasn't denied where her inspiration came from--she says that outright))

 

Actually, the case of Anja Tomicka is much blurrier... The problem with Mijn is she is infringing on the copyright of the photograph she is tracing. The actual image she is ripping off is the copyrighted thing.

But in the art world in general - you can do a painting from life of a coca cola can, or a ford mustang or whatever copyrighted object you like. You don't then have to title it "1967 Mustang" you could title it "Red Car" and be fine. I mean, think about it - if I painted the scene outside my window right now, if I were to credit the creator of everything I see out there, the credits would be 20 pages long! If Anja is simply working from life, painting someone's doll, she actually doesn't even need to credit it as a doll, that is her being extra gracious.

 

I think that the biggest issue with MS is that she traced other people's art photos and also claimed that all the images came out of her head.

While I think it would be good if she credited the sculpts since they are not recognizable to mass population (like Barbie or Campbell's soup cans and therefore not iconic in any way) she does say that they are Dollfies. That is not really accurate since that only credits Volks, but she is crediting that her models are someone else's doll creations, if not the actual sculpt.

Since Angelic-Pretty is a friend of a friend, maybe she can contact that friend to give Anja the names of the dolls so that she can credit the exact sculpts on her website.

 

I agree with this.

The subject of whether or not artists should give things like the specific sculpt and company names was what the original debate thread was about, and there were some definite differences of opinion. Mijn took things much farther by both claiming the images were her own ideas and directly tracing from other people's photos.

I think most people even if they didn't title their image 'Portrait of Elf Doll Red' would still readily admit that the subject was a portrait of a specific doll and not something out of their own heads--at least that's the scenario I imagined when the original non-Mijn discussion started. Of course using images for commercial purposes would open a whole can of worms... Perhaps it would be polite to give more specific credit (and perhaps wiser in terms of protecting oneself), however, as long as they aren't tracing, using the images for commercial purposes, or claiming they came up with it themselves, then I would be inclined to leave them be. I think people need to choose their battles.

 

Copyright law treats "useful objects" differently from creative works. Why do you think there are so many knock off bags and shoes that are legal? They are "useful items" and don't have the same kind of copyright protection.

So how are dolls viewed? Let's look at Cabbage Patch Dolls vs Garbage Pail Kids.

Cabbage Patch Dolls were a popular doll with a specific look. Garbage Pail Kids were "gross" trading cards that used images that were very similiar to Cabbage Patch Dolls, but they had original content and ideas.

Cabbage Patch Dolls sued them for using their images, they settled out of court. Garbage Pail Kids agreed to change their cards so the characters in their cards did not look like Cabbage Patch Dolls.

Example of 2D version of a 3D doll - the image of the doll is still protected under US copyright law.

 

Further to L Mikia's posts above, I personally think that what we need to do is be careful not to get carried away. Being part of the doll community and being knowledgeable about bjds doesn't give us any right to go contacting every artist who paints them or uses them in their art, saying that we think they need to specifically credit doll companies and sculpts. As candygears pointed out, it's accepted that artists can paint/draw objects from real life, even copyrighted ones, without having to specifically credit every object. Some of us might prefer it if more credit was given, and it's fine to hold that opinion, but recognise that it is just that - your opinion. Contacting random artists we encounter in order to suggest they are giving insufficient credit is only going to needlessly upset people.

If on the other hand, you feel that someone has infringed the copyright of an image you yourself created, then that's another matter and you have every right to take that up with them.

 

Oh, I agree with this... (and I don't think this statement was aimed specifically at me necessarily) no witch hunting please... I just thought since there was a community connection (a good friend), that one person could make the suggestion.

Personally, the fact that she free-hands her pictures and states that she uses dolls as her models is good enough for me (my personal line in the sand). She may not be giving specific credit to a certain sculpt/company, but she isn't taking the credit for herself, which is one of the things I find supremely annoying about the MS situation.

I think that dredging the net for any doll resemblances and pouncing will create a negative image that could reflect poorly on doll artists and photographers (and people like me who like having them to play with).

 

strangeangels - just to reassure you, my post isn't aimed at any specific person. It was prompted by a certain "zeal" which I think is evident at times in this (very long!) thread and I posted now simply because the issue of other artists seems to have come up again.

I agree with you completely that we need to be careful not to come off as an overzealous community seeking out potential wrongdoing - such an impression will only weaken what we can achieve when there is a serious issue at stake such as with Mijn Schatje.

 

It would seem that she didn't know what company made them or what the sculpt name is. Which seems realistic. "Dollfie" is to BJD as "Kleenex" is to tissue. Just because we say, "I need a Kleenex" or a "I need to Xerox this" doesn't mean we are wanting something from those actual companies. We call them SDs and MSDs and the D stands for Dollfie, even though they aren't made by Volks. I think she's just using it as a generic term for a BJD.