Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

Yes, I know you can't copyright a title. It's just another ripoff of hers, that's the point. She hasn't one original tagline in her head, and here she is publicly speaking out against ripoffs? She seems to have no shame and no stopping-point in sight.

 

As I understand it, when you photograph something, you immediately have copyright over your photograph because you made it, but when you are photographing subjects like dolls (which are copyright to their original sculptors) you can take as many photographs as you like for your own personal use (by 'personal use' I mean these should not be published), but as soon as you start displaying them publicly or selling them for any amount of money, you violate the original sculptor's copyright...erm...rights because the doll has not been legally released to you.

 

I'm curious about this as well.

I always enjoy sharing the doll's description on/underneath my photography...is credit enough or would you need to actually obtain permission if you were, to say, sell prints on DA?

Also, I'm a little confused as to why certain man-made objects need credit/permission? If dolls should need credit/authorization why shouldn't the clothing people wear or intricate buildings? They all are artistic in some sense and some might be OOAK or made by hand too, yes? : o

Any help in understanding this would be appreciated~

 

Some buildings do, I believe. The Eiffel Tower is one, and I believe there's one in London as well that I can think of off of the top of my head.

 

fair use has always confused the hell out of me. For some time I thought that if the copyrighted whatever in question was not used for profit and credit was given, that was fair use, but indeed it is not =\ so now I just don't use anything copyrighted ever for anything if I can help it.

 

With copyright permission I think the best advice I was ever given was 'If in doubt, ASK!'

And really how hard is it to whack off an email asking permission?

 

Unless you have permission of the doll company (and if you prominently use any clothing/props/jewellery you'll need permissions off those companies too...), I don't think you can sell prints of your dolls on DA. Giving credit wouldn't be enough because you'd actually be making some money off someone else's sculpt. I think that's why DoA discouraged members making and selling photobooks here, obtaining permission from some companies was easier than others and it would be hard to police the books to make sure that the photos all featured dolls from companies who had given permission.

Making a coffee-table book for yourself, featuring your own dolls or dolls you've photographed with the owner's consent, would be fine (as long as credit were given somewhere), it would be like a portfolio of your work, but as soon as you make them to sell, you'd need all sorts of permissions.

Clothing isn't copyrighted otherwise we'd be paying Mr T-shirt and Mr Jeans in perpetuity I'm not sure why you need permission to photograph certain buildings.

 

Thank you for the responses~

I had already e-mailed them right after I posted but I do appreciate the extra opinions~

 

Hate to be OT, but I have a related question on the subject of claiming someone's elses dolls to be your own...

So, I used to do photo stories with someone. The dolls featured in the photo stories are my dolls. I came up with the personalities and characterization. TL/DR, we had a falling out.

Former partner claims he "owns the copyright" to the characters on his website. The dolls are from popular doll companies like Volks. I never agreed to anything like this and neither do I intend to make a profit off of said stories since they were always for fun.

Any insight would be appreciated.

 

I just discussed this with a friend who is a photographer. To sum things up, a lot, as my head indeed spinning with all rights talk that one has to keep track of and the cases where exceptions may apply. Clothes are designed by people, and are copyrighted in that sense. But, since a photograph is a copy of the clothing, and not a sewn up replica.. that kind of use is ok. Overall, it's about actual photo and intended use though, as trademark laws and not just copyright ones apply, as prints on clothing can be copyrighted etc. This was a good page if one wants to read more about photos of trademarked and copyrighted works.


I did know that some famous buildings etc are a no-no (apparently has to do with architectural designs simply put), it can also vary a bit regarding public buildings depending on where in the world one lives. However, I've actually seen prints of BJDs on DA for instance. So, I believe as long as the person selling a print featuring BJDs is the photographer and there aren't any recognisable trademarked "things" like logos/company names in the photos/illustrations, then that is not off-limits.

I assume this "someone" was the one taking the photos?

Any photographer will by default usually be the copyright holder of photos taken, why signing release forms with agreed upon dos and donts for photos intended for commercial use before taking photos is best whenever a person is included in them. So that the model and photographer is in mutual agreement about that the photos will be used for.

For photos with no people in them, like BJDs, the photographer taking the images is simply paid for his/her work, and most likely have worked out an agreement/contract with the company. A photographer can sell rights to photos for a period or time or sell/give away the rights entirely. There can be special rules regarding how/when/if the photographer can use photos in their portfolio as well, since a company and their trademarked logo/name is part of it all. Then the company in turn would be giving the photographer expressed rights for special/certain use.

Had an individual person hired a photographer to take photos of their BJDs for commercial use, then those images cannot show the BJD company's logo or name.

However, seeing as BJDs are not sentient humans/beings (not yet anyhow, I'm afraid not sure there is much to be done in the case of those photo sessions, seeing as the photos are the property of the photographer, and s/he has not given you the rights to the photos in any way.


But, doing what Mijn has done, taking someone else's (indivduals as well as companies' BJD) photos without permission (from those having taken and/or owning the copyright for the images) and using them as bases for illustrations to sell prints of is not ok.

 

Wasteland One Gallery's website is currently down... wonder if it has anything to do with this?

 

Yes many buildings cannot be used in photos because of laws. Once the building is past 50 years old normally a photographer or movie director can use it for free. The Battersea Powerstation (iconic building) in the UK just past its 50 year mark so now everyone can photograph it and sell the prints with no problem.

We deal with this a lot at work when we want to re create a city scape that is modern What a pain.

 

The TransAmerica building in San Francisco is under indefinite copyright because the building itself is the company logo. When movies want to use San Francisco they either have to pay the TransAmerica company royalties to show the building, or digitally remove it from the cityscape (or, of course, make sure not to film it in the first place.)

 

Wow, I didn't know they could copyright photos of buildings ._.; That probably explains why the TransAmerica looks completely alien to me.

Kiyakotari: Unfortunately it's not. Many doll artists learning from Yoshida Ryo have the same style of lips, so it's hard to find the exact one.

 

As an author myself, if someone ripped off my work I WOULD SUE WITHOUT A SECOND THOUGHT for punitive damages to the point of bankrupting the guilty party.

That is all.

Phil.

 

I really honestly think that this is awful. Whether it's legal or not, she's still making a profit using the other people's art as a skeleton for her work. Some of those pictures even look like she just shopped the picture right in, not even tracing them.
If this were my work being stolen, I would be extremely upset and either demand it never be sold or that I get the profit. It's just so offensive to the people who originally dreamed up those faces...

 

I have been leaving scathing comments and sent the Marie woman many opinions as of yesterday.

It is, to me, utterly unbelievable HOW willing people are to be deceived. Mijn Schatje is cleverly capitalizing on this.

All legal issues on internet plagiarism aside, the woman is a Liar and cheat, and a First grader with a crayon drawing an original thought in however primitive a form is a more soulful artist than this woman with her vapid, flat tracings..... Is this watered down two dimensional "art" the level of Art people are wanting these days? Salvador Dali will be rolling over in his grave!!

My continued awe to the REAL artists in this a-moral mess: the sculptors, the 3-dimensional painters, the textile and concept artists able to come up with original thoughts and creations.


May Karma be the cruel woman that she can be.....

 

I think it's a good possibility it is an AIL doll (Alice? Heyley's teeth?). From the button-nose, philtrum, and the pouty lips--all say AIL to me and that MS attempted to make an original image by altering the face shape and perhaps the eyes. The changes are crude, amateurish. I call attention to the overall face/head shape--the face is swollen and misshapen, especially around the jawline; as if the doll has the mumps.

As evidenced by MS' history of unauthorized use of true artist's works, I would absolutely doubt the originality of any and ALL her images.

 

Just seen this and honestly, it´s horrible. That woman calling herself artist is insult and selling her works just brings the stealing thing further. I mean it´s fine to use dolls as a reference, if you use your dolls, have permission or just let them generaly inspire you. But this is realy low.
If it was my doll, on which I spent much effort to make her look as I imagined her, to make her original and someone did this, I would so sue them.
It´s really sad people would do this...an she only shows how low she is by claiming, she didn´t do anything and not apologizing. She is so obvious that blind could see what she´s doing. Hope she gets what she deserves.