Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

The problem at the end of the day vonbonbon is that I don't know that this artist is doing anything actually illegal. Copyright laws pertaining to fine art are incredibly grey, and vary from place to place.
I just don't know if it's anything to get all worked up over, as there's nothing to be done about it. Legally I meant, not just outrage. In fact if you were so disturbed by these works, the outrage may create the opposite effect, as the old saying goes, any publicity is good publicity. for instance I would have not been aware of her work were it not for this thread.

PS I love your avatar vonbonbon. I am a fine artist but only skilled in the "old fashioned" vein. I can barely Photoshop.

 

Thanks for explaining the vector thing, never got the hang of a pen and tablet :/ Wish I could. I know not everyone does prep work, the spark can come from anywhere. It sounds like WIP pics from someone who works that way would be more pointed towards the final project. Had to watch that film of Picasso drawing live, even though he'd do something then cover it up or change it that part was still 'going somewhere' and not random squigglies.

Part of it must come from my being perhaps forever grumpy that I feel my hard made art has always been passed over for someone who traces or throws crap at a canvas. It's seeing people who trace and don't even try get 'successful' that can make other hard working artists feel like quitting. Doesn't help anything.

 

Stella Maris - I am no legal expert, but I am pretty sure this would be considered a derivative work, in which case it would be illegal. And, I highly doubt it would constitute as fair use either.
I like this explanation since it is very clear and easy to read: What are derivative works under Copyright law?
I know there are still gray ares there, since only the subject (well, and every other element it seems) is a derivative work and the composition itself is not. But, I do not think just adding extra stuff something that definitely is a derivative work is enough to constitute a new, original piece.
It would be up to the original copyright holders to do anything about it though. And it seems that most of the companies and the few individuals that she stole from either don't care enough, do to different cultural views on things like copyright, or do not have the means to provoke this whole legal battle - it definitely wouldn't be an easy, cheap thing to fight. It is a shame but she probably will get away with it. This has been going on for over a year and I don't think much has been done. The most we can do is try to discredit her as an artist, but still, most of her fans could care less and think we are the bad guys for being bullies to their sweet, innocent artist.

 

Stella Maris, she's definitely breaking UK Copyright laws - as I understand them - and probably for the whole EU. She is Dutch, living in France as far as I know so should definitely know she's on very dodgy ground. I'm no legal expert though, perhaps she is careful to only be "inspired by" work from photographers who reside outside the EU? I don't know how that would work and anyway copyright cases can run on for years and are somewhat subjective, not to mention very expensive, one of the photographers whose work she has used would need to take her to court for any of this to hit home. Shame she didn't try tracing something by Disney, she wouldn't know what hit her!

I think there was something on the Association of Illustrators website a while ago, maybe not about her, but definitely about this sort of copyright infringement. It's definitely not considered OK, professionally. She is now selling her work as a kind of fine artist, direct or doing merchandise but I imagine her illustration clients are starting to dry up as this has become quite a well known case. Maybe she doesn't want to do anymore work for the likes of Sony, et al, but it appears a bit short sighted to me. She is probably just milking those images for all their worth before the Sh*t really hits the fan! Who knows?

DollyKim: I feel your pain but don't write off "tracing". David Hockney made a brilliant documentary about how even the Old Masters traced, they'd set up a tableau with models and light it and drape the clothing then go behind a huge screen and literally trace the composition and that would become the basis sketch of their canvas. I forget how it was done, a primitive pin hole camera maybe... whatever, if you decide on the subject, composition, lighting, etc... then the tracing part is fine, it's the basis of Photo realist art pretty much. It still takes a good deal of skill to make a decent image from that trace I guess

 

It would be one thing if she was just doing it for free, because she really liked the dolls. (that's where you get into more gray areas- which is why a fair number of people think professional writers who come down hard on fanfic writers are being a bit excessive) Once she starts charging money, (especially as much as she does) that's where I feel a real line has been crossed, even if the source is documented. Schatje goes even further though, she's outright stolen images and claimed they were her own. I have no sympathy for her, and believe the law should go after her.

 

Ciarda1966, fortunately or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, there is no eye in the sky type guardian of justice "law" that goes "after" alledged perpetrators of wrongdoing in civil matters. That is up to an injured party. And it is out of the range of possibility that it would be worthwhile to try to prosecute such.
I just don't understand exactly what the outrage is about, I get that it is upsetting for someone to have their images used without permission, but this isn't exactly Burger King making a profit in the millions off these other artists. I doubt this artist is buying a summer home on the Riviera with her profits from this. This is small potatoes.
I think maybe your outrage should be saved for real thieves. Morgan Stanley for instance.

 

Stella, you obviously haven't been paying attention to just how much Schatje's ripped-off images actually sell for then. She's sold a lot of prints of her work thanks to various exhibitions and the piece used for the Sony Playstation ad.

 

Stella Maris: It more makes me depressed to be honest, I work in an industry that has professional standards and this person is blatantly ignoring those standards and breaking copyright laws and acting like non of it applies to her. She is setting a dangerous precedent that others will follow if they see her continuing to get away with it and make a very good living from it (judging from the price of her prints). By implying that what she does is fine, you are also stating that anyones photographs are up for grabs. Not all of these works were based on hobby photographer's images, many were taken by professional photographers who are trying to make a living and should have the right to by credited (and reimbursed) for their creative work. If she paid the photographer a royalty or credited their input and I'm fine with it, but she goes to great lengths not to do that. Early on she could have pleaded ignorance and then cleaned up her act, that would have laid it all to rest, but she is now flaunting the fact that she continues to get away with it.

 

You are right, I haven't been, but I still don't know if a lawsuit would be worth anyone's while. The most ridiculous copyright suit I can remember was the George Harrison "He's So Fine" thing. The plantiff prevailed, but I think that was an example of "only in America folks".

I see what you mean Vonbonbon, but I guess my question is, is this actionable?

 

I wonder how you would feel if it were one of your photos she had stolen and made several thousand Euros profit on?

 

I'm not writing off tracing. In my education I copied some historical art work, including some Sistine Chapel parts, and have always said those and and the stuff they directly inspired were "after Michelangelo" or whomever it was. That kind of tracing, and camera obscura, isn't blatantly putting tracing paper over someone else's composition and claiming it as your own. Old fashioned rotoscoping is close but the films are usually shot for that purpose. Not like someone traced over Star Wars and claimed it as their own.

We just have to keep an eye on such people and alert the owners of the pictures, and hope your doll is so unique she could never get away with it. I worry about the rose picture my sister took because the composition is so lovely, but it might be too well put together for this woman.

 

Stella Maris: I know you are just playing devil's advocate, and to be honest I doubt that anyone could get a result against her, I'm not legally minded, and doubt she has the kind of savings that would make it worth anyone's while taking her to court, winning would provide satisfaction , but not necessarily riches.

I think, from what I've read, that Kallisti has the best case against her because she has an email from 2007 (I think!) where Mijn contacted her under her real name asking for permission to use one of her photos as the basis of a sketch. She came across as a graduate rather than a professional who had already been payed by Sony for their campaign... I doubt that was her first job either. I think Kallisti gave her permission to use one of her photos unaware that she had already used several without permission, including for the Sony job.

This proves beyond doubt that she is aware of Kallisti as a photographer, that she admires her work and that she is aware that she should get permission to use someone else's creative endeavors as the basis of her illustrations. That sounds like the best basis for a copyright violation to me... but I just draw pretty stuff and design plastic shiny cr*p for High Street shops, I'm the first to admit that I don't fully get Copyright Laws, I just think that she ought to be ashamed of the way she is going about her business. Like I said, it just causes me to despair rather than get outraged.

 

Not Disney -technically- -- but they have a hand in the licensing: there are Totoros in a number of her images. I'm surprised there hasn't been a stomping from those quarters.

 

When it comes to copyright law, there's a good chance an artist who has copy someone else's work will be tried for by the other party if there is enough significant proof. A good example in recent art news was the graphic designer, Shepard Fairey, very well-known for his OBEY artwork, was sued by Associated Press for using a photo of Barack Obama that one of their photographers took and used it for the HOPE campaign posters. However, Fairey was suing back because he believes that his work does not infringe on AP's copyrights and he is protected by the Fair Use Doctrine. You can read more about the case here.

Andy Warhol also took other people's work and was sued by artists who were affected by him. You can read about that at this webpage. Here's quote about one lawsuit: "Patricia Caulfield, the photographer whose work was used as the basis of Warhol's flower prints sued in November 1966 and settled for cash and artwork."

This issue with Mijn Schatje may pose to be more difficult because she and Kallisti are located in different countries (if I'm not mistaken) and copyright law gets really muddled internationally. If it was easy, then a lot of bootleggers would have been stopped by now. However, that's not the case.

As a sidenote, Mijn Schatje had a recent interview with Drago, speaking interest of having an art show in NY or LA. It would be really ironic if it was during the same time when Volks has a Dolpa in either two areas. Maybe we can have a "You stole my face" campaign then.

 

Well the reason bootleggers still go on is because most of those are in China, and China's copyright laws are.. practically nonexistant. Whereas Mijn Schatje is in Europe so I would think overseas cases would not be quite the nightmare...

 

The history between Led Zeppelin and bootleggers seems to cover the whole gambit. The biggest reason to avid such things as bootlegs is the money could be funding gangs, drugs, terrorism, or any number of bad things, aside from the people doing it being jerks.

Her having a show during a Dolpa would be great, explain you've never seen dolls then. I can see where this is half like Andy Warhol's Brillo boxes but he never claimed that he had never seen them before.

 

MS' show held at Dorothy Circus, in Rome Italy, supposedly ended May 30, 2010.
http://www.dorothycircusgallery.com/current.php
Someone (sorry, didn't keep the name) said they know of the gallery. I'm sure many people are interested. Can anyone give any information how the show went? Any information or comments are welcomed.
Thanks for sharing.

------------------
http://www.philipbrennan.net/2010/01/25/mijn-schatje-art-thief/
Anyone know about the person or site?
Quite a vast array of topics that he covers.
(My question is just from simple curiosity.)

 

Eventually, enough evidence came out (like, Kallisti's email of Mijn asking to use one of her photos for a "school project" ) that Mijn was forced to admit that she did, in fact, know about ABJD. She had some photos on her Facebook page of Tanya's (Tanya Style) dolls for a while (with permission of Tanya.) **edit i.e. dolls that Tanya owns, Tanya designs clothing for dolls, not the dolls themselves...as far as I know.

I think the biggest problem with lawsuits is the international aspect. It is difficult (and expensive) to sue someone in your own country... you can pay a few thousand dollars just to have a lawyer send a letter saying "stop using my client's material", never mind enforcing that, or trying to get compensation.

Really, the only injured party that probably has enough money for something like that is Volks, and I don't think they will bother (probably just had their lawyers send a letter... has anyone noticed if any of her new art features Volks dolls?)

 

Most (all?) of the non-copyright-related content of that post is taken from this page, which was created by DOA user Radiotrash and is now archived by me, though neither of us is keeping it up anymore... that said if something major happens (like someone bringing an actual lawsuit) PM me and I'll add it.

The owner of philipbrennan.net is on DOA as pbrennan42.

 

Why not outrage? I don't know that outrage has to be attached to monetary amounts. The emotional connections doll owners make with their dolls are often unrelated to their pure monetary value, and that means there is more than potential lost revenue to be stolen with photographs of them. Also, this hobby attracts a lot of artists, photographers, and other creative types, many of whom are bound to be irked seeing someone profit in any way from breaking the rules they themselves take seriously.