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

Copyright of doll vs Copyright of photos of dolls?

Jun 15, 2006

    1. My specific question would be: I've been toying with the idea of compiling my better pics and photostories and attempt to get the published. Of course I won't be claiming to have made the dolls, just taking the pictures. Do you think there'd be any legal issues with that?
       
    2. I think most major companies wouldn't publish something like that out of fear that, because they are a major company, it WOULD be worth the mold-maker's time to sue them. If someone is making five dollars off prints of dolls, why bother? If someone is making millions and lands on the best seller list with photos of their dolls, you can bet they won't be happy with that.

      Dolls are different from landscapes. Mattel can sue for selling photos of dolls; Yellowstone park can't sue for taking photos of Old Faithful. If you take a photo of a sculpture owned by a museum, you HAVE to have the museum's permission to republish that image. ESPECIALLY if it's for sale.

      You might be able to get it out on a vanity press, where you pay them to publish it, but that's probably as far as you can get without first getting the maker's permission to publish it.

      I'm coming at this from a sculptor's viewpoint. If someone were making buckets of money by taking pictures of my artwork, then you can bet I'd be irritated.
       
    3. It's good to know that, in general, actual terms of copyright vary from country to country (which is why there are so many counterfeit items in areas such as China), so it's an interesting thought. However, it really all depends. You can sue for anything these days, and I'm pretty sure if one of the companies wanted to sue over it, they could. And as someone said, you against one of them would not be very good. If you were serious about trying to make a profit/get it published/etc. I think the best bet would be to consult the companies and, if possible, get written permission.

      30% change to make it yours, I'm not positive about (but I know if you change it enough at some point it is yours), but you need to be careful. Most people might flip out when I say this, but contrary to popular belief, making fanart/fanfiction and profit off it (or not, I've read some cases where people have gotten bagged for fanfiction they wrote for fun) is technically illegal (yes, you drew the picture, but you don't own the copyright to the subject matter which can, and does, cause problems!). It just depends if the companies decide to do anything about it (there are arrests every so often in Japan, even, at doujinshi conventions over copyright infringement, but most of the time companies don't care because no one is making THAT much money off of it that they feel slighted/worth the money to go pursue).

      Basically, Copyright is not something to play around with and definately not something you would want to play a guessing game with no matter how small or how innocent you think it is. If you don't have your bases covered, you will face the potential of getting sued and into a mess that you don't deserve to have happen to you (how many times has J.K. Rowling gotten sued over HP now?? e_e).

      However, there IS something to be said for purchasing and owning the doll. But I don't know the copyright laws on paying/owning items and whatnot, though :(

      Here's what I would technically assume: modifications to the doll, stripping faceups and redoing them, sanding, etc, on top of you paid for the actual doll, maybe just be enough for you to be fine! But if you wanted to take pictures of the original dolls with their default faceups and make money? Probably not a good idea. I still think the safest way to go is to ask the company ^^;
       
    4. I forgot to mention... copyright DOES apply to photos of cars. The reason the Burnout games are made with generic cars or cars they invented instead of specific real life brands is because they didn't have the copyright to use specific car brand images.
       
    5. also people that take Barbie, Tonner dolls and do repaints/reroots on them photograph them and put them in mag..like Haute doll...so I doubt there would be a problem with photograghing these dolls.
       
    6. Just because this is an interesting discussion--I respectfully disagree with this. Setting up a good picture isn't easy--the composition, the camera settings and angles, props, lighting, plus any changes you make to the the photo in photoshop or whatever can be a lot of work. The doll might be the subject of the photo, but it isn't just about plopping them down and snapping a pic. In the case of a photo story, there's the story itself to consider as well. Unless the person is claiming they made the doll, it's about the photographer's art not just the doll company. The photographer isn't making money off the doll company, they're making money off their photography skills. No matter how pretty the doll is, if the photography is bad, people aren't going to be very interested in it. Photography is a serious artform too.

      The dolls are different from traditional works of art as well. You mentioned your sculptures in a different post--if someone were just snapping pics of your art work and selling them, that would be copyright infringement (and yes, as an artist that would piss me off too). But the dolls don't quite fall under that category. There's something of the orginal artists in them, but something of their current owners too. The owners put so much of their own work into the appearance of their dolls as well as their photoshoots/stories that it just isn't the same. There might be a problem if the books only purpous was to showcase a company's dolls, but an orginal story/creative photoshoot, has too much well, original work involved. If there was a major book deal involved, I think it would be wise to contact the company that made the dolls, but I still don't think it's unethical.

      People claiming they made the doll and accessories when they didn't, or stealing other people's/companies' photos is very unethical, creating a piece of art centered around the doll isn't. Now, we also live in a very litigious society (in the US anyway), so it pays to be carefull, but I don't see this as a crime. I do think, however, that credit should be given to the companies that made the doll, clothing, etc.
       
    7. 1) 30% rule is completely false. There is no set amount that gets you safely under de minimis.
      2) Statue of Liberty is a poor example; it's public domain. Likewise, the attractions in Yellowstone are natural phenomena, not copyrighted artwork.
      3) IIRC, the photos of cars and the "generic" cars in video games are trademark issues, not copyright issues. This is also why some television news media will blank out T-shirts people are wearing (and it's probably not really needed in that case, but the people blanking have a low risk tolerance).
       
    8. I liked the judge's opinion in one of the Mattel cases. They began it by saying, "Barbie has the esteemed title of being the most recurring visitor in history to this court, making a total number of ____ appearances since the 1940's..." LOL! XD
       
    9. I'm not familiar with the exact difference between "trademark" and "copyright." Elaborate? (I imagine it's something similar to the difference between slander and libel, yes?)
       
    10. From The New Oxford American Dictionary:

      Copyright--the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee for a fixed number of years, to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same.

      Trademark--a symbol, word, or words legally registered or established by use as representing a company or product.
       
    11. Good start from pelicandeb. Another couple of important differences are that (at least in the US) copyright is automatically granted, good across multiple countries (all signitaries to the Berne Convention at the very least), and lasts until decades after the author's death or being explicity released to the public domain. In other words, you don't have to defend it in order to keep it.

      Trademark, on the other hand, must be registered for in each country (ironically, Volks does not have a US trademark for "Dollfie". Super Dollfie, yes, but Dollfie was just filed for earlier this year, and by someone else entirely.), and must be defended or it can be lost. The name "Aspirin" is an example of this happening; it wasn't defended and so became the generic term. On the other hand, trademark does not expire at a set time like copyright does; if defended, it can conceivably be held forever. Because of this, companies tend to be far more serious about protecting trademark against borderline issues than copyright.

      Also, copyright can not be put on "useful goods", such as clothing or car designs. This is where things get sticky, because a purely decorative aspect (like a hood ornament or the pattern on the cloth) can be copyrighted, but the functional portions (like the chassis or the sleeves) can be. Unique designs can, however, be trademarked.
       
    12. To clarify the discussion further:

      I'm a daughter of a copywritist. Generally speaking, even if you own the doll, you own that individual doll, not the "idea" of the doll in question. A good point of comparison are CDs. You own one physical disc, but you don't own the contents, the "idea" of the CD. Hence, if you use the material on the CD for profit (the pictures or the music), even if you alter them (say, make a new adaption of a song you like) and sell it for profit, it is illegal unless you have the composer's (and often also the record company's) written consent.
      Likewise, even if you own a specific doll, even if you alter it (say, the face up) and you take pictures you use for profit, without the written consent of the company (and propably the maker of the head mold) you are likely to be in trouble. It's a case by case question, and also depends a lot on the company, but for example having a book officially published someone mentioned is likely to be noticed by the owners of the copyrights.

      To sum it up: You own the artistic rights to pictures of your individual, specific doll, but you do not own the copyrights for him/her.
       
    13. Makes plenty of sense to me. ^_^
       
    14. I never thought of this, really... It is quite interesting, actually. And taking in count that nowadays you can sue someone for breathing too close to you, or "invading your personal space, thus morally affecting you", I would be very careful and go ask the companies. Better to be sure than sorry.

      In any case, I don't think the companies would say no, especially if it's making their dolls popular. You might even get support from them, you never know.
       
    15. I wanna know if you can use the name Super Dollfie for a band or will you get sued? lol
      I mean a real band, with humans.
       
    16. I'm guessing you porobably would get sued... because they own the name.
       
    17. :( Back the the drawing board.
      Thanks.
       
    18. Well, depending on the country, and if you think you could outlast Volks' lawyers long enough to get to a legal decision, you might be OK. In the US, "Super Dollfie" is registered as a trademark, but only for "IC 028. US 022 023 038 050. G & S: toys namely, figures, dolls, dolls' clothing, dolls' dresses, dolls' eyes, dolls' wigs, dolls' shoes, stands for dolls, dolls' eyelashes, dolls' bodies, dolls' faces, dolls' furniture, dolls' books, dolls' customizing tools. FIRST USE: 19990525. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19990525" Now, I'm not a lawyer (AT ALL) and I'm not even much of an armchair expert, but I think technically a band would be OK. But one might want to go and register the name as a trademark for a music band first before trying it; a little CYA.
       
    19. I agree. As a matter of law, issues of copyright infringement are considered on a case-by-case basis for this very reason. Just look at Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions. In that case, Tom Forsythe profited from photographs that he took of un-modified, nude Barbie dolls, but the court still considered this to be fair use due to the nature of the works themselves.

      Here, we are discussing ball jointed dolls that -- unlike Forsythe's Barbie dolls -- have had their appearances drastically altered by their owners in terms of faceup, attire, etc. When the setting and nature of a photograph are enough to make the use of a Barbie doll fair in Forsythe's case, I do not see why it would be impossible to consider photographs of altered ball jointed dolls to be fair. What it ultimately depends on is how transformative the photographs are of the dolls.

      Keep in mind that just as copyright law exists to protect the creativity of copyright holders, fair use doctrine also exists to insure the creativity of others. This includes provisions by which copyrighted material may be used without permission. I think that such a book is a possibility, but of course only an attorney would be able to evaluate its legality prior to publishing by reviewing the photographs. Unfortunately, I do not think it is a question that anyone here can answer.

      EDIT: BTW, I know that Gina Garan renewed interest in Blythe dolls by releasing a books of personal photographs called "This is Blythe." I do not know if she ever obtained permission from Kenner. Maybe a Google search could turn something up...?
       
    20. Oh, so I could name another product Super Dollfie and I would be fine? As in another product that has no trademark to it?... This whole thing is very very confusing:?