1. It has come to the attention of forum staff that Dollshe Craft has ceased communications with dealers and customers, has failed to provide promised refunds for the excessive waits, and now has wait times surpassing 5 years in some cases. Forum staff are also concerned as there are claims being put forth that Dollshe plans to close down their doll making company. Due to the instability of the company, the lack of communication, the lack of promised refunds, and the wait times now surpassing 5 years, we strongly urge members to research the current state of this company very carefully and thoroughly before deciding to place an order. For more information please see the Dollshe waiting room. Do not assume this cannot happen to you or that your order will be different.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dollshe Craft and all dolls created by Dollshe, including any dolls created under his new or future companies, including Club Coco BJD are now banned from Den of Angels. Dollshe and the sculptor may not advertise his products on this forum. Sales may not be discussed, no news threads may be posted regarding new releases. This ban does not impact any dolls by Dollshe ordered by November 8, 2023. Any dolls ordered after November 8, 2023, regardless of the date the sculpt was released, are banned from this forum as are any dolls released under his new or future companies including but not limited to Club Coco BJD. This ban does not apply to other company dolls cast by Dollshe as part of a casting agreement between him and the actual sculpt or company and those dolls may still be discussed on the forum. Please come to Ask the Moderators if you have any questions.
    Dismiss Notice

Copying company outfits

Jun 23, 2013

    1. It's because if you are going to fault people for copying a dress, you're going to include people who decided they wanted to make something with that basic shape and make tweaks to it that ended up looking similar to whatever limited that someone accuses them of copying. There is a huge difference between "I want that exact limited dress but I don't want to buy it" "I like parts of that limited dress but other aspects of it are a deal breaker for me, I'll make my own and change the things I don't like" and "I'm going to make a red prom dress with a lace collar!"
      By saying that "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" is wrong, you are lumping the second two in with the first one, and labelling them equally guilty
       
    2. Yea I think the confusion is people don't really understand what goes into design, and also so dead set on their way of thinking that they ignore the simple explanations that have been made. And I totally agree with you again with this post haha.
       
    3. Gosh this topic is on fire today! I think it's worth mentioning again that the topic is not what to do if you accidentally end up replicating a similar design by someone else, so much as is it ethical to copy a known design to the letter because you cannot acquire it for various reasons.

      It feels as if a case is being made that copying certain designs is okay if they are "pretty generic" anyway. As a member who sews and creates my own patterns quite regularly, it's easy for me to look at a design and see the basic structure and what was tweaked from the basic blocks to create the design before me. In this manner I could argue that every design ever made is generic, because for a successful garment you need a good basic structure to work from. Picking and choosing what falls under the umbrella of "creative enough" to be protected in this case is a bit nitpicky and to me looks like a lot more trouble then it's worth. :daisy
       
    4. Like I just said, my concern is that "is it ethical?" Will turn into "attempting to copy limited designs is unethical!" And start a witch hunt. And you can't tell the difference between someone who was trying to make an exact copy, someone who was trying to change things, and someone who ended up with the same thing by accident.
       
    5. This thread has been moved to General Discussion. Let's keep it clean, folks.
       
    6. I think we are discussing two different things then. 8) What I'm talking about is not the final product and how it will appear to the eyes that see it, so much as the original intent of the creator of this product. No witch hunts here! Just honest curiosity over how ethical it can be considered to knowingly recreate an item because it is difficult to acquire. :goldstar
       
    7. Exactly and that is what I have been trying to explain to you with how using patterns is okay, but you kept arguing against this. I am confused on why this is your point now.

      I agree, I think this topic has gotten side tracked and confused. I think you are right on the money and it has been what I have been trying to explain. The topic question was is it okay to copy an outfit that a company produced which implies the intent is to copy it outright and exactly, which I was trying to explain is wrong. I completely agree with you.

      And I think we need to get back on topic and not argue semantics because this topic was never is it okay to use patterns or is it okay to be inspired by an outfit. It is whether it is okay to copy an outfit completely, with the intent to copy it. Because right now we are all going around in circles just so someone can try and prove a point to convince someone who has been affected by copying in the clothing industry that it is okay to copy, when my feeling about that will never be changed.
       
    8. I have a degree in Art so I'm familiar with the "creative struggle." Having said that, everyone gets their ideas from something/ someone else. So claiming that you have intellectual/ creative rights for being the first person to think of having an asymmetrical sleeve on a dress or shirt is ridiculous. Sorry but art should be viewed by the mastery of the artist. And claiming that no one should be able to duplicate another person's pattern because that would be disrespectful? The ultimate reward for an artist would be to start a trend/ movement; which is large scale copying of a design and adding a few different touches.
       
    9. So you would be fine if you did a painting and someone copied it to a T? We aren't talking about someone taking influence from something and using it in their own piece, we are talking about the intent to replicate an exact outfit. You find it okay to replicate an exact outfit and not support the company that makes it? Being inspired by something is one thing. And using a pattern is one thing but most designers do not use patterns when doing their own clothing designs. Patterns you buy are made to create your own items but when you copy to every detail an outfit or dress that is a slap in the face to the designer because now you have the exact dress but the designer didn't receive money or credit for it. Understand the difference?
       
    10. Sorry but your logic is flawed, as you are comparing apples to oranges. Copying a pattern is not the same as creating a duplicate. I shall elaborate:

      ...we do buy what you called "copies" under the description I used for clothing- similar but with your own details. ONE company first decided to sculpt ball jointed dolls made of resin that looked like anime characters after being inspired by manga/ anime and dolls. When they became popular other companies came forward and showed off their own resin dolls (at a similar height, joint system = copying pattern) that looked like anime figures. Then companies came forward that made more realistic looking anime dolls, and some companies made bigger dolls. Then ONE individual decided to make an elf doll, then another made a centaur doll. How many companies/ individuals make centaur/ elf dolls now? On that note I noticed that LUTS has quite a few dolls now that share resemblances to dollfie dreams.

      As for recasts, those are a person's attempt to claim to be that maker and sell items as that maker which, as someone already pointed out, is illegal.

      To conclude, copying patterns- like the idea for the form/ essence of ABJDs is ENCOURAGED by everyone here. We all look at the newest company to show off their dollies and get approved by DOA for posting eye candy. The apples to oranges reference is in regards to the fact that copying patterns should not be compared to one offs because there is a difference in claiming to be that maker and having a product that resembles it (regardless of degree) who does not claim to be someone else. You could claim that the person who uses the pattern could also use the exact same materials (or facial features in dolls) but as someone else pointed out, that is difficult (though not impossible). So the question comes down to degree.

      Sorry but on a personal level I don't agree with equating the art of designing fashion to the art of sculpting faces.
      If someone fully intended to copy the entire outfit of something then go ahead as long as you say you made it based on "___" or whatever period.
      As for high prices, I would counter that it is the high price that encourages people to copy and sell. They want a profit and your outfit offers a high yield, especially if they have the means to make it as cheaply as possible. Then it comes down to craftsmanship and that's where the cheapo knockoffs fall flat. If designers sold their items for a reasonable amount of money this wouldn't happen near to the degree it does.


      Actually I have been copied in pottery (not painting does that matter?) and I was quite impressed with their craftsmanship, not to mention flattered. Though not enough to start a trend, needless to say. lol.

      And on the point of having a painting "copied to a T" ...then pray tell what do you call art prints? Galleries (and Amazon) sell the prints of famous paintings all the time and the money certainly won't benefit the artist. I'm happy that I'll have a chance to own one someday. And to further my point, I also know that what I'm getting is a print and at 3 dollars a very cheap one... >,< So craftsmanship is certainly in question, but they aren't trying to pass it off as the original.
      And in fact we are talking about duplicating a clothing item in all forms, so those that are altered and those that are carbon copies are BOTH being discussed.

      They are taking things from other historical or cultural fashions to create their designs, exactly why should they have creative rights for being the one to mix and match it. There are only so many combinations of sleeves, waist lines, ribbons and unicorn tears one can make.
       
    11. frankly I have several Barbie outfits I want to have made for my incoming EID girl. If you couldn't make 'copies' of clothing... you could kiss cosplay good bye entirely... how many times have you seen Barbie's ICONIC outfits that were not actually 'Mattel' products.
       
    12. There is more to fashion design than a pattern. There is nothing wrong with using a pattern to make a dress. But having the intent to make an exact replica outfit that a company and designer has put out is wrong no matter how you try and justify it. If there is a pattern you can buy of the exact dress than fine, but making an exact copy of an outfit there are no patterns for is wrong. That is the designers work.

      And how is making an exact replica/copy not the same as making a duplicate. If the details are identical then it is the same thing. Yes there are many doll companies but none manufacture the exact same doll with the exact same details. If you saw someone with a doll they said was "inspired by luts" with the same exact details in the same exact places, you would think that is wrong and that it was copied. There really is a difference between being inspired by someone's work and copying someone's work completely details and all, and I thing there is a problem if people don't see that. And just because it is technically legal to make and exact duplicate/copy if an outfit/fashion, doesn't make it right. There are many things that are technically legal, but on principle are wrong so people need to stop bringing up the legal argument. The question asked if it was okay, not if it was legal.

      You keep saying clothes that resemble other outfits, but we aren't talking about being inspired by outfits or creating your own version, we are talking about copying/duplicating a design. If you make an outfit that is identical to an outfit that once was for sale, and someone asks where you got it, people are going to say oh I made it. When in reality they copied it and didn't give credit to the designer. You cannot say something is inspired by a certain company when it is exactly the same. That is not what inspired by means.

      Okay you were copied in pottery, but is that your job? If that was your livelyhood and someone was copying your pottery would you still feel the same? I don't think so, because that is taking money away from you.

      You cannot compare art prints to duplicating an outfit to a t. The only thing similar is if someone painted a copy of a painting to be identical to the original painting and that is illegal. Buying art prints is completely different because either 1) the original artist gets compensated for their work, or 2) the companies selling the prints own the rights to sell and make prints. There have been many cases of companies and places being sued for selling prints of art they don't own the rights or licensing to.

      The original question asked if it was okay to copy an outfit, not be inspired by it, not make something similar, but to copy. I am strictly talking about copying and making the outfit look the exact same. Don't understand why it is so hard for people to understand how that can affect the designer and company making it.
       
    13. I'm not entirely sure if this was directed to me, but as you mentioned the respect angle, I thought it might be so. I'll address it here, because I feel like my point was missed. ^^; If it wasn't related to my comments, then please forgive me replying to you directly.

      I'm not sure what having a degree in Art has to do with anything, personally. I have a degree in psychology and biology, it does not make me an idol or expert in either field, and it doesn't mean that I know anything worth my salt about them @n@ believe me, I'd be the first to express my own ineptitude and lack of knowledge. Human indexes of knowledge are continually changing to suit whatever zeitgeist is current, thus, my own knowledge decreed by a degree may be invalid later on, or even now. ^u^The more a person understands their position in the world, the more they understand that they do not understand [sorry to go zen!]. All a degree means to me, is that I attended school, went to some classes, paid a lot of money, and got a piece of paper. Doesn't mean I am educated or any bit of an authority. I'm also not in the field of art, though I worked in animation, so I don't know what exactly you mean by the term "creative struggle", unfortunately. I'm running on nothing but guts and intuitive deliberation here, on my part.

      I agree with you, "nothing exists in a vacuum", I wrote as much in my first post. Influence does not exist in a vacuum. However, and it is a big one, I respectfully disagree partly with the rest of your sentiment. Claiming intellectual rights over an asymmetrical sleeve had nothing to do with the original post, which was about copying an outfit. O__o It's a bit hard for me to explain, but I think that an asymmetrical sleeve or a pattern is more of a "tool/component/aspect" whereas a completely designed outfit is presented as a "finished product". Tools/components/aspects may be mixed, changed, tweaked, in infinite combinations. I don't think there's a finite measurable end to creativity. But copying a "finished product", is disrespectful to the original artist. I think without this distinction of mind, the argument you present [and has been presented elsewhere in this thread] becomes very convoluted.

      I also extremely strongly disagree with the statements that art should be viewed through a mastery lens, and that the ultimate reward for an artist is starting a trend. I cannot fathom your reasoning for this. I think another distinction here must also be made. Starting a trend, or movement, or large scale copying by a different party, is not the goal of art. It is not the goal of a business either. Capitalist models of business, or the aim towards growth possibly through mass production, would certainly be threatened by anything which copies/steals their product, thereby damaging their own sales potentials. This is one of the huge problem with recasts, but that is a discussion for another thread. I don't even know how to begin trying to understand your angle that the reward for an artist is inspiring a trend that others copy. Artists, who make their livelihood through their trade, would also certainly be threatened and likely unhappy at copycats such as illegal prints, as they are losing profits AND/OR recognition through having their "final products" stolen/copied.

      That is what I mean by disrespectful. They are damaged when their creative efforts are copied and shared without recognition or homage. To respect an artist then, is to recognize their work, SUPPORT them, likely through purchase, and to encourage their endeavors. I also never dictated what others should do with their lives, only that these were my own views and people who know me are probably subject to them ^^
       
    14. Well said!
       
    15. Cosplay or making Barbie outfits in EID size would go more under "hommage", I think. The purpose of the outfit is a different one; you cannot put a "Barbie" outfit in EID or human size on a Barbie, hence it is different to copying a BJD outfit exactly for exactly the same purpose (a BJD wearing it).

      Now the thread starter asked about an own copy for personal use... And how I understood it, even about sewing such a copy yourself. And the outfit in question would be one long sold out.

      Well, if replicas were "all bad", then movie and theatre would have problems with their costume collections, wouldn't they? Often, costumes are also outfits "from the past" - those that aren't available anymore, and not because they were limited on purpose, just because they are not sold anymore due to fashion changes. So the copy of the unlimited, but sold out BJD shirt that would be made by a person themselves - and without taking apart the original shirt and making an exact copy, but rather inventing something very similar, and also not made for commercial purposes - might fall into the same catergory... Theoretically.

      On the other hand, why copy at all? If you sew the shirt yourself, why not let yourself be inspired by the outfit, make a similar (not necessarily the same) pattern, but change details, add your own style? Isn't it much more fun and also, wouldn't it feel better? You can make it look very close to the other shirt, but not copy all the small details. This way, you would harm noone and still have your fun; I think it would be more "honorable", or ethical.
       
    16. A million times yes.:chocoberry
       
    17. So wait are you saying if I like an sd sized outfit(lets say a ballgown with a fitted top and ruffled skirt fairly simple like you see at proms all around the country and in every bridal shop) and decide to make a copy for my slim mini (in different fabric because really very few people have access to the same fabric that doll companies do) and I work with lots of trial and error on my own and make a dress that looks like it I am as morally and legally wrong as a recaster? I am sorry but I find that to be a bit much. Yes selling reproduction outfits on a mass scale takes away from the companies but I fail to see how a individual making a personal use copy using my own talent hurts the sales of a company. Do we have to know what every company makes in order to maker anything?
       
    18. ^^; Stella, nobody has said that in this conversation. I'm unsure of how you've come to that conclusion. The point of reference for injury of mass sales was in response to crou's post, separate to personal use, as crou had stated that the goal of art was to inspire copies.

      If you "work really hard to make a dress in a different fabric and size" [paraphrased], then you have not copied an outfit in all of its details; you have incorporated change, through the change of fabric. I believe you're contradicting yourself somewhere in there.

      Also, I would pay homage to any company/maker that I had taken inspiration from, were I to intentionally copy the design of something, even if I had changed parts of it. Does that clarify things?

      As a clarification, a recaster is specific to doll recasting. Recasts, while tangentially related, are not the topic of this discussion.
       
    19. But CrippledCuriosity stated here that my her definition I would be in the wrong based on intent alone. If we are going to argue copy vs inspired by maybe we should outline what those mean. If the difference is changing something how much has to be change and is the bar set differently for personal use as it would be for a mass commercial run or perhaps even a single seamstress doing a commission?
       
    20. Well, if I had to put it this way, for my own personal delineation of the ideas for the acceptability of 'inspired' and 'copied' items, I would still say that both are not acceptable to me, including the issue of intent. None of this "oh I accidentally made a dress that looked identical to something else" kind of thing. Intent would signify an active, conscious, deliberate effort to copy. 'Inspired' is a bit of a lesser evil on the condition that source works are properly attributed and credit is paid where it's due. 'Copied' items, whether sourced or not, are undesirable in my books; I'd rather just put in the effort to get the real thing. Failing my ability to acquire the desired outfit, I would probably just accept that I can't have it, and move on.

      The issue is not one of "changing how much", as that is possibly an infinitely circular argument, not conducive to logical resolution. For me, it doesn't matter "how much" you change something. It only matters that you intended to copy, or intended to be inspired by, and should give credit where it's due, regardless of whether or not your inspired product looked anything like the outfit in question.

      I believe this is the same, in principle, as what Curiosity is trying to express in his post.

      ^^ I also wrote in my first post that I would be unwelcoming to copying via seamstress for a commission as well.