Can I use dolls in art?

This could be broken down to a series of questions to answer:

Do you create art using your dolls and how?
What medium do you use?
Do you consider your doll art to be within copyright?
What doll art would you consider to be crossing the line of copyright?

I paint portraits of my dolls, I dont sell them and theyre for my own enjoyment. I think even if I were to display them I dont think anyone would think it was a doll, not even a fan of dolls would, as theyre more the 'essence' of a dolls personality. Also I use them for mannequins to paint from, but I dont represent them as actual dolls with joints etc. But I would still credit what my art is inspired by.

 

Wow...zombie thread...lol
In any case...
Copyright really is a squicky, strange, grey area.
I think, most of the time, using these dolls as a reference for art is technically legal, but will doing it be ok with the doll community and is it ethical?
I think the key is always to credit the doll company and, if you're going to be using the doll as a reference for commercial use, contact the doll comapny before hand. I ran into this little conundrum a couple of months ago when a band wanted to use my BJD photography as a cover for an upcoming album. Before I gave an answer, I immediately contacted the BJD company in question, (in this case it was Fairyland), and they gave me permission and their blessing to use the image. Not all BJD companies would have been ok with it, I'm sure, but they were and asking certainly put my mind at ease.

 

Using anything as reference is ok. I can use other people's art as reference, say, for a nose at this angle, or how to paint this arm. I can use any photograph or photomanip, so long as I'm not copying or blatantly taking anything from the pther piece of artwork. It is a fairly common misconception that artists can't use references or need to use then like someone using someone else's artwork. This is not the case. At all. I've used my doll (a fairyland doll) for lighting and pose reference numerous times, and I really don't need to ask Fairyland if I'm allowed to, and the end artwork looks nothing like my doll. :/

 

I wouldn't be concerned about the creator of the goods, because once goods are sold to you, they are yours to do with what you want as long as it's lawful. Even though Volks, for example, created their dolls, they legally can't stop you from photographing them and selling the image of your doll, as long as you lawfully purchased the doll, at least in the US. The company has no right to tell you what to do with the doll once you own it and has no legal standing to stop you from publishing a photo of a doll you own that you took yourself.

(Like in fashion, any stylist can purchase any garment and legally own the rights to the photographs they took of that garment, and use it any way they please, even though the garment was designed by a different designer. It's a transference of ownership rights that is an implied contract that comes along with the purchase of goods.)

The only time things can get kind of grey-area with this is with trademarked or copyrighted logos and brand confusion. (For example, if they wanted to, a stylist for Walmart could purchase a Louis Vuitton bag and use it in a shoot as an accessory. However, if the trademarked LV logo was shown, Louis Vuitton could bring a case against Walmart for brand confusion, as Walmart is not an authorized Louis Vuitton dealer. However, the suit would be about the visable LV LOGO, not the bag itself. This is why when you watch reality TV shows, brand names are often fuzzed out in post production. So, the way this may apply to dolls is like, you could photograph an un-made-up volks doll and that's fine, but if you showed the nameplate on the headcap, you might have to fuzz that out because it contains the Volks trademarked LOGO.)

Now, A doll company like Volks could refuse to sell to you again if they dissapprove of you publishing photos of their dolls. Or, if you publish a photo of their doll that in some way defames them or makes them look bad, they might have grounds for a lawsuit. But it would probably get thrown out in court.

Now, if Volks lent you a doll (creating a bailment) to photograph but you never purchased the doll, you were just borrowing it to photograph and had to give it back, the owner of the item retains rights of publication, and they could control publishing and distribution of the resulting photograph. But that's so super unlikely. But, if you borrowed a doll from another hobbiest that that person had purchased lawfully, and took pictures of it, the person that owns the doll would still retain the rights of publication. So let's say you borrowed your friend's doll. If you wanted to use the resulting photograph in a publication, I would get that friend's permission in writing.

However, I would only use images of dolls that I personally own as bases for art, or images of dolls of people I know who have specifically given me permission to use the image in writing. Stealing images from companies or other doll owners is shady and lame, especially when a lot of people, the majority of people I think, would allow useage of the photo if asked politely. Using or publishing a photograph someone else took of a subject matter you don't own absolutely does violate copyright laws.