Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

MS lifted-traced-pirated-misappropraited--whatever one wants to call it--the bottom line is that she STOLE images created by other persons. There is a mass of irrefutable evidence supporting this fact; which includes numerous examples comparing her images and their origins. In addition, doll companies and the original artist themselves have publically challenged her use of their photography and/or artwork.
She has claimed BJDs inspired her "art". BJDs were not her inspiration. Her single inspiration was to see an opportunity to steal readily available images and take them for her own use and profit.
Time after time she lied or avoided answering direct questions about her source material. Only after continued public negative attention did she make up stories (her only "creativity") in an attempt to explain or deflect guilt. She has claimed it was a misunderstanding due to language, or lied by saying she had permission, or she didn't know, or she used her friend's doll. All said after she had already made hundreds of fraudulent images.

Experimentation by artists allows growth and evolution that is reflected in their successive works; it becomes more substantial having greater complexity, meaning, and sophistication. Instead, MS' newer images are merely rehashes of her older images. She cannot grow--she hasn't the talent to grow.

NOTE:
Could it be she is trying to cover her trail and distance herself from her better known 'Mijn Schatje' name?
MS has another facebook "Mijn Boa" http://www.flickr.com/people/mijnboa/

 

Have you seen what she posted on her FB page?: She has no problem people using her pictures as their facebook profile picture but they have state its her art work.

"Mijn Schatje general answer to a question that I've been asked: of course feel free to use my pictures on your facebook profile if you wish, just remember to legend it with my name thanks!"

 

Well frankly, until she does, I view her as suspect.

 

The gall is that MS wants credit for "her" work, when she gives none to others rightly entitled to that kind of recognition.

 

Yup that's her, when i read that, part of me wanted to laugh.

 

Someone earlier in this thread observed people are copying "her" style of artwork...I wonder if MS is going after them?

Somehow I doubt if she has the ability to feel the injustice since she also committed the same wrongdoing. Probably the only thing she will hate is losing the potential profit by not being the first to make the image.

 

She did mentioned that, about people copying her work on her FB. What i find funny is that she doesn't seem to like it at all.

 

omigosh...so now SHE's the injured party??? Is she playing the innocent or is she for real???

A Sleuthing Challenge:
Please take a look at the images found in her "behind the scenes" facebook album. She has what appears to be colored crayon scrawlings to imply development of images. Does anyone recognize any of the finished pictures? Which doll? A link to the original image(s)?

 

Jesus Wept is all I have to say.

 

Aww, poor baby. Let me just play the world's smallest bloody violin for her troubles.
She's really got some nerve whinging about other people copying "her" work.

 

MS also appears to have had a showing on Sep11-Oct04, 2010 at Gallery Nucleus, 210 East Main St, Alhambra, California, and wrote about it in her facebook. The print is for sale by the gallery, priced at $600. This is a PRINT. How many prints are there?
? times $600 each = $$$

Challenge #2--who is the doll?

 

It just looks generically doll-like; I don't think she actually ripped off any photos for that one.

 

She says that print was "inspired by" Mr. Gilbert's famous 1892 skull-vanity-illusion painting... but to me, it looks just as "original" as those paintings she took from Blastmilk's Unoa photos. (Excuse me, those paintings "inspired by" Blastmilk's Unoa.) Girl ain't got one original idea in her head.

 

Just wanted to point out, that copyright of 3D items includes photos taken of those items, paintings, and drawings.

The key is that "useful items" - IE a toaster design, a handbag design, a shoe design, do not have the same copyright protection. For instance, if you take a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night, you cannot publish it. While the Eiffel Tower is old enough it isn't copyrighted anymore, the lighting design put in place on the Eiffel Tower is under copy right, and they enforce their copyright strictly. If you do a still life painting of common, useful, objects - they are most likely not protected by copyright.

A doll is not a useful item, therefore, photos or derivitive works of that doll ARE protected under copyright. This includes drawing the doll, modifying it and reusing it, etc.

Also, please do not confuse artwork made before modern copyright went into effect. Pop Art is one of the reasons that companies decided to push for better copyright protection.

Anyways, I know you won't believe me so here is one source:
http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm#1

One of the failures of College Level Academics in the United States is that they don't require an intellectual property law course to all students in artistic degrees. There are different types of intellectual property as well, including copyright, trademark, and patents.

 

While I don't disagree with the idea here, and think there should be more emphasis on 'The Law and YOU' in art school, IP law is a field unto itself for a reason. A friend of mine recently decided to pursue a degree in IP law, and one of the problems she encountered was that it's a field that's presently evolving with new technology. It's a little more complicated than just blaming the school system when it comes to the specifics for any given application of it.

 

I have an BFA and never once did we discuss copyright in college. I know other Masters graduates who insist if you change something enough - 10%, or maybe it's 1/3 - then it's legal. Many professors don't even understand basic copyright law. There was a lawyer locally who was able to present all the basics of copyright law in a one day seminar. Knowing the basics is very simple. Being a lawyer is completely different. You can't know the basics, you have to know the case law. You can't even compare the two.

Compare it to a new manager at a company. At my company, all new managers go through a "new manager" training course over the course of a week. It's really a "don't get the company sued course" that discusses the basics of HR law. You don't come out of that course with an in depth knowldege of HR - that's what your HR reps are for. Instead, you learn the basics, and when you need more info you go to HR. Even then, the HR reps sometimes consult the lawyer for specific situations (especially in termination reasons). Most newly promoted managers don't know things like "don't share details of someone's illness or medical issues with others."

 

It's still something more complicated than I think a one day seminar could handle, unless it was one specifically tailored to a certain field. Again, things are evolving with technology lately -- along with certain proposed laws -- in ways that really do change what even the layman must know, not only to produce legal work, but to protect their own legally produced work.

Though, I'm not sure what this has to do with art studies in the US really, since -- again, I don't disagree with the premise or discount the existence of the problem -- didn't Mijn go to school in the EU?

 

It was a throw away comment. I'm not in the EU, and I can't comment on the college system there as I have not studied it. The post is about using doll likeness in general as well as Mijn Schatje.

 

She had a show in the US? That would have been the time to flier the gallery with "is Mijn Schatje an art thief?" material.

 

MS showcased at a group show at Nucleus, not a solo show, and she presented only one piece -- the same illustration that has yet to be sold. As long as that doesn't sell, it's less money in her pocket.