Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

I have spotted a lot of sculpts in her artwork, Lusion Doll, Unoa...Im just wondering if any of the photos she has used belong to anyone who would like to contact her.

 

All good information. But let's stay focused on the topic of Mijn Schatje's (real name Marie Blanco Hendrickx, Paris France) images.

Information is power. Keep in mind in the world of capitalism, money talks--
Keep informed and do not buy anything that looks questionable. People will only make things that sells. If no one buys them, those items will be abandoned. It goes right back to the consumers staying informed!

MS is still at it; her facebook is boldly using another adulterated image Facebook
She introduced it as "After ten days and five nights, here she is, my second Vanity subject, a reflection on time, death and beauty (not a full view though, final is 50cmX70cm)" and is selling 20 editions of that image, available early Dec 2011, and she wrote it is copyrighted (!)
Someone posted a compliment and MS replied, "thank you!...it's crazy because it's hard to tell, but lots of sweat and tears in that one, my computer is sad and exhausted now, I hope that the prints will be nice."
Obviously, she is still taking credit that it is "her art".

If you're curious, click here to see her first Vanity image; note the price is $600.00 usd.

 

Erg ¬_¬

I would LOVE to meet her face to face to just let everything out, with words not fists XD But being an ex- art student and seeing how people literally throw themselves into their work, yet get no regonition for it, money or some what fame is so freaking sad. When all she does is copy an original photo and add stuff on

And now as a photography student I would literally go, excuse my words, ape shit if I saw her using one of my own images. It's sad how this woman has not yet had any action against her, many photographers have taken people to court on the count that their image has been used without their consent and been used for profit, and in most cases they have won in others both parties have agreed on some level.

All I have to say to her is how would you like if someone copied your 'work', manipulated them, and sold them for money?. She herself would go ape shit and try to take action which would be hilarious only for the fact that her work is not really 'hers'. Hope she gets completely caught out and someone finally takes action against her and gets her ass to court with all the proof that is already viewable.

And now....breaaathhhhhh

EDIT-

Just had alook on the facebook, not sure if she has always posted these but she has now posted pictures of her working in progress, almost like drawings of the final image ¬_¬

 

Man,... must. start. taking. and. posting. bjd. photos.

I'd love for her to use one of my photos so I can TAKE HER TO COURT and stop this all at once.

As an artist, not a doll artist or photographer (yet!), it's always tempting to use a reference like that. And for her, she isn't just using a "reference" she's full out tracing. When someone can freakin' overlay a photograph on it and it lines up exactly, there's a problem!

It's so easy to trace on vector art, it's kinda ridiculous. The similarities are TOO similar for these to just be coincidences... over and over and OVER AGAIN.

*checks facebook* She's coming to my hometown for a show... Hmm... They see me trollin', they hatin'~

EDIT: I see that people have written to magazines that have featured her. Has anyone written to galleries that will host her? I think that is a wonderful idea.

 

Dolls are art! Photography is art! It's not right to copy either one of these to another medium and claim it's your original work and sell it...I think it would be one thing to cite references (AKA 'I painted this picture based on a photo of my doll standing by a window') for personal works, but to profit off of someone else's art just because you eyeball-traced it is wrong.

I think the worst part is that you can tell by her technique and execution that she has the capacity to develop her own original talent if she really tries, but instead she chooses to be lazy and profit off of someone else's art.

 

Read through this thread--it's quite interesting as it follows the many accusations of MS' on-going image thievery.
1. Don't be fooled by her attempt to show work-in-progress pictures. There are multiple examples of MS backpedaling and making up stories trying to "prove" she created the images--AFTER she was challenged about various images' origins.
2. There has been a lot done to spread the word in places all over the world. Both brick-and-mortar and virtual galleries have been contacted. The good news is that the effort has worked; many websites have pulled MS's images off their list of items being sold. Some who once praised MS wrote that they now question her work. The bad news is that many other business either didn't care or didn't want to upset their business situation and so continued selling MS items.

Don't give up. Keep spreading the word.

 

Every time I read aboute her I becomes furious, thats a mean human. and very stupid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26ViRPoeFIQ

 

Yes, spreading the word does work!
Read this article by Netdriver. Scroll halfway down the page and you will find a brief accolade for MS. Immediately after, the editor added a note (below). Follow the link; a few examples of MS copies are given. With the exception of one writer, most called it plagiarism, ranging from the photos all the way to the dolls themselves.

"Editor’s note: This is probably one of the worst nightmare that can happen to an editor, someone reporting that one of your covered artist may be a fraud. It is or It is not (plagiarism)"

 

Some people don't see the harm in tracing photographs (some may even think it's artsy), but if you run into them, they may care about tracing over the work of other artists: link 1, link 2, link 3 and the source of the pictures.
Pictures on the internet do have this "free for grabs" appearance to some, but messing with copyrighted works of art may be one step too far for most. I hope. It would be a better argument to convince galleries and stores to not sell her work.

 

Oh my gosh!! She stole from Audrey Kawasaki too?? I can't believe it, doesn't she shame herself? That is so sad, really <.<

 

It's been known for quite a while, but as time passes information like that gets lost among other posts and may go unnoticed. So I thought it's worth mentioning especially if people want to inform any galleries or shops Mijn schatje is currently selling/displaying her works.

 

Not to keep taking the debate off topic...

MS is not showing any signs of stopping what she is doing... Obviously, she is still profiting from her actions and it doesn't seem like educating people/buyers/galleries to her "work" is really doing much to shut her down. A few doors might have been slammed shut on her and her "art" but how many more have opened for her afterwards?

MS is not the only one doing this and profiting from it... lately, there have been a few other artists who are copying, tracing and stealing images off doll sites and photo sharing sites like Flickr and claiming them as their own. Wouldn't the main topic be doll photo/art theft? MS would be the first one who brought this to the attention of DoA but she is def. not the only one out there doing it.

 

True enough, there are, and always will be those who will use other people's work (be it art or idea) and represent it as their own. However, doing nothing is tacitly saying it's okay to do so. I think it's safe to say most honest people agree it is not.
This thread is an offshoot of a general discussion thread "Artists using doll likeness without crediting".
In the time since, this thread has continued and has evolved into also being a resource with links pointing to proof of MS' unethical actions.
Because the situation crosses international boundaries, complicated by differing enforcement of copyright laws, as well as different interpretation of ownership of works (intellectual properties), that the ability to prosecute the offending party and obtaining a meaningful judgment against her is nearly impossible. The time and funds required to maintain such a lawsuit is something that individual artists cannot do. It falls on the court of public opinion to judge MS. The public must continually voice its disapproval and chip away at MS' salability. It is a slow and indeed an uphill climb, but the public must persevere.

 

I'm not real familiar with Flickr but isn't there an option to copy write your photos on the site for a minimal fee? It's sad but a few doll artists are considering putting their account to private and not sharing their work on public sites such as our gallery. Is there no option of sharing with the community and protecting your work? It just seems like you don't really have any way of protecting your work and being able to share in the hobby with other hobbyist.

 

I thought art was automatically copyrighted to the artist? There are a lot of people who watermark their photos but the fact is that if you share something someone can also steal it.

 

I don't understand how she isn't being sued right now...

 

@crou thats actually a missinterpretation by most artist, I dont know the specifics of it (forgot long ago) but most art isn't safe ( even I have had art stolen from me and used by an anime con to sell t-shirts which I never gave permision for - I have learned my leason thats for sure :/)

I am soooooo tempted to post on her facebook... it will I'm sure backfire terribly on me and thus why I wont do it but it sickens me the ammount of gushing over her 'pretty art' when its terrifyingly creapy! I would say for direct victims to post on her FB to let her know this isn't dead yet. I remember reading this when it first came to light, I was and still am disgusted :/

 

My parents had me in art classes starting at the age of five and continuing into college. My teachers, ALL of them, would allow a painting based on a photograph only if you titled it "Study of photograph by so and so". Now this wasn't tracing but drawing and painting by eye. And if it was your own photograph of say, a lizard, then you could title it whatever you wanted and it's yours. You can trace or vector or whatever your own photograph all you like. MS ignoring the rules is very frustrating to real artists. And just think, all the times I had artist's block I could have just traced a photo of someone else's. grrr.

 

nao-chan, crou: As soon as you have made something (drawing/photograph/sculpture) it is yours and is automatically copyrighted to you. If you don't give your permission for someone to reproduce your work, they have no right to reproduce your work. It's best to always use watermarks when posting art online.

The reason many art thieves get away with copyright violation is because it costs money to fight them in court and most people don't have the money needed to fight. Disney and Mattel come down incredibly hard on people who violate their copyright, but they are such huge, rich companies they can afford to do so. If all the companies and photographers Mijn Shatje has ripped off clubbed together to bring a joint case against her and share the legal fees something could be done.

 

Just to add onto this never put up hi-res versions of your work online. In my last photo class when saving our pictures for the web we'd save it in 72psi and the smallest size possible we could get with our various camera's. This of course isn't fool proof, but it can help.