Company's taking costume ideas?

Sorry, just correcting here on something OT before I begin because it's something that bugs me. Gabriel, Lucifer, the Fall, Michael, Raphael etc. Are 12th century constructs that have been retroactively added into mainstream Christian faith. If you read the bible, nowhere are the names mentioned, in fact the closest thing that is in there is "Begone, Satan!" and "Then the Angel of the Lord proclaimed." As "Satan" and "Devil" were names for bad spirits (And Satan actually comes from the word Satyr, and was used to convert Druids in the 6th century to Christianity) and The Angel of the Lord was code for "The Sacred, unspeakable name of God" (From Hebrew Tradition), there is actually NO mention in the Bible of the Fall, or, indeed, of the common conception of Angels of any kind. In fact, the Fall isn't even considered canon scripture by the Catholic faith.

Now. Back ON topic.

To be honest, it really doesn't make a difference one way or another whether the designs in question are copyright or not. If the original mangaka has issues with the design, or the people who own the license for the characters have issues, they can sue. Which is, quite frankly, an action that would most likely fail due to the issues already raised about ambiguity. The only thing we can do as general consumer is choose to boycott the product and inform the owners of the license of the 'infringement'.

That said, I don't believe the outfits are infringements of copyright. They draw from a certain period style in a generic, recognisable way, which means that AS isn't actually doing anything wrong when they do not acknowledge their source inspiration. In fact, the grey area of copyright is introduced precisely when they acknowledge the inspiration, because up until then, they can claim ignorance and different source material, arriving at similar designs.

I mean, really. Is every doll in a Sailor Fuku suddenly ripping off Sailor Moon?
Is every girl in a lolita outfit ripping off Alice in Wonderland, or Rozen Maiden or any number of Mahou Shoujou anime?

I agree there are similarities, but at the same time, there are enough differences that I don't believe copyright has been infringed.

 

What most people here are overlooking is the fact that there's a very different mindset about copyright and intellectual property in Japan than there is in the United States.
In Japan, imitation and 'tributes' are a sincere form of flattery for an artist - you love their work so much that you devote your time and skills to emulating them. It's why doujinshi sales are quite legal in Japan. The original artist makes no profit off of these fancomics using their intellectual property, but they are quite aware they exist. Tons of doujinka make their livings off of these fancomics, which use the exact characters, not just their likeness, to satisfy fan desires. Heck, it's even an extremely lucrative way for doujinka to eventually become mangaka.
Every time a thread on this subject pops up here, I can't help but shake my head at how many people (particularly those located in the US -_- ) start bandying around copyright laws that are applied here, to countries that couldn't give two shakes less about it because they operate under different laws. The fact remains that whatever our opinions are, I don't think people should get up in arms or incensed until they've examined the situation from both a cultural mindset outside their own, and a legal standpoint by looking at these other country's copyright laws...
Just my two cents...

 

Actually, I don't think that it's wrong for companies to do this. To me, it's like cosplay; most people don't pitch a fits about cosplay, so why should they grouch about what is essentially "cosplay" for dolls?
Plus, most are not exact replicas. They tweak them a bit, so it's not an all-out copy. They're really more "inspired by/based on."

Personally, I would be flattered if a company thought my designs were nice enough to make real-life items of! I'd probably even end up buying said items, as well x"D

 

I feel the need to also mention that Japan (unlike the US) is a very 'collective' sort of nation- they place more emphasis on the group, and the good of all than on the individual. Chances are, if you emailed a Japanese artist to complain that they were being "ripped off", they'd probably just be chuffed that you'd even seen work from Japan. You can't apply American laws and ways of thinking to this sort of issue, as both MCPO_J117 and Chibihaku mentioned.

As for my opinion, I don't care. Even if they make a miniature Chanel bag with tiny 'c's on it, I doubt that that would significantly impact the billion dollar industry that Chanel is operating in. Nor would I pass up the chance to get a tiny one for my doll. Are those re-ment miniatures rip-offs because they're based on real food? Are the adorable little dollhouse miniatures rip-offs? Everything is based on something. Unless it's blatantly illegal (in this case it's quite murky) I'm not going to worry about it. Frankly, in this hobby, copied outfits is the last thing I need to concern myself with.

 

Wow, way to completely ignore the fact that quite a number of folks here from the US know exactly what you're talking about when it comes to differing laws in different places and have stated the exact same sentiment many times before.

Also, what does it matter if people are using their home country's laws when it comes to matters they personally feel is akin to thievery? There are some practices and rituals that are perfectly legal within other countries that no matter what, no, I will not feel is okay. I won't list examples as they are pretty extreme situations but even so, it's the same principle being that just because something is legal somewhere doesn't make it alright.

In any case, I don't personally have much of an opinion when it comes to tribute dolls and such as I feel I have not yet learned enough about how the whole system works to form one. I just wanted to point out that just because people disagree with the practice as they feel it is stealing, doesn't make them ignorant of how the world works.

 

Uh, the only outfits that actually look similar ar the two red ones. These companies aren't stealing. These outfits are just your average old english/victorian style, which Black Butler also uses. With the amount of people in the world making stuff, similarities are bound to happen, but I don't think these companies are copying Black Butler at all.

 

there is no copyright on fashion, only on the trademarks which is probably why Chanel, YSL and others make their logos such an important part of the design. They then take action for trademark infringement, not copying the design. Fashion has been around and evolving all sorts of permutations for centuries.

 

Hm, and pleasant way to ignore that I never assigned an actual number, nor said that everyone from the US was ignorant, but however you want to read that, its your bag.
Now, the reason I mention people's lack of consideration for other laws, because of the past instances where public outcry has caused a company to pull this doll faceup or that outfit for no reason other than people getting up in arms about something that wasn't even a blip on the rader to the actual IP holder or creator. People's opinions are one thing, but its entirely another thing when they start raging at companies and bother them enough to pull product.
In the end, I rather like seeing outfits and whatnot that come out based on these characters - it saves me the trouble, time, and annoyance of making them for myself. I see it as no less a bad thing than paying a costumer or paying a dollie seamstress on here to produce it for me - someone other than the IP holder is making a profit either way.

 

Normally I don't mind companies that have products which were inspired by existing copyright characters such as this, but a lot of these examples are blatant copies :/ Especially the last one. With the first picture, I can't believe they had the gall to copy the whole 'scene' that the original character was in! I would definitely be offended if I were the original artist of any of these copyright characters </3

 

That would be Shakespeare's Hamlet, right?

The artist of Kuroshitsuji lifted that pose off the most common interpretation of the famous skull scene somewhere near the end of Hamlet. It's got a lot of connotations, which is undoubtedly why the artist chose to use it, but it is by no means original.

Neither is the outfit, by the way, since it's comprised of all of the favourite elements of pseudo-victorian and lolita fashion. Which isn't the artist's creation either, and they will NEVER deserve any credit for anything except for the one specific way they arranged those elements.

 

I understand that the skull part is from Shakespeare, but it's the way they specifically arranged and dressed the scene up as compared to the photo.

 

Copyright law in Japan and the U.S. is very, very similar. If anything, Japanese copyright law is stricter because they do not have a concept of public domain. Whether people in Japan choose to file suit under their laws is a different story (obviously, many manga authors choose not to do so) but the idea that Japan has significantly different copyright laws isn't really accurate.

 

I would like to pull up a possibility that may have been overlooked.

I've seen it happen that people ask companies to produce certain things - anything from sculpts to accessories to garments - and if they ask enough, the companies sometimes do. It is entirely possible that people contacted these companies requesting tribute outfits - or "clothes that look like something from Black Butler!" as the case may be - and the demand for them was high enough that the company figured, "Hey! Why not?" I have no idea if this is true or not for any of the outfits listed in the thread, or any of the more recent "tribute" dolls and clothing I've seen popping up as of late, but I don't think it's a possibility many people have taken into account. Imagine how a company would feel if they thought they were producing something their customers were asking for, only to be buried in heaps of angry letters that end up convincing them to pull the product. It's something to think about.

Personally, this sort of thing exists in a major gray area to me. On the one hand, I wonder - were the artists contacted before the outfits were released? Probably not, and that I don't agree with. On the other hand, I doubt cosplayers - or people who sell hand-made costumes for a living to cosplayers who are not-so handy with a needle and thread - get lawyers to draft licenses and permissions for them to replicate designs for profit, either.

I'm really not entirely certain how I feel about tribute and cosplay cropping up for sale from companies in fair-sized quantities. I think it's borderline unoriginal to feel the need to use someone else's designs to turn a profit, but at the same time I don't think anyone who orders a cosplay for their dolls from a tailor, or the tailor who makes it, is doing anything wrong. Personally, I'm not sure I'd buy a doll or outfit directly from a company if it were too closely referenced from an existing work that I was aware of - I wouldn't feel right about it. But at the same time, I'm not about to crucify anyone who does.

I think what honestly bothers me most is that these are companies making these things, rather than individuals working under commission or OOAK pieces. That means they are making multiple outfits, sometimes in quite a high quantity, and intending to sell them all for the sole purpose of making money by playing off the popularity of another successful work. Maybe it's the whole lack of respect for the work that gets me - I see cosplay as more of a tribute, as in, "I love XYZ character from Manga ABC; I'm going to dress up like him/her/it!" I see companies producing these things and think more long the lines of, "Hey, XYZ character from Manga ABC is ridiculously popular; let's capitalize on that success for ourselves!"​

 

Honestly, you can hardly get more different than these two pieces without completely changing styles...

1) I don't even know if the hat from Angel Studio even counts as a Top Hat... If it is, it is a highly modified one given it has a squared rim that folds up in the front. The hat in the Kuroshitsuji picture is clearly your run of the mill Top Hat.

2) Angel Studio has a bell sleeve with chain detail and small ruffles peaking out from the end of the sleeve (it would be about an inch if this was full scale instead of doll sized clothing.) Ciel has straight sleeves with button accents and ruffles that would be sticking out at least two inches (if not more) from the sleeve. This isn't to mention that they both have an almost "cuff" like design (for lack of a better word, as I don't know all the fashion lingo) Angel Studios is at the elbow, when Ciel's is at the 3/4 mark.

3) On to the collar... Angel Studio has a fur lined double pointed collar with decorative embellishment; the shirt has a simple straight collar. Ciel has a very plain, almost non-existent jacket collar, but the shirt has ruffles galore!... Not to mention he's wearing a huge bow...

4) Angel studio's Jacket doesn't even have bottons, when Ciel has bottons more reminiscent of the Rococo era than the Victorian era.

5) Angel studio's Jacket has a straight, sleek, pointed cut, with more embellishments, completely in line with the collar. Ciel has... more ruffles, also keeping in line with his whole outfit.

6) Angel Studio's half pant's have a decorative strip of material and button design on the sides, when Ciel has no such embellishment.

7) Angel Studio has a long train attached to the half pants, when Ciel's has shorter, and more fancifully designed fabric, hanging over a half cage.

My conclusion: so different, it boggles my mind...

Edit: and, bringing up the second comparison: I belive that picture is a fan art piece. I was looking through Kuroshitsuji picks on DeviantArt and saw it there. If that is the case, the person being plagiarized would be the actual artiest, and not the maker of the manga. It would also be best if you listed the artiest... I tried to find it again, but it's getting too late now, and my head is killing me.

 

This. Doujinshi and the like are tolerated for practical reasons, like producing the next round of up and coming mangaka, or to allow fans to interact with the franchises they enjoy; Japanese pop culture is very smart about getting fans involved, which is why they develop such large and complex followings. But there have been lawsuits around doujinshi, rare as they are, and around other copyright issues as well in anime/manga.

As for the OP, it's a case-by-case thing for me. I delightedly bought an overcoat from Tata's Paradise called a "Castiel" - a clear imitation of Castiel's coat from Supernatural, although I don't think it's completely identical. But the thing is, Castiel's coat is a very generic sort of a short trenchcoat, in a very generic beige/khaki colour. If you put it on anybody but Misha Collins, it wouldn't be Castiel's coat, really. Lately Tata's is putting out obvious versions of Mario, Rilakkuma, and other copyrighted franchise items; they also have Calvin Klein underwear. Now, I don't think they are a real threat to the companies in question, but I'm less comfortable with that. And I was downright annoyed by everything about Soom's Hyperon, from the sculpt to the outfit, because it was just too much of Vampire Hunter D. Legally it's up to the creator to decide what to do about it; personally, I think I'd just like to see some nod towards the creator if you're going to replicate in fine detail their work. With clothing, though, true originality is especially difficult because there are only so many elements you can change on a garment and still keep it reasonably functional.

 

I'll put in my two cents too. x3;

I like to design clothes, and in my opinion my designs are EPIC WIN. But I can't sew. At all. Working on learning, but I just don't seem to get it. >: But, anyways, I also cosplay.
There are tons of sites over the net where you can buy cosplay outfits and I for one think having one sell doll sized cosplays would be great.
However. On cosplay sites, they say where the clothes are from and even have pictures to compare the outfit. Blatantly making an obvious cosplay of something and not telling any of the things that would count as credit is disgusting. >:

 

I'll throw in my two cents... since cosplay has been mentioned in this thread a lot.. I have to ask, do you honestly think any of those shops that sell cosplay costumes online got permission from the original creators to make and sell it? I'm sure 95% of them have never even attempted to do that. So, why on earth do you hold doll companies to a standard that even the cosplay companies themselves don't hold?

At a recent convention, I had an SD wearing a short black wig in a black tailcoat, white shirt with ruffles, black pants, dressy black shoes and holding a serving tray with a tea pot on it. Seriously, that was it. He did have red eyes, but they were nearly impossible to see because of his bangs. However, I had almost 30 people come up and demand to hold or take pictures of "Sebastian", even though the card I had placed with his information ( sculpt, wig by outfit by, price, etc.) listed him as "Gabe".

Seriously, this is him.

It's just a generic formal outfit that I got from Alice's Collections. The tray is an ashtray I got from a party supply store and I got the teapot from a local Harps grocery store in their toy aisle. So, surely I meant for him to look like Sebastian right? Nope. I thought he'd look good with black hair and that formal outfit was the only one I had at the time that would fit him. A friend suggested that I go with a theme of "Floral Spring Teaparty" at the convention, though I think she meant it more in the Alice in Wonderland sense... but I worked with what I had, and everyone was convinced that he had to be a custom Sebastian doll.

Now, I am going to have a group of inspired by Black Butler cosplays going on in the future, by throwing my own twists with the designs. I don't doubt someone will see my redhead holding a chainsaw and immediately think "Grell" or see my white haired boy with a hidden face and a black robe and immediately think "Undertaker", but truthfully these pieces are just that, pieces of things we associate with characters.

You know, I've thought about buying the dress from Dollmore that was shown, but see, the doll I want to wear it hates hats, so here's my question...

If a doll just wears a part of the outfit, like say.. a jacket, or a hat, does that mean it's an "obvious" copy as well, or is it the fact that the entire ensemble exists that bothers you? Lots of people order full outfits and only have their dolls wear a piece of it at a time. People like mixing and matching bits from outfits in order to make their doll seem more unique. After all, tons of people buy grab bags that have pieces from lots of different outfits in them, and yet usually all of the pieces can be combined to make one cute outfit, even if it doesn't all match. Even pieces from the doll outfits that have been shown in this thread could wind up in pieces in some sort of grab bag event, so what then? I'm just curious really.

 

I do not see the clothes like a copy, maybe it could be some kind of inspiration, but that is only my opinion.

The clothes from Kuroshitsuji, not are exclusive from that anime, but from a period of time in England, you can see similar outfits in all the movies that are made to represent that time precisely. I also see some differences when you start to compare them.

I do not know, maybe the artist will feel very happy that her/his drawings had inspired that kind representation of their work; at least I think that.

 

It is said that imitation is the highest form of flattery.