Celebrity Dolls - Are they fair/legal?

I agree. I have dolls I like and enjoy. Someone else's value judgment on their supposed "originality" is an unwelcome intrusion. Feel free to enjoy your own things as you like, but it's rather bad form to impose your own criteria for a doll and the enjoyment thereof on anyone other than yourself.

 

Exactly. As someone feeling a bit targeted (I know it's not intentional, but who, owning celebrity dolls, wouldn't feel that way reading this thread?), since I'm running two of the orders mentioned in an earlier post and participating in one other one, I try and stay away from this thread because it kind of upset me at first - but now I'm over it.

For the most part I've decided this: I am getting the dolls I am getting because I want them. To me, it was no different than wanting Cain. I had wanted a Hyde doll for a while (that is, since I first encountered the dolls two years ago), and Minimees seemed like a good opportunity. I'm getting him because I want him, the same with Gackt and Kyo, and whether or not anyone else thinks I'm "unoriginal" "uncreative", or I'm "not working as hard as someone making an original character", I really don't care.

I'm buying him for my own enjoyment, which is the entire purpose of these dolls. To enjoy them.

 

...well I think it will never be 100% original, why?

"Made after" Celeb doll:
Doll is original and I'm talking about the head and not that's it's made after someone cause that someone ISN'T a doll, so the head will be in a very small quantity. But the character isn't original.

Standard/limited doll:
Character might be original, but the doll isn't.

So yeah...being original, well I haven't really seen it.
And why be original when you just want to enjoy your own dolls, characters or whatever you want to enjoy in this hobby.

Sabriell

 

Amen. I have 20 dolls and counting, I'm not feeling any pressure to come out with an "original" doll--my dolls are part of my art and are every bit as enjoyable as the next, whether they have a default face (I have 3 default), or have been totally revamped (everyone else)--what I do with my dolls is for me, to please me, and that's it. I'm not doing this to make someone else on the board happy.

I've been wanting Gackt since I started with BJDs, I went through several "dream" molds for him, trying to get one that would look closest--ultimately a minimee will achieve that better than any other for obvious reasons. And though it may be sculpted based off an existing person--it's still going to be sculpted on a come-order basis. It doesn't already exist, there's a person from DIM who is going to sit there, and use the reference we sent, and hand-sculpt this head for us. Personally, that seems pretty damn original coming from an art perspective. But that's for people who seem very hung up on the original idea.

I just want my Gackt doll, as I have always wanted him. I'm going to paint him--and do my damnedest to paint him well, blush him, seek out his accessories and have his clothes made. Then I'm going to photograph him up a storm and yes, throw him in a photostory or two because my first boy is a die-hard fan and is excited to death to have his idol coming home. I'm going to enjoy my doll, just like I enjoy my other 20--and that's really all that concerns me

 

when a celebrity becomes a celebrity i feel their image becomes public domain. it is the ultimate fandom in m opinion to ordeer a celebrity doll. also, alot of music stars for example have 1/6 vinyl dolls on sale at toys are us!

 

Quite honestly, I think that saying those of us who are getting Celeb dolls aren't being original is ridiculous. As someone said earlier I believe, since when were we competing in originality in this hobby? If its your doll you do what makes you happy.

I'm getting Hyde and I'm keeping him as Hyde. So what? Does it really make me unoriginal even though I'm going to be slaving over making a wig to replica his hairstyle from Last Quarter, or that I'm having my girlfriend help me make his outfits from Moon Child and Last Quarter? Yeah he's going to be Hyde, but he'll also be Adam and Kei and I know I'll try to get some of his music video outfits made. I'm going all out with Hyde. He's my new project and I am so incredibly excited about getting him that I've driven my parents mad just talking about him! How does this make me unoriginal? How does this honestly separate me from someone buying a well-known mold?

Seriously, why stretch this out more than it needs to be? Celebrity dolls should get the same respect as other molds. They're just as original as the others.

(And I'm not saying anyone is targeting me when I do the 'how does this make me...' its just in general and from my POV)

 

I agree with you here. People are complaining about being called unoriginal, but I'm sorry, in dolls that I appreciate and in my dolls, I personally value originality. It's something that is important to me, personally. So I personally don't care much for celebrity dolls, or dolls modeled after established anime or book or whatever characters. I would rather follow dolls made of the owner's own character. And before someone says, "If you don't like it, don't look" -- don't worry, I'm not looking. XD

 

We buy these dolls so we can customize them any way we want.

I have had more than one person look at Sydney and say when I tell them her name, "You mean Sydney Bristow?" "Yeah, actually, that's exactly who she is." I like her. I love the show Alias and I write fanfic for it, and I wanted a doll of the main character, the end. It's my own personal challenge to get up enough sewing skill to go ahead and do every single outfit she wears on all the missions in the show. It'll take forever, lol, but I seriously want to do it just because. And I'll have Lauren Reed from the same show soon enough, and I'm thinking of getting Rachel Gibson too. Not to sell, but to have for my own. I would not get a Minimee though. Half the fun for me is hunting through the dolls available from various companies trying to match their faces, and then I like the stylized aspect, not so much the realistic. Sydney's face is a DoC boy's...with comicbookartistboi's expert faceup using multiple reference pictures, she DOES look like her character, and now that I have a brown wig in somewhat of the same style, even more so.

I would say they are "kosher" so long as the celebrity doll is not used to try and smear the name of the celebrity somehow. Mass-produced celebrity plastic dolls are exempt because they were licensed and the star got paid, LOL, so have at it. But you shouldn't use your celebrity BJD for evil if it isn't licensed, ne?

 

Well I think its ridiculous quite honestly to not like something just because its based off of someone or an something. I mean seriously, if you really think about it, no one has a true-blue original character. You always get the idea from somewhere else.

And you know, fine, if you don't like it and you're not going to own them, great. Do as you please, but don't claim we're unoriginal. Honestly that's an insult to what we're doing and quite honestly to part of the hobby. If you're going to say you don't like someone's doll because its based off of a celeb or anime character, then why bother saying something at all or expecting someone to say something about your own? Its just rude I think to act that way towards something someone cares about so much.

Yeah, originality is fine and great when creating a character from scratch, but if you haven't notice, quite a few of us who are getting a Celeb doll, already have characters of our own who aren't based on anyone but our own ideas.
Sometimes though its just nice to have one where you already know things about them so you can figure out what to do and what you want to do.

There are so many different elements its crazy to say its not original or different.

 

I agree, everything is based off something. I know all my characters have little bits from here and there were I've based them on many different things all together.

However, there is a difference between taking bits and pieces from all over and taking all of one thing.

And I'm not saying I'm against celebrity dolls. I may one day have one of my own, though I wouldn't go the Minimee route, because in all honesty it feels a bit like cheating to me. That's my own personal opinion. I am fully ready to say that if I have a celebrity doll though, that it isn't original. I haven't made up anything having to do with the doll or the character.

You need to take into account that yes, you can put lots of hard work and creativity into what your doing. However, copying all of Hyde's costumes isn't original. it's creative. There is a difference in the two.

 

Yeah, fine if you go down to the line, its not original but doing everything and quite honestly just being in the hobby that we're in makes us all original for everything we do. Including re-creating the outfits. That's just what it comes down to.

 

I don't consider re-creating an outfit to be original. Whether it be for a doll, or for cosplay, or whatever. You didn't make it up. Yes, it can be creative. You can put lots of work into it, but it's not original. In this case, we are merely having a dispute on terms and that's not what the discussion is about.

I don't quite understand how being in the doll hobby makes one original? And I'm not saying that everyone who has a celebrity doll is totally unoriginal in all aspects. Simply that doll is. And that doll can still be amazing and beautiful and loved.

You just didn't come up with the idea.

 

That's not what I'm getting at. The thing is, this isn't your run-of-the-mill hobbies so yeah what we do and how we do it is both creative and original. Why we have to dispute over it is ridiculous because we should just respect what everyone is doing and not berate them or think negativly of it. I can understand a debate but this has gotten to the point where its too complicated to debate due to the various views and feelings everyone has. Its getting personal for a lot of people and for some its just showing their annoyance at another collector who copies a famous person or character. Its almost not worth discussing. I mean I tried to avoid this thread because I knew it was questioning things that really didn't need to be questioned but some things where pointed out and its just...I just don't see why we're carrying something like this so far. Everyone's idea of originality and creativity and the like is going to be different. There's not honestly one single definition.

 

In all honesty, debates are always personal to someone, so it's not as though that is avoidable. As much as you might feel insulted for your views, I feel insulted in some ways for my own.

Debates are dirty, people can get hurt, but it's all about the discussion. The best way to really go about it is, "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

And really, I don't mean to 'attack' anyone. I gave views, you gave yours, we went back and forth debating. Neither one of us is going to sway the other, so why not just let is drop and wait for the next opinion to come in?

 

As far as originality with celebrity dolls, I do think there can be originality with them. It comes in the interpretation, the method of recreation, and how it's posed and what is done with it.
For example, most painters who paint portraits, do so with real people. The method with which they capture the person, the angle they look from, the background they use to bring out colors and textures in the face, the light they use to create sotness or edge... that makes it original. Even a photo can be original.

I do some fan-art for fun, and I think some of my pictures are really original. (especially some of the spoofs. ^_~ Satire about shows and movies is often very original, and might I add, oodles of fun.) I have felt pretty miffed in the past when someone called a folder of my work "Just fanart" when it contained about 1/2 fanart, and half original, and the fanart had far more original concepts and often more unique and diversified styles than my original ones did.

Originality comes from a different part of the creation between original and fan-work dolls. I'm still a little uncomfortable with likenesses directly from live actors, but that is hardly the only issue, and one can easily have a character doll with or without that.

So, a character fan-doll will have the creativity and originality stemming from interpretation of the character, interpretation of clothes the person WOULD wear, and method of photographing, or statements made through that. There is still originality and creativity, but the doll's identity itself is not what contains it. An original character does have creativity in the doll's identity, but without the initial recognition of a character everyone knows, the statements made do not demonstrate originality and creativity as vividly as those we know (usually). There are exceptions, and a true artist can make statements with anything. But back to the point, character dolls CAN contain creativity, if the photographer / creator bring it out.

The only way I would feel a person has no originality with a fan doll/fanart work, is when someone ONLY recreates costumes that were actually worn, makeup that was actually worn, and photographs or draws from angles already captured by the character's photographer or artist. In that case, there really isn't a lot of creativity...

 

I think the dispute is less about original vs. unoriginal and more about the emphasis everyone seems to be placing on originality vs. unoriginality. Again, I don't see the problem with having a doll or two be called unoriginal, it's no skin off my nose, it's not some sin against the hobby (to be in it is potentially creative, but to be in it does NOT make anyone original). Constantine and Corinthian aren't my characters, of course they're unoriginal in concept, no big deal to me because I love both these comic book characters with a passion. On the other hand, had I "created" these two dolls and said they're original about it I would damn well expect someone to come by and tell me "They look good, but they're not original. Give some credit to Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman please."

They might be the first Constantine and Corinthian dolls, but being first a creative original does not make. Being the first to own that Johnny Depp or Mana sculpt doesn't make you anymore original than the one person who owns a Tanned Elf Ducan. It makes you the first to appropriate Johnny or Mana's image in doll form though. I'm secure enough in my originality in other endeavors to know when something I've done is original, unoriginal, revisionist, archetypal, appropriated, etc. On that same note, someone who uses the image of an actor for an original character has delivered an original concept for a doll.

I also agree with another poster above that someone who gets a default El and calls him El is unoriginal. It's not wrong, but it is unoriginal.

My thoughts exactly.

As a cosplayer I completely agree. It's unoriginal to recreate accurate costume after costume and doing your make up in the exact manner as the character you're trying to portray. In NO WAY does that make the work any "lesser" than someone who had an original design but executed it with weak seams and poor quality fabric from the $1 pile. Back to the doll world, recreating the dresses and outfits worn by celebrities and getting that face up juuuust right and capturing photos in the vein of that shoot from Vanity Fair Magazine 2005 is FAR more interesting to me than some of the original dolls on DoA. The concept of the celebrity doll is still unoriginal, I'll never shy away from that, but anyone should recognize the honest work that goes into it.

 

Extremely well said Kudos

 

Perfectly stated.

 

Have you seen the celebrity ...um... everything? *LOL* There are clay models, airbrush renderings, reproductions of autographed posters, etc.

The line is so fine I don't think anyone can even draw one.

As in, I think what you are doing is perfectly fine. You are providing a service -the scope of which is to deliver a doll to the specifications of a look or likeness of someone that the customer has requested.

The selling point of your product and services is that you are willing to make a doll that is what someone asked for.

The selling point is NOT that you've made a doll head to the likeness of a celebrity, therefore, I really don't think there are any infringement problems at all.

If you were making heads of really popular celebrities just to stock them and say, "Hey, I made dollfies that look like Brad Pitt so if you like Brad Pitt, you should buy my dollfie," then it might get sketchy.

Currently I see no problem with what you're doing. In fact, I LOVE IT!

 

Why not just ask what's the -PRACTICAL USE- of any doll; assuming all else equal (ie, age, size)?

The same ideas should apply across the board -celebrity doll or any other.

If you can seriously determine that a certain "use" is NOT practical for a celebrity doll, then the same should be impractical of any other dollfie.
Then, the same applies that if you can determine a "practical" use for any dollfie, the same should apply to celebrity dolls.

So say something goes for any dollfie except celebrity dolls is just hypocritical.

I do understand there are situations were something can work when applying a dollfie in a photostory based on the AGE the doll looks to resemble. (Ie, a dollfie that could pass for 18 dancing naked on the beach with another dollfie that looks 18 ish and all its implications is okay, but a dollfie that clearly resembles a 10 year-old and a dollfie that resembles a 20 year old doing the same thing and all ITS implications is NOT okay).
But that's a whole other can of worms.

Oh, and as far as originality goes... *PFFT* Celebrities are mostly plastic (silicon, if you will) anyway. What makes them so original? There's an organization in Europe that's offering like a billion dollars for anyone who can come up with an "original" piece of music. Everything and every look's already been done before.