Copyright of doll vs Copyright of photos of dolls?

The doll isn't a bootleg, it's a default Volks Megu. The wig, eyes, and face up are identical to the first Pure Skin version of Megu and they added Volks Gothic style eyelashes and painted in the teeth in the paintings. The only company well known for copying Volks back in 2004 was Forever Doll, and they didn't do a Four Sisters knock off. Not to mention their knock offs were ugly as sin, and this doll isn't ugly, and again, is identical to Megu.

 

Actually from where I am, someone is well not copying but experimenting on the concept of bjds trying to make his own version but he did not plagiarize his "inspiration" doll from supia( I think)
. Since BJDs are expensive, and since we also wanted our own locally made bjds, he is actually generating a bjd from scratch. Take note, he is not copying.

http://fatboystudios.livejournal.com/

 

You're right, what I should have said was "what if it was a Barbie she painted" instead of a coca-cola can.
I still stand by what I said because a painting, a photo and a sculpture piece all have different levels of "whats allowed." For instance, I completely agree with you that if you were paid to model in photographs or "runway" for Hottopic they would legally have to put your name somewhere, however, for a painting thats not necessary (and most painters dont give the names of their models.) Thats just fact, lots use sculpture pieces in their work too and I have yet to see any names... The art world tends to "mingle" quite a bit.

 

No, honey. One of the things you will come to realize when you put your creative work into the real world is that outright derivative work is frowned upon. There's nothing original under the sun, it's true. But the creativity lies in *doing your own work*, as in you have a take on something, or a way of showing something, that is new, novel, fresh, relevant. Like I said, Eli Effenberger does her own work--find me someone who predates her who has done very similar work, digital or no, and I will concede your point. However, I express my doubts that you can.

You have grasped the beginning of the theory but you have yet to work it fully through. This comes in critical reflection of your own work and opening it up to others.

 

Photographs, lightbox, tracing, and appropriate use of colour. Time-consuming, sure. I did it when I was 14 and convinced I could pull a visual artist out of the tortured depths of my soul.

But if that's your perception of art...*shrug* I mean, I see it from here, that's what was done.

 

You know, i could be wrong here, but "outright derivitave work" seems to imply that anything that is obviously derived from a specific source would be frowned upon, which, from how i'm reading it, would mean anything at all, such as flowers, vases, cars, dolls, and actual living breathing people. it's been mentioned earlier, what about vases used in still life paintings? That vase might have been made by an artist, sculpted to represent something (an actual creature/object/whatever, emotions, concepts, etc) and maybe drawing that vase would be obvious to someone where it came from. Is that any different, really?

I'm not particularly knowledgable about artists, art, and all, but i'm sure your artist of choice isn't the first to use the doll concept in that way, whether the artist, be it your example, the subject of this thread, or otherwise, imagined up the face and body shape or derived it from another doll or person.

You seem to have little faith in people and art from this comment. Aside from sounding kinda condecending, you seem to be suggesting that anyone who tries to paint from a still-life, a staged scenerio, or using particular objects, and paints realistically rather than very stylistically is just copying and tracing rather than drawing or painting from life and objects. I'm not saying that some people don't trace or use those methods, but sometimes its not so bad to appreciate someone's artistic abilities, whether their painting majestic impossible scenery pulled out of the depths of their imagination or their recreating scenes they've laid out to convey some sort of feeling or message. Art comes in many forms, and sometimes it comes from life or other creations rather than pure imagination--which, by the way, is never really pure. Everything is tainted by what has already been percieved. Some people just choose to convey realistic perception over stylized perception.

 

Minimee's are limited to ten for this very reason. No mass production, just an art sculpt.

- - - - -


On the note of barbies, bjd's and fine art:

Using an object/person in art is completely acceptable, but there are "fair use" issues, at least in the US. Because copyright laws vary from country to country, it can come down to a moral issue.
There was a painting shown above with barbie in it. That is an acceptable way to use barbie in art. Because "In short, we must often… look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work." Its pointing out the way young girls worship barbie.

The PAINTINGS of the megu are not hurting Volks. Volks does not sell limited edition oil paintings of their dolls. Also, we do not know the meaning behind this persons paintings. If she can justify using a doll, such as using it to represent the ideal female, then it is [probably] acceptable.
Now if she is tracing over other images, then that is a problem. Reference/appropriation for the sake of art is usually ok, but you have to be able to back up WHY you are using that particular copyrighted thing.

 

May come as a shock, but there are a lot of artists who work representationally who don't trace or use a lightbox - what a dreary and tiresome way of emptying all the joy and discovery out of painting and drawing! I'd rather fold laundry or scrub the toilet than try to make artzes that way.

I don't doubt that Yan Jing uses photographs to some extent - keeping a doll in one position for even a few days is almost impossible, even in a closed, private studio, and her large pieces are very obviously the products of a few months' work, at least. Also, she probably works on more than one painting at once, yet seems to have just the one doll, and oil painting around expensive pieces of resin is -well, problematic. But I don't see the obvious 'tells' of a grid-system or projection in her work, either...

Technique isn't what makes a piece of art, and 'creativity' is simply the driving impulse that keeps an artist working thru their process. Content and meaning is what I look for in a piece of art, not subject matter or the illusion of originality. Derivative work is just fine, as long as there is a justifiable reason for the derivation - one of the most significant strategies of modernism and post-modernism in particular is conscious critical assessment and referral to previously-existing structures and artifacts. If it were not so, photography would not be considered art - as has been pointed out previously in this thread - and in fact, the development of modernist thinking about visual arts and their relevance is linked directly with the evolution of photography, and the change it made in our understanding of perception, representation, and the power of editorial prcoess.

 

I found this thread very interesting, mostly to find out about this artist in China.


I would love to have a painting of my dollies on my wall, not these though, even if I have exact same Megu, the paintings are so cold though well made.

Do not think it is wrong to paint Volk's dolls, or other dolls.

 

Haha, very well said, I agree. I'm a representational oil painter, and I have never used any of those "techniques." Once you actually take the time to develop this skills its actually much faster and better than using some tracer tool. :3

 

Is it possible and this is just a guess. Celebrities can have their image copied on anything and because they are a public persona there is no sort of copyright. Can the same be said for a doll? I know nothing about the law so I am just throwing this out there.
I like his paintings. I think they are pretty. I don't think I would buy one it wouldnt go with my decor. I am totally biased because I LOVE the four sisters mold.

 

volks might be pretty angry if they find out about this...

 

QFE! I would actually go as far to say that without some reference to the society and world of the creator art is nothing but decoration. Nice, but ultimately meaningless. If there is any artwork that seems timeless, it's because the issues addressed are still considered of value by the modern world and because our culture puts an intrinsic value on old things. I think the reason there is wider spread appreciation for classical Greek art than medieval European art is that the modern world view can associate more readily with classical Greeks than with medieval Europeans, not because the technical rendering skills of the medieval Europeans are less finessed. And if you have to talk about your world, then I really don't think it is inappropriate to make direct reference to the objects, places, and ideas you are surrounded with. A doll is a natural starting point to open the dialogue about youth's inundation into the cult of materialism and female objectification, and hell if I were working on the scale she works on and in the same medium, I would sure as hell want some physical reference too.

But I am seriously baffled by the idea that making up the visual details of a face give the artwork more "creativity." By this logic the 5 minute doodle of my RPG character is more "creative" than the 24"x32" self portrait I spent a month on, because the one has fictitious facial features and the other one was just "copied." I just can't reconcile that in my brain.

 

Does a person need to get permission to paint pictures of any of the BJD's? I can understand if a particular doll was to be used and it belonged to another owner, to ask and see if they would mind painting their doll? But do you have to have permission from the actual doll maker/company? Can the picture then be sold, or is that illegal? I looked but couldnt find a thread about this.

 

Id say no, if someone is painting just a random mold, and not a particular doll that is owned by an individual, then they dont need permission from the company. As long as that person doesnt claim that they made the doll or came up with its design, and gave propper credit for where they referenced it. But I do think they would need permission from an individual doll owner if they are painting that owner's doll. As to selling a painted picture of a company doll, that isnt illegal, again as long as the artist gives propper credit and takes no claim to the design of the doll they painted.

 

You might find this thread interesting: Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

 

Well, I know that if you're taking photos of a doll and then say, selling the photos as prints or something you DO need permission of the company since the subject of your photograph is the doll they created. I think that if your painting is actually a likeness of the doll (and you're not just using the doll as a model for pose reference or something) then yes, you need the permission of the company. That being said, I think the vast majority of companies are fairly willing to give their okays - sometimes with stipulations (Volks will say no if their dolls are portrayed with dolls from other companies), but they're generally pretty relaxed about it.

Besides, it never hurts to ask, even if you don't need their permission and avoid ending up like certain someones from the Dolly Debate section.

 

Before anyone can answer that question you need to be a lot more specific about exactly how you intend to paint a doll.

For instance, Mijn Schatje used direct tracing of pictures of specific dolls she had downloaded and used without permission to create "digital art." This was a direct violation of copyright, as it was nothing more than copying, then manipulating an existing digital image digitally.

Tigerbaby makes old fashioned artwork "the hard way," making physical paintings with physical materials. There is no digital manipulation involved. She makes a drawing with her hands and tools on physical media, and turns that sketch into a finished physical work of art. The doll itself is merely the subject of a "still life" painting, and she does not need to get permission any more than she would need to get permission to paint a Wedgewood vase.

 

There would be no digital work involved at all. Mediums used would be oil, acrylic, graphite etc...what I am saying, if the doll is definalty a Dollstown doll, and is recongnizable as such..... if Dollstown (or any other company) saw my work and said..hey thats my doll...would I be in trouble? I think my question has been answered, and that would be to inquire before-hand. Thanks to all for re-ply...much appreciated.

 

I'm just going to point out that media used to create the image isn't important. It's just as easy to trace/copy in traditional media - eg, running off a big print of a photograph and painting over it, or using a projector or a light table. Likewise, there are many digital artists and painters who do THE SAME EXACT WORK that could be done traditionally - painting an image from scratch - only instead of a paintbrush they use a stylus and instead of paints they select digital colours on a digital palette. The amount of work, effort and skill required to make the painting is identical, though the different media have different ups and downs.