Can I use dolls in art?

This is somewhat of a grey area as the Barbies in a Blender pictures have been allowed but Volks isn't all that keen on granting permission for someone to use dolls they own in a somewhat self published book of photographs they took of their dolls. As doll owners we've all taken pictures of our dolls, and done some artwork, and happily posted it on the internet. (discussions of some beyotch stealing them aside)

It wouldn't hurt to ask the company that made the doll for permission when you decide to do something that would make money or get a lot of attention. I run the Little Encyclopedia and have plans to eventually publish a book, of all the companies I own dolls from I have permission from all but 2 to use my pictures, one I can't find, the other is Volks. A couple of companies have conditions, I can't show dolls in drug use or breaking the law, no problem with what I want to do. Volks has only said they're thinking about it, most of my dolls being discontinued aside.

I plan to go forward and press my "editorial use" luck due to the nature of the book but I will still send low resolution copies of the pictures with the Volks dolls to see if they'll give me permission.

The only picture I worry about turning up "stolen" is the one entered in the Dollzone contest, they have permission to use it in relation to the contest as does the US dealer I got the doll from, but I hope it's a unique enough image that it won't be used.

 

The doll moulds themselves are copyright to the company/artist who makes them or the company licensed to distribute them; while you may have spent good money on one doll from that company, you haven't purchased the rights to make images of the doll or re-cast the doll (particularly in for-profit enterprises) because the copyright still rests with the company. All you have bought from the company is a customisable doll for your own non-profit enjoyment.

If you want to use your own doll in artwork, I think it's important to ask the doll manufacturer's permission, whether you're making an oil painting or a photoshop collage, and if the doll manufacturer says no, then their wishes must be respected, but first you should definitely, definitely ask! Some companies are going to say yes and might even think your art is good publicity for them as long as they are justly credited. I think we all got a nasty feeling in the gut when the Mijn Schatje thing came to light, the only way to seperate copyright infringement/art theft is to seek the relevant permissions and accept the fact that some companies are just going to say no and respect that decision.

 

My view is simply ask the doll company if its alright to use the dolls in your works and copyright the "model/mold" to the company. Of course some companys are going to say "No" and some are going to have conditions about potraying their dolls in certain ways, but as long as you follow those guidelines and copyright the dolls, then I wouldn't be too worried about it.

If you were justing painting the doll for your own enjoyment to hang in your room or somthing with no intention on selling, then I wouldnt even bother contacting the company. I think that showing the manufactur the photo your planning on doing a painting on isn't a bad idea, though if the company alright okays you I don't think its nessicary. As long as you copyright everything to the orginal company I think your fine.

 

My understanding is that when you take a photograph or draw a picture or write a drabble you instantly have copyright over what you have produced, it's your work and you can reproduce it and distribute it and do whatever you like with it because you own your product. If you take a photograph of a copyrighted building or a copyrighted product, the image is jointly owned by the photographer and the copyright holder of the object in the photo, unless one party releases the image to the other I don't think it can be reproduced or sold for profit.

Well, you will feel this way, being as you are a Fine Artist

Fine Art is defined as being "a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture." So on some levels I would agree that Fine Art does operate on a different level than other 'lowbrow'/populist arts, but if one art is allowed to ignore copyright, what kind of precedent does that set? It would give Mijn Schatje and similar rip-off merchants carte blanche to steal the work of others, muss it up a little and then sell it on for a huge profit.

 

Question I've been having along these lines: What if the dolls were used not as imagery, but as part of a sculptural or 'found art' piece? I'm aware that Mattel is fond of suing any artist who uses Barbie in what the deem to be a 'negative' light, but I'm not aware of there being similar sculptural lawsuits. (They're probably out there and just haven't gotten as much press attention, though.)

Like, if I have a spare doll head that I will never turn into a full doll and use it in a piece of 'ready-made' or 'found' art, how does that play into the whole thing legally? Or if I create an entirely custom body for an existing doll head, can I put it in an art show? Especially if I never try to claim the parts that came from existing dolls were sculpted by me?

 

I intend on using my Cecilia as a mannequin of sorts.

The way I see it, as long as you give credit and are not DIRECTLY copying something, but giving your portrayal of it, it is fine.

I need to look up the Schatje discussion...

EDIT: That disgusts me. Reading that is simply pathetic.

However, that does not change my opinion in regards to your question.

Always be sure to give credit where credit is due. In my photos, in comments I ALWAYS make sure to tell the doll's model name. She is by no means my sole creation, all I gave her was a personality.

 

I saw a BJD used as a cake topper once. It was a limited edition Soom I believe because the person payed $2000 to have it and the cake was on display in a show for around 600 people. I think as long as you give credit to the company and state what it is you can just classify it as a hybrid and only take credit for your part in any possible art shows.

 

I use my dolls as a sort of reference for figure arts (they are actual physical representations of my own characters I intend to create a manga out of, so am using them for that too), but the way I'd draw them is that if you see my dolls and know my characters, you can say "oh that's so and so in that comic/manga/etc. ayperi made", but you won't say "that character looks like that specific doll from so and so company." The only way I'd use the dolls themselves in a form of profit is if I'm reselling them in the MP or if the focus of the sale is not the doll or picture itself, like clothing or accessories I made for the doll, for example.... need a mannequin after all X.x; but i'd credit the doll and company in those cases anyways.
But art-wise, I don't make photos with them for profit (photo-manip or otherwise). Drawing would really depend on how you draw them. If you make them to look every bit as detailed of the doll in that it is recognizably a specific doll from a specific company, then you are going to get complaints. If you are drawing them with a more general style (anime, realistic people, etc.) then it won't be as much of an issue because they are only giving a reference to base the art on, the characters drawn would only look similar or have some resemblance but not "be" that doll, especially if you customized that doll to look like your characters. If anything, I'll only make photos or artworks of them specifically for nonprofit use.

 

disco biscuit, I think doll portrait commissions are slightly different (be free to disagree with me here ) in that all the portraits I have seen have been really of the doll's 'character' rather than the physical doll. A quick trawl of the artist commission subforum has turned up a number of artists who want to draw other people's dolls (either for profit or for the experience of taking a commission), but what they're really doing is drawing a character in that artist's particular style that shares the outfit, hair colour, eye colour and distinguishing features (i.e. scars) of the doll without actually drawing the doll in any great detail at all. It's not exactly the same thing as photographing or painting a physical doll from life.

I definitely think dolls are an artform in themselves, but that is obviously a subjective view, because my mother doesn't think my dolls are an artform at all, she is still firmly in the realm of 'dolls are toys for children'.

Different cultures have different ideas about intellectual property and copyright (which is why doujinshi is a surprising tradition for westerners to wrap our minds around), there is the prevailing myth that copyright either doesn't matter or doesn't exist in certain Asian countries, but that isn't necesarily true (Volks and Luts are notorious for protecting their copyright interests.)

 

There's a wonderful found object doll making book called Who's Your Dada? That incorporates odds and ends of doll pieces. I think the only thing that kept them from using an ABJ would be price, as the book is more about found objects, but I could see using some spare parts in creations inspired by them.

With Barbie she's instantly recognizable around the world, see the wonderful documentary The Secret Life of Barbie, so people can spot one a mile away if she's used. I remember when the Forever 21 shirt was linked to this board aside from wanting to get one people were interested in what exact doll it was. Personally I wouldn't want something with an ABJ unless it was a mold I have, or looked very similar. There could be other people with the same opinion and that could be why there just aren't more of these dolls in "art".

As for dolls belonging to children there was a "doll" found in Minoan ruins who's creator wanted it to be alive so much that it was sculpted with veins. Would she consider a Madonna and child or a saint figure to be a child's toy? They have been as tricked out and customized as our dolls. Dolls teach us to nurture small humanoids and prepare us to care for our young. Better a doll than a real baby you aren't ready for.

 

DollyKim, there's a difference between a statue like a Madonna and Child and a doll Statues and figurines aren't articulated like dolls are, and they're not intended to be played with. The reason people associate dolls with children is because most dolls are intended as children's toys

There is a long history of jointed dolls and non-jointed statues, for a Minoan example there is the Snake Goddess, which is a devotional statue of a goddess intended to be the focus of prayer/luck symbol rather than a doll to be played with.

 

Artistic copyright is an incredibly complicated thing. I study fine art at uni and this discussion has come up so many times. We've also spoken to a specialist in the field of artistic copyright.

I'll try and get down what we were told as simply as I can. The whole thing is one massive grey area.
Theres copyright on the images and copyright on the piece of artwork itself.

Technicaly, when you buy somthing, take pictures of it and use those pictures for a piece of work, thats normaly ok. but better if it differs from the standard company model.
Using an actual doll is more of a grey area. There have been instances of artists being sued by toy manufacturers of using their products in pieces.

Technicaly, using the company's images of a doll would be breaking the copyright, but using your own images of a doll you own would not.

Theres also the 'as long as you aren't making profit off it, go wild' angle. Which is another matter.
and the issue of wheather something will be on public display.

As I said, artistic copyright is incredibly complicated and is one massive grey area.
Even the specialists admit that.

 

The early roots of our fashion dolls, even ABJs, were made for women, as were early dollhouses. Before advances were made in printing what we would call fashion plates fashion designers would send out dolls in the latest designs.

In the mid to late 1800s the mass marketing of dolls as plaything began. There were home made dolls and ones made by local artists but with the industrial revolution came the ancestors of the composition dolls our parents had. By the turn of the 20th century a doll culture was set up for girls to "play house" and practice socializing such as visiting. Marketing has done a good deal to shape what people think about dolls. The naughty Lily that Barbie is based on wasn't for little girls.

 

Legally you are perfectly within your rights to use a doll as a model for your art, even if you do sell it. Don't believe me? Ask a lawyer. Nor do you have to give "credit". The likelihood of a doll company suing an artist for what? Copyright infringement? Defamation? Zero to none. Infinitydragon is correct in saying that artist copyright is a very muddy subject, but in order to ascertain legality looking at precedent is the most logical way to approach.
I am assuming you are in North America. What is legal in other cultures, I have no idea.
Does it make me uncomfortable. No. What does make me uncomfortable is when outrage is expressed over an artist using a model, whatever it may be. That is just silly. My argument is I make my art out of what I please. And in that, precedent says the law will usually defend me.

 

As I said, artistic copyright is incredibly complicated and is one massive grey area. Even the specialists admit that. quote from infinitydragon

Sums it up pretty well I'd say. Some things are clearly wrong. Getting written permission, if you get the right wording signed by the person with the proper authority to give the permission is clearly right.

Somehow, personally, I still feel overwhelmed. Maybe I just need to keep telling myself it isn't that hard. I am going to try in the next week to contact a few doll companies. I am an artist and I have been buying dolls at a rapid pace for a year now. It is my hope to apply my creativity, which is my vocation, using ball jointed dolls.

It is good for me to read through threads like this. Thanks for posting the question, and for the thoughts shared here. Maybe it doesn't really require a law degree to get this right?

 

Here's an article from the US Copyright office...on portraying "Useful Articles", and is somewhat relevant (for a while art directors were having us make "looks like Harleys" when we did illustrations, and now if the story has a Harley, we can draw one

Useful Articles


A “useful article” is an object that has an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. Examples are clothing; automobile bodies; furniture; machinery, including household appliances; dinnerware; and lighting fixtures. An article that is part of a useful article, such as an ornamental wheel cover on a vehicle, can itself be a useful article.

Copyright does not protect the mechanical or utilitarian aspects of such works of craftsmanship. Copyright may, however, protect any pictorial, graphic, or sculptural authorship that can be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of an object. Thus a useful article can have both copyrightable and uncopyrightable features. For example, a carving on the back of a chair or a floral relief design on silver flatware can be protected by copyright, but the design of the chair or the flatware itself cannot, even though it may be aesthetically pleasing.

Some designs of useful articles may qualify for protection under federal patent law. For details, contact the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. tel: (800) 786-9199 or (571) 272-1000. web: www.uspto.gov.

Copyright in a work that portrays a useful article extends only to the artistic expression of the author of the pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work. It does not extend to the design of the article that is portrayed. For example, a drawing or photograph of an automobile or a dress design can be copyrighted, but that does not give the artist or photographer the exclusive right to make automobiles or dresses of the same design.

My take on it is that if you buy a doll, you have essentially a license to create a "derivative work" of a photo, sketch or painting, certainly for personal use. I do paintings in acrylics of my dolls with other tchotkes as a still life and sell them to buy more dolls; if I was doing a large reproduction run of prints I would certainly contact the company, because often licenses have "number limits" on how many you can turn out before the original owner wants a cut. And it simply seems more courteous to ask in that case. However, my own feeling is that a single original painting is not a problem to anyone.

 

wow, so I've just read up on the whole Mijin Schatje occurrence. Totally incorrect of her.
I think that there's no harm in writing a letter to the company, saying you're going to draw from the doll in question. If you're not planning to sell, then indeed you might not even bother.

If you're taking partial moulds, then... no point in mailing, it's just something you don't do. :S I was still confused by your situation so sorry if my comment doesn't fit TT_TT