Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

I don't understand why that person is standing up for her to be honest. Someone like him should take tracing (or "plagiarism") seriously. If his books were copied and "re-worded" (aka re-traced and colored) of course he would be as mad as we are about how Mijin is stealing other people's photographs to make a profit. I hope that makes sense lol, but is there a resource where she sells majority of her "works"? I want to scan some of her "galleries" and make sure none of my, nor friends, photos were taken and used without permission :\ My healthy search of Google is only going so far >_<

And I honestly cannot believe Sony could be fooled into such a photo-manipulated image to make a deal with her. I would have expected them to be better to spot CG fakes - even though I know it's hard to spot them nowadays, it's pretty obvious on photos that they were just "stamped" and altered into pieces.

 

Wow. I was a fan of yours until this comment.

 

Let's get back on the topic of MS...

...spreading the word about her plagiarism is showing results...searching "Mijn Schatje" on the web and you'll find sites questioning/discussing her images alongside MS' sites (her Facebook, Myspace, and her own sites publicizing her activities.)

Google: 10 listings on page 1
four MS' sites...........six question MS' works

Ask: 10 listings on page 1
three MS' sites.........five question MS' works.........one removed its link to MS..........one private page

Dogpile: 20 listings on page 1
five MS' sites..........seven question MS' works.......others incl various art gallery profiles, Youtube, foreign, etc.

 

That was unpleasant and frankly uncalled-for - not to mention irrelevant and snobbish. I know a number of authors whose first works were published by vanity presses; one such friend found himself having to reprint three further runs of 1000 copies a time, and the other had her first novel reissued in a longer version by Tor and contracted to the two follow-up novels in the trilogy. I'd hardly call Cherie Priest untalented.

And all of this is distracting and detracting from the actual issue this thread is concerned with. As snowleopard says, let's get back to the issue of MS.

 

Thats great! the more people who are aware the better. She really is hurting artists credibility, i really do not believe she is a person of passion, as artists are moved to create by that notion. she is only moved by money
Does anyone know if "bigger" companies like Sony have stopped employing her?

 

I've experienced someone directly modifying my work over PB before. I was so sad and I had to find a way to contact the person to take down his modified images.

Still, its disappointing to see people who try to steal other people's efforts. I'm glad to hear that people are taking action about this issue

 

I can only assume that this Mr. Philbin is suffering from a form of denial. I can kind of understand it. I was in a very painful situation where a form of virtual pet that I had spent hours and money on was revealed as art theft, modeled almost exactly off of horse statue sets. Further more, I had really grown to trust the artist and be downright friendly with them and so involved in the community. It was so hurtful and for a while I didn't want to believe it, but the evidence was there. It was clearly copied once you did an overlay, very similar to the MS incedent.

Because of that I do take art theft very seriously. With such irresputible proof, I hope this man comes to realize the truth of it and I hope this girl somehow notices the errors of her ways before she hurts too many people...

 

To be honest with you, for the most part, I think they like it, because it gets their dolls out there and known. The market is growing and very competitive. I think most of the doll companies realize that owner pictures sell dolls too. I know that I, for one, always look for owner pictures before buying a doll.

What they don't want is people using their dolls in a commercial way (for instance, in an ad selling m&ms) without their permission, and/or without paying them for that use. I have permission from the doll companies to use my photographs of their dolls for my book, which is specifically "editorial" use. I do not have permission to use those photos for "commercial" use. For instance, I could not use the same photographs and make them into a calendar, or greeting cards, and sell those.

I honestly believe that Ms. Schatje using dolls in her art is not the issue, even uncredited. To be polite, and out of respect to the doll companies, an artist should credit the dolls used. I always do in my actual artwork, even though by the time the art is done (woodblock prints) the dolls aren't really recognizable as being any specific sculpt. The real issue with Ms. Schatje is using the actual images other people have created, not her use of the dolls themselves in her "fine" art. Had she used her own photographs instead of "stealing" (just my opinion here) images of other photographers, I think she probably would have been in the clear legally. Those images are owned by the doll companies and possibly the original photographers (although it may be in their contract that the images are owned entirely by the doll companies, just depends on how their individual agreements are).

My understanding of the model release laws are that this would ONLY apply to her actual "fine art". It would not apply to things like calendars, postcards, or other "merchandise" that might also contain her "images".

 

Thats simply horrible. I get inpired by the many dolls I look at to make my own, but I sculpt the eyes differently and do my best to make sure mine are completely unique, or I give the credit. If I think I stole an idea....For example putting the holes in the joint to keep the pose better as one doll company has...then I would give credit to them!
Her art is borderline theft.

 

You know, it seems to me that the situation is all the more tragic because of this. If she had gone about this the right way -- established herself as an artist on the merits of her own work, or with her own photos -- could you imagine the opportunities for cross-promotion she could have arranged with some of these companies? They've certainly shown they have an interest in promoting their work in creative ways, and that they're interested in the doll community as well as the art community.

Had she established herself in a legitimate manner, all kinds of potentially nifty possibilities could have opened up. Heck, she could have been one of the 'guest designers' we see pop up at various sites if she worked with a sculptor, and though I'm not personally fond of her style, I bet those dolls would have sold well, as would the prints, and each would have cross-promoted the other. If there's one thing you should always do in the arts? It's 'don't disregard a valid sales venue out of hand'.

It's pretty clear the doll community has money to be spent, no matter how much we grumble about it, and one of the reasons we're willing to spend is because the dolls are art. It could have given her a good market for her prints, as well as bringing in additional income from whatever she worked out with the dolls -- AND it could have accomplished the promotion for the doll companies and earned them more money and exposure.

So, even if she was just in this for the bucks? She could probably have made even more money this way, and could go on doing so for many years.

It strikes me as incredibly sad, since if this had been handled the right way, it could have been great for her, the companies, and the community. It's truly unfortunate that ego, lack of ethics, and a distinct lack of honesty had to stand in the way of that.

 

I did a similar search on bing.com (which is a new search engine that was created by Microsoft and that company has been promoting the heck out of it on television) and I got this result: 10 listings on page 1 with four of them questioning her work (including a Facebook group called "The Mijn Schatje Controversy...Help us discover the truth!").

 

I came across this article in today's Washington Post that's very similar to the Mijn Schatje controversy in that it involves the use of a photograph in a poster currently being sold over the Internet without the photographer's permission. (The photographer has said that she has already contacted a lawyer about this.)

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/reliable-source/2009/08/rs-norml5.html

 

I wonder what is going on with Mijn Schatje lately. Radio Trash have you heard anything?

 

Wrong on so many levels.

Here I was feeling bad for myself because I lack in drawing abilities lately and I just happened to be looking at their art feeling worse only to find out they were traced. That's a low blow to any in the art comunnity.

 

I wandered over to her MySpace page and I found something on the left-hand side. She's having a gallery exhibition of her recent works from August 27-30. Here's the address:

Galerie Brugier Rigail
46, rue Sainte-Croix de la Bretonnerie
Paris 4eme

There is a half-face shown from the nose down in the ad. As to whether it's yet another tracing of a doll photo or something completely original--who knows? I don't recognize the face myself so I can't really tell you whether it's original or not. If anyone does recognize that face from a doll photo, please post the evidence here or contact Radiotrash about it.

 

She has also, posted up some new images, on her Myspace and Facebook

If we could all take a look at them and discuss which head mold she stole the image from it would help in identifying the source photo.


Edit: Also on the blogging front:

Post post post! Below are a few links where you can post your comments on this situation. Our goal is to inform as much people on the Internets as possible and to do that we all have to keep posting and making blogg entries.
Link to other bloggs so that others can comment too.

This will also keep the sites that are questioning her work rather then ones that are supporting her up higher on all the search engines .

With thanks to snowleopard for compiling all the links

http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/?p=3253

http://theindra.com/2009/06/06/marie-blanco-hendrickx-aka-mijn-schatje-is-an-art-thief/
http://priestessofnada.livejournal.com/tag/mijn+schatje+art+thief+bjd+photos
http://news.deviantart.com/article/82633/
http://seveyn-rhine.livejournal.com/17994.html
http://sparklingsilvia.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/is-mijn-schatje-a-plagiarist/

http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/artforum/topic_view/topic/114163
http://netdiver.net/it-is-or-it-is-not-plagiarism

if you spot another link ether supporting or informing of her plagiarism , Please post it here as well.

I am going to keep track of all of them and post updates on them.

 

I haven't checked the comments on my deviantART news post in a while (to be honest, I'm afraid - I've heard enough anti-doll comments to last me a lifetime) but I did notice it currently has 115 favorites, which is great. If you fav'd it, thanks, and make sure your front devART page is set to display your news favs, so visitors to your page can see it.

I'm astonished that she's continuing to post things... She's completely lacking of any conscience. I don't recognize any of the faces, but I'm hoping someone here will.

 

Where is the facebook link? I can't find anything

 

her myspace photos: http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewAlbums&friendID=199299

Facebook images: http://www.facebook.com/mijnschatjeart?v=info#/mijnschatjeart?v=photos&viewas=0