Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

It's been pretty quiet. I did a quick Google search and there have been a few minor things going on. She has a new blog on Blogger but there are only three entries in it--none of which are dramatic or scintillating.

http://mijnschatje.blogspot.com/

She also added some new vector-based computer graphic projects (I hesitate to use the term "art" in her case) to her Facebook profile (see the last row for the latest).

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=205863&id=119214295108

That's about it.

 

i am an artist myself and i am actually offended that she would call basically tracing or copying original art without crediting it's source. gives the rest of us a bad name.

 

Me: i don't think that's fair! Its... Its... *explodes* it's VERY rude not to mention against the law. If people want to paint BJD, its fine but if they paint them, claim them as there own creation and SELL the paintings that's just downright mean. it angers me very much this is like that time i...*proceeds telling a long and boring story* Sunny: SHUT UP! However i agree with you. its not right to do something like that. i'd be mad if it were me in the painting and i wasn't really aware or consented.

 

Yea well...as for Painting? These are vector images. I can show anyone how fast I can convert a photo to a vector image and have it begin to look like a gouache painting. My guess is she scans, vectorizes, cleans up the points, and then gets to cutting and pasting (collage) and adding gradations to her shapes. Yea I am sure it takes time but mostly I see it as clean up and color correction. I really can’t stand this “artists”.

 

Some of her vector work is complicated and could take many hours to do. But the speed is irrelevant to the key point that she stole others' works for her own profit.

 

In the second link, the last photo with the sleeping face with the lightening bolt over one eye...kind of random, but I think I saw a pic of Lady Gaga like that. Same eye with the lightening too. =w=;;;

 

Uhh...no. The title gives it away even if somehow you fail to recognise the iconic work it's based on: David Bowie's Ziggy Stardust makeup on the cover of Aladdin Sane.

Lady GaGa did a photoshoot in homage to David Bowie (and is obviously hugely influenced by Bowie's work and image), but her lightening bolt was black.

 

This madness needs to stop. Now. Here I was thinking all this would be resolved by now -_-

I don't really have a problem with her taking from David Bowie's iconic piece BECAUSE it is iconic, and therefore well known. More people would recognize it and realize that it's her attribute to another piece of art. But the dolls? No. Not very many people know about the dolls. And that infuriates me. When one artist steals from another who is not nearly as widely known and KNOWS they will not be caught for it; that's what presses my buttons the most. Gah. I want to write to Katie Couric.

 

I have just been reading through all of this stuff, first I have heard of it all, I'm amazed that she has gotten away with it haha.

 

When did the Aladdinsane paint job look good on a child like BJD any way? It's like those paintings of children with big eyes from the 70s gone way wrong, like the girl on the cover of the book Goth-icky but that has a certain charm.

Don't stop with writing to just Katie Couric, write to anyone who will listen.

 

Eh, sorry... Shows you how much I know about anything outside of my usual realm of metal. And no, I hadn't glanced at the title...Sorry if I offended!

Eh, everyone ignore me, carry on~!

 

Hmm, I Googled "Mijn Schatje" and the first couple of pages were mostly sites that wrote about her art not being original, which is more sites than a few months ago. However, I noticed that most of these sites are written by individuals, not companies, and that a lot of them link back to the radiotrash site. It's evident that word is being spread, but I think most companies can't be bothered about whether her artwork is stolen or not, as long as it serves the purpose of promoting their goods. I'm not sure but has any companies stopped using her work?

I wrote a letter and an email to Canele, because where I live they're located in the busiest part of town, and anyone who walks past them can see Mijn Schatje's artwork plastered in the windows. That was 4 months ago. I didn't get any response from them, and the artwork is still there today. Infuriating

 

It really seems like the general response from people that we had contacted in the original Mijn Schatje expose said: "Well, it makes us money, so we don't really care."

I find it disgusting that she's moved on from stealing other people's dolls to stealing artwork/album covers like Audrey Kawasaki and David Bowie. It's sad that even though she had a poor excuse ("I got permission from them! Really! Even though they say I never asked!"), she can still do art gallery showings.

 

I've been "following" this case for some time now and I do not understand why there does not seem to be anything done against her... maybe there is and I am only not aware of it....

What she is doing is stealing, whatever she does or the time she takes copying and stylizing the original image, it is still stealing and in my opinion, she should be sued and give back the money she made from it.

I keep seeing a lot of people praising her "art", and while I do think it is really pretty she should keep it for personal use only, I do not understand why she can still sell things and be praised by others when all she does is using other peoples property.

It makes me think of those Anime fans who make characters by taking a shot of a show and changes the colors then telling everyone they made it and its their original work.

It should be unacceptable. There should be a way for individuals to make something of this as the companies and other people who have been stolen do not seem to care.... The same thing could be said of those who bought her things or are using/selling them.

 

To make myself clear before I muddy the waters of my post: I definately agree that it is wrong to copy a doll for artwork, period.

I could understand using a doll as a model, as it might be easier than a person [Always available, doesn't move, doesn't need food or bathroom breaks, etc.] I think that using a facial shape or a body design in a pose is okay, and I can see where [especially if you were taking a facial shape] it might come close to copying, and be a tricky line.

Copying the exact face-up, though....and eye colour....when I looked at some of those comparisons, the only difference seemed to be the dots on the face, and in one case different hair. In some cases, that wasn't even changed. That's when I definitely think it's wrong.

I have to say, though [and remember, I think it's wrong! lol] that I do feel worse for the private owners who were stolen from, than I do for the companies. I'm not sure why, but I feel like it's more twisted when you take someone who has already created a look and appearance different than what the company had done, and you stole that too...that just makes me feel sick inside. It really does.

 

I emailed CBS! Nothing shall come of it but I did something!

 

First off, I totally agree with this, copying any sculpt and selling it as their original work is art theft, and I hope who does it die a slow and painfull death, cuz I hate when ppl don't respect other's rights, steal other's ideas/characters and try to take credit for other's pieces of work.

This mijn should've been burning on hell for ages, but unfortunatelly, she's not the only one, not the first and won't be the last one to steal art so shamelessly and sell it as original. Fact is, there are many others (art thieves) to be taken care of, I guess she's still unpunished and keeping the damned "arts" because there are too many of the same kind to deal with. Hope her time come soon, she wont go like this for much long, and deep inside, she know she's no more than a filthy thief.

Now, I don't really know if this is the right place to leave this question for consideration, but it's a doubt I have for some time,

Can a owner of a bjd use the dolls as characters of a story for a book, for example and use their pictures freely?
I mean, the original sculpt may be from a specific dollmaker, but can the owner sell things based on his/her characters and personal dolls?
I see many gourgeuos characters out there and trully would love to see more from them, on any format of media, but I question myself what's the limit of usage of the doll's image, if there would be a copyright price for this usage etc.

If someone know anything on this issue, I'd love to know, specially for cheering up some known artists of mine, and for more information about the limits on dolls copyrights terms.

Thanks for the attention~♥

 

Unfortunately, you need to understand that the copyright violations will take some time to correct ESPECIALLY when it's international. Artists who have done just what she has done have been taken down including one of my favorite manga artists. (Haru wa Daiteita anyone?) However you need to give it time. The damage will not be corrected overnight or even within the year and I'm very sure the victim companies have been taking legal action. Simply yelling at companies who use her images aren't going to do the trick. They need proof through the legal system before they will do anything about the images of hers that they use.

 

The owner of a BJD can almost always get permission from the company of origin to use the pictures freely, especially if it is in a book. Volks is an exception to this, in that they require you to jump through so many hoops and take so much correspondence that in the end people who have asked have given up in frustration.

In general, provided you are not using the pictures to create something that the company itself is not already selling (duh!) this is how you get permission. You write to the company, describe clearly and in detail what you intend to do, provide an example if possible, and ask permission to use their sculpts in your project. Since for most of them their grasp of English is a bit uncertain, don't feel shy about repeating points. They might come back with other questions, but generally after a short exchange, they will grant permission. Permission is even more likely to come if you offer to allow them to use a select number of images for free in their own advertising (they may or may not, but the fact that you offered tends to sweeten the deal).

 

As long as you contact the company and (if known) sculptor/face-up artist and ask for permission and if permission is granted you credit the company and sculptor/face-up artist in your work you've covered your own back. I don't think companies would agree to you producing post cards etc with your doll's face on it, because production of post cards could lead to a secondary business, but producing a picture book for yourself or a limited number of picture books if you & your friends put it together is something a company would be more willing to agree too.

Some companies are easier to secure permission from. It's a shame Volks doesn't strike deals with some of their photographer fans because Volks stock photos can sometimes be uninspiring and perhaps they could use some of the fan produced photographs to promote their own stock.