Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

Have you guys seen this ? that really make me upset ....I don't think she deserves recognition of her works

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtWEP6Bze0Q
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=255901&id=119214295108&ref=mf

 

Yes, I think she is more even successful that many people think:

She has a deal with Fornarina (which from what I gather is Lindsey Lohan's clothing line):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaUm_HPZuPk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcnBnZ1ZPto
http://cafecouture.blogspot.com/2008/02/mijn-schatje-for-fornarina-spring-2008.html

I think this makes it quite a big issue.

 

Honsetly though, I really think if we could get a reputable magazine or newspaper or some other media source to do a story it would help. It would not only put pressure on the galleries, it would put pressure on the artist herself to own up and stop claiming other people's work as her own.

 

Vectors are great like that. Because it's math making the circle perfect no matter the size not a number of pixels being manipulated.

Lelei - I didn't think of it from that out look... Hmm.
Since she'd been defending herself by saying she referenced and didn't copy exactly I had gone with that idea and not the dropping of a layer. Problem with terms huh?

Also, about the galleries. An e-mail back I would send would be (with the persons permission) the information of someone who was ripped off and is not okay with it. Someone's who image was stolen who wants it taken down.
Or more so someone who's image was stolen should be e-mailing these galleries going "That is my work she stole! Here's the proof! Take it down!" in a more... Mature minded fashion but still.

Yeesh and yeah. I wouldn't dare copy a barbie even slightly or mickey mouse! Or a Harley logo for that matter. You will get your s*** pushed in. If you don't. Man is that luck!

 

As an art student, I have mixed feeling about this issue. While it's true that artists learn by copying, and are taught to do such in school, I don't think that it's something that an artist should do on a professional level like this person seems to be doing. And I think that the fact that she is very hesitant to admit to copying shows that she does in fact know that what she's doing could possibly be wrong and get her into trouble.

I myself have copied and used references in school assignments, but that was perfectly normal for school purposes and I always try to give as much credit as I possibly can because, especially when we are supposed to copy the work of an artist we admire, I wouldn't want to wrong an artist that I admire. Most galleries don't allow you to show schoolwork, and that's probably one of the reasons for that.

However, artists have been getting sued for a very long time from what I've heard, and just because they copied something, it doesn't make them any less of an artist. Art really has no definition. (Or, at least, it has a living definition, which is constantly being changed and turned inside out again.) If a company wants to file a lawsuit against an artist, that's their right. But if an artist wants to copy, or pee on a picture of Mickey Mouse and call it art, that's their right. If somebody out there is willing to buy it, then there will always be a market for it.

As far as legal issues go, I think the rule is that if an ordinary person can recognize that the image was a copy of another, then it is considered illegal. However, rules are very flexible for art because art is a flexible thing. And the rules are usually applied on a case by case basis.

I honestly don't know whether this artist is copying or not. I can't tell. Her work is very beautiful, but if she is copying, it's going to be pretty hard to stop because copyright laws are different everywhere. The companies would have to go after her, I think, and even then it would be hard if she found a good enough lawyer. If she is copying, though, I do feel like she should be ashamed (and she probably is if she's hiding her information about it...). And I also feel bad for her as an artist then because it doesn't show any growth if you are copying over and over again, even after you are no longer in school and simply learning.

It's a very complicated issue, I think. And I don't know if there really is any definite answer. Simply, if she is contacted by the companies or the people who's dolls she "copied" and asked to stop selling the images, she probably should. And if they sue her, then the court will decide, I suppose.

: )

 

... i have seen many people thinking they lookalike a hollywood star & many persons "hearing" the same favourite for them riff to a million songs I heard a person saying all black metal groups are copying celtic frost-something silly .... yes some people especially the "fans" if they have much time to spare yes they might think & say anything without this being even a little near to truth ...
Much say it is lookalike just the same or almost with something else & simply means reminds me ... yes and all meatballs reminds my grandmoher's ones of course they are all meatballs ...this doesn't mean the cook has the recipe ..
What are you doing ? even gallery informed (something outrageous for me to play games with anothers hard work,propably this gallery will laugh at all us now because they'll think we are out of logic)
Now after so much mess about that ,I think this is gossip & i'll keep self far from it ... I believe I saw cartoonish pictures much much different than those in companies' sites & also about photoshop you could see a video some years ago of Steve Harris becoming Eddie, are they lookalike please ...
The site "you think we didn't notice" I check it has examples of art works remind others or lokalike a bit ,like INSPIRED one by another not the same or almost the same ... so I think all this a pure gossip which contemns art ... you forgot Donald Duck & Daffy Duck they lookalike (lol) you may inform disney & warner bros that they steal each other ?(!!!) ... please...
& when you say the same or comes strictly from the other hell yes you have to mean it & prove it without doubt ...& one more it doesn't matter what do you think about altered images (if you say not like them at all or place a % limit) or about rights in art it has to be truly out of the limits ... not out of your philosophical view ... you can't go arround accusing like that it's slandering... p.e. it is totaly legal to take a photo & create a handpainted painting exactly the same & then sign it with my name if you treat me like this then it is slandering ... you may not like it but then don't buy it ...
the evidence you created are not evidence and can't persuade none , they are created/constructed by you ,you can continue talking ,not buy or keep a certain possition but this doesn't change the facts or the law... I know that if this happened to me I'd go straight to police & sue everyone for slandering me ... but this is me & thank's luck I paint with my hands & not be a digital artist to suffer such treating & thanks luck I don't want to make a painting of a doll -now more than ever ,you can always find something to say if you wish to be grumpy- ... I won't participate more in this talking/gossiping as my agent told me, because in case of a sue for slandering I want myself out of it ...
yes I'm bold but I don't want to offend anyone
sorry for my english

edit : After all that she becomes a favourite link for me , she deserves all recognition & respect

 

You misunderstand intellectual property laws. I recommend you review them as soon as possible.

Also, slander is "defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc." What you are accusing the people who compiled this information of is actually libel. Also, an accusation must be false for this legal term to be appropriate.

 

No I don't , read the EU legislation about art !!! & of course not manufacture ..

 

I am deleting this comment because I think that it got a bit off topic. Sorry! ^_^ Long and short of it, I agree with Oizys.

 

Oh the legal side of taking action against us. It's kinda an amusing diaster that I wont even get into but really. I have no worries about posting on here about this.

The real base of this to me is that I can't support someone when someone has already posted saying (this is not counting the e-mails) that she used one of their pictures, it's apparent, and they didn't okay it and this "artist" is going on saying she has permission from everyone for all the pictures she used.

That right there does more then enough for me.

 

I have just been alerted by someone else to this discussion thread.
To be honest I am not really interested in all the debates regarding to what extent is something "INSPIRED" or "COPIED".
I can see that the images of the dolls have simply been copied, pasted and photoshoped and in my mind that would be plagarism and I will not be supporting this "artist"

 

So by your logic, it is perfectly alright for someone to take a picture they find on DOA, draw over it by ways of tracing, and then make thousands of dollars off of the original poster's hard work and investment?

I personally think that your language barriers are preventing you from fully understanding the debate. BJD's are very much a personalized thing. The only way to share your artistic vision with the rest of the world is through your photography. Just because someone might take nice pictures, that doesn't mean that they have any control over their art if some random person wants to use it - and directly copying it at that in this situation? Because that's basically what you are saying. I personally find her artwork beautiful, and it's a shame that such a talented artist had to, for lack of a better word, cheat.

 

Perhaps someone ought to send the comparison website along with statements from the original doll owners to the galleries where the exhibits are held and let the galleries/viewers decide for themselves whether it's theft or not.

 

I do believe some people have started to do just that. One of which gained a response from the gallery that it was simply "citing works"

 

I see she's removed all our comments on her facebook DX

 

Responses from other galleries are also currently pending. Those compiling images thought that the most important first step was to contact the owners of the photos (including companies.)

 

I sent off emails to Juxtapox and Netdiver since both have featured Mijn's "artwork". Netdiver has started a discussion on the issue of plagiarism which anyone can comment on- http://netdiver.net/it-is-or-it-is-not-plagiarism

 

Artists using doll likeness without crediting..........

Tut-tut Mijn Schatje!.....one should ALWAYS ask permission before "borrowing" something!......Simple rule of life!.....Murphy's law you'll get caught out otherwise!...... Oh how embarrassing this must be for her in her haughty social society!.......lots of red faces I should imagine!.....

xen

 

I am very happy about the Netdriver discussion. I hope more action is taken against this person and I am very intersted in seeing what happens to this woman and the reactions of the art communities she is involved in.

 

Wow, in the youtube link there is a hugh sculpture made of volks liz, and liz's face is on the clothing that the models are wearing from that fornarnia clothing company ..that is mind boggling how she gets away with it all.