Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

I see her copied artwork is still for sale here in Australia!....at Wasteland in Perth WA....Unframed prints ranging from $800AUD to $1750AUD....... a high price to pay for copied artwork....what a rip-off!

http://www.wastelandone.com.au/gallery.php

I'm sure that this Wasteland Gallery had been contacted about MS and her plagiarism....they just don't give a toss!

xen

 

I never saw that one.

I think that the biggest hurtle is that it is so daunting/expensive to sue someone in another country. I think she will continue to license out 'her artwork' because no artist has the money to to finance any sort of binding cease and desist.

The only thing we can do is point vendors in the direction of the "Mijn Schatje Art Thief" sites and hope eventually they will steer away from representing her.

 

MS wrote: "So many artists at the moment seems to be suffering of copyrights violation, I think it's lame because we can't really protect ourselves, I just try to forget about this when posting my pictures on the internet, I want to share what I'm doing even if it's a risky game because on the other hand it makes some other people happy."
What audacity--she made herself sound so honest. Her mirror must be totally worthless--she does not see the hypocrite that she truly is.

 

This is just utterly galling. Just... wow. Wow.

 

I was absolutely dumbfounded after reading MS' comment.
How is it described..."head desk"?

 

Wow. Clanging... brass... balls. It's that classic old passive-aggressive trick; a preemptive offense as a defense.

And now she's also stealing titles - in that Australian gallery, she's got one painting with the text "The Good Times are Killing Me", which is the name of a book by Lynda Barry. The gallery clearly doesn't care; they're featuring the original stolen-Blastmilk-face picture there too.

Since her mirror can't possibly cast a reflection, how does she put on her makeup every morning?

 

She doesn't, no matter much she puts on she's still ugly....


What I will say again, spreading of information is the our best bet of bringing down this thief, There are Blogs out there that have information and you can post comments on them.
Do so and when everyone searches for her name on search-engines they will find all sorts of blog entries condemning her work.

The more Websites there are of revealing her thieft, the more people will notice. as long as the information is done in a calm professional manner.


I had made a video with her 'works' as part of a an art presentation project (Also had Emailed her permission to use them.) as a "Plagiarism or Inspiration?" video. I have not yet found someone to host it, so I might just open a separate You tube account and post it there.

Reposting what I had previously said before and Quoteing links to blogs:

Even if your comments say "That's just awful!" or something similar, it will help.

 

Some of the people affected could always contact the gallery and make a complaint. Sometimes a little controversy is good publicity so galleries won't be discouraged by a little thing like an online protest, but if someone contacts them directly they may respect the original artist's wishes.

I don't know about anyone else, but what really indicates her lazy approach to art is that she doesn't even bother to correct the dodgy eye-positioning on some of the doll portraits she's stolen, even if it was to throw off the overlay proof that she stole copyrighted photographs. I know her art is supposed to be 'surrealist', but a real artist and real art critics should have pulled her up on the eyes, it just looks bizarre (and not in a good bizarre way.)

Did she give her permission in the end? And did she ask what you were doing with the photographs? Seems a bit out of character for her to give permission to use her work in a 'plagiarism or inspiration?' video considering she's claiming left, right and centre that the work is original to her. I'm just curious!

 

As a 22 year old person, I can't say she had an art education of any value if she's not learned about stealing from another. What that said, what provenance can she give her body of work when she is doing copies from other peoples' work? Sadly, she'll cost the BJD community fear of posting pics of their work. How far will it go?

 

I still have the Email, But she never asked what it would be used for. I only told her that it would be used as an school art project, and also I had only intended to show it to my class.
But If I get enough requests I can put up the original video on my youtube under a privet channel for other members to view. it's nothing really special just some "transactions" clips

I can't screen cap it to prove it (I'll get my someone to help me later.) Her giving permission was enough for my teacher.

 

I contacted the jewelry store about this, hoping they get back to me @.@

 

words fail me. this is just... wow. i really don't know what to say. this is incredibly sad and upsetting.

 

Thanks for taking the initiative to contact the business. Here's hoping for an affirmtive response supporting artists' rights.

 

I'm wondering if perhaps the galleries that have been informed of this situation ignore it because it would interfere with their profits. I would hope that an art gallery would have the integrity to not deal in known plagiarized works, but could the scandal surrounding MS be a situation of 'even bad publicity is good publicity' in terms of sales for the less scrupulous dealers?

 

ugh I had forgotten about this.. I dont know how she can excuse herself for this. It's one thing to use your own photos of your own dolls, and even then, tracing is just... meh.

Yuck.

 

That's a good idea. If she was exhibiting in a gallery in my area, I'd approach my local news station and local news paper with the story too, but I don't know whether she's exhibited in Wales or the north west of England?

Just make sure you stay out of any Facebook mud-slinging, even if it is tempting to tell Mijn Schatje's little fawning group of friends exactly what you think of her. We're out to show Mijn Schatje's in the wrong, not make the BJD community look like nutters

 

Just a little nugget about titles from a book editor, you can't copyright a title. You can trademark something like Jedi because it is a unique word but that's a trademark which is a whole different kettle of fish. That's why the logo of the Idiot's Guide to is trademarked but not a copyright.

So there can be (and are) more than one book with the same title.

What she is doing is wrong on so many levels including accusing other of "ripping off her style" which is a rip-off of a rip-off really. The only people who can stop her are those who do own the original copyright to the dolls that she is using. And the longer this goes, the less they can claim copyright violation because they have let her do this without complaint for a period of time.

 

Can someone give me what is considered fair use on this? When you buy the doll, do you also buy the photographic rights to the image?

 

Okay on the one hand it's frickin hilarious that she's trying to get a way with it I mean does she think people are stupid? You can clearly see where she got her 'inspiration' from .

But on the other hand it sucks big time as she is actually stealing off of others hard work and images, ah well the ninjas of justice will hopefully catch up with her in the end

Also her art SUCKS! Peopl actually pay money for that?