Copyright of doll vs Copyright of photos of dolls?

Kiyakotari - I agree with you here. I know people like this too.

The cats that look like their from Golden book covers could just be a reference and a different pose, but because they look so similar to the books we (...most of us I'd like to assume) grew up on, we're placing them where they didn't exist.

 

June: You are perceptive--as it happened, I found this gallery's web page and this artist while wandering the web for more news on MS, so I did indeed have her on my mind.

 

I can take a picture of it (if I can find it) to compair if anyone thinks it is needed ^_____^ It's the one with the numbers I'm thinking of.

 

While I agree that this isn't tracing, I have to say that it still makes me uncomfortable. Copying doesn't have to equal tracing. Just because I own a doll doesn't mean I hold the trademarked features of the sculpt, especially when that sculpt is used over and over again.

 

She is barely even a customized doll, this is just using all of Volks' artist's work to make money. The pictures are definitely not okay.

 

I agree, this is a definite trend I see going. At the moment I notice a good number of people complimenting these newfound artists that use dolls because they're not Mijn S. (or just tracing)

--I'm not denying that some of these people actually have talent to draw/paint--

((goodness, this all is just very confusing to go from brain to type))



EDIT:
Yako - Is this the book?:

 

Why do so may people assume the artist is 'making money'? Even the most successful artists I have known have usually had to take teaching jobs just to make an income steady enough to pay for rent and food - either that or find a partner who was raking in a really decent salary. The 'superstar artists' of this world are very few and far-between, and those who even manage to eke out a marginal living at it do so with a lot of hard work, luck, and perseverance.

Have you ever painted a 2m X 1.5m canvas? That is a lot of physical work, just getting the fabric on the stretcher, and I will lay odds these were not purchased pre-made.

These pictures all have stories to tell, above and beyond how 'pretty' the doll might be - I can pick out many visual references from classic, renaissance and modernist art history; they also have a strong grounding in themes I recognize from Chinese art tradition and a bit of hommage as well to contemporary arts figures like Mark Ryden and Cindy Sherman. This stylistic pastiche has an interesting resonance with the choice of an ABJD as model, as our dolls 'derive' from all these cultural points: classical sculpture, the surrealist works of Hans Bellmer, contemporary arts and culture, and the 'asian aesthtic'. Not too shabby for theoretical rigor, imho, and they even look pretty appealing while doing it; the colour palette and the shallow, stage-like visual frame really get me where I live.

How do we know this is not the artists' way of expressing their 'bond' with their doll, by making them muse and model for their artwork? It looks a lot like that to me. To draw and paint the same doll, over and over...the artist must know every hollow and curve of it by now, even more so than if they sanded every seam and face-upped them themselves.

They say you should 'paint what you love' but it almost seems like if a doll owner does that, they aren't allowed to show and sell their work - that's not very fair. Dolls aren't the only objects in our existence that are the culmination of many talented people's efforts, or that are avidly cherished by collectors - are all those items 'off-limits' now, too? Or, if you want to take it from the *rilly* big picture, wouldn't the same apply to painting the natural world? All the artist is doing is 'making money' ripping off the divine expressions of the Creator themself! (I don't believe this, I'm just trying to show how absurd this line of thinking becomes when you change the focus).

One thing I've noticed about 'real art', is that -looking at it- it inspires me to go make some art of my own, and these paintings definitely put me in that mood. Are there any other artists who feel like running to go draw and paint (more) pictures of their dolls after looking at these?

Drawing by 'copying reality' is how you learn to really draw; that is how I was taught. Copying photos doesn't cut it, you have to put in the time in front of the real thing in three dimensions, and after awhile, you get to the point where you really understand how vision and depiction work, and can start assembling your own reality from what you've learned from life study. ::shrugs:: That's how I was taught anyway, and I can do both, now. I like creating from imagination, but there is something of great value in the contemplative focus of working from a model.

Thank you for sharing a very interesting artist, snowleopard - I wonder if there's any further information about them to be found?

 

I have to agree with Junkets. Someone at Volks designed Megu. If Yang Jing had taken the model of Megu and changed the face (and the body too, which is recognizable as Volks) so it could have been a more generic and less specific design, well and good. But lifting another person's work and using it in your own like this makes me uncomfortable as well.

If I designed an outfit and another artist painted it without giving credit...it is giving the implication that the design is theirs.

 

I have to agree with tigerbaby - yes, many sculptors and talented people went into making Megu... but she's still just an object. What about a vase holding flowers? A car? A computer? A table?! Many people put their hearts and souls into designing or making those objects, yet using them in paintings or drawings is A-OK... besides the fact that we all love and cherish bjds, what makes them except from this rule about other objects? It seems like, to me, we're starting to hound out and accuse people of stealing when they draw any sort of BJD, which is kind of ridiculous.

 

She isn't an object, she's a character. You wouldn't paint Rei Ayanami without paying for the rights and getting permission first.

 

I feel that once we buy them, we should be able to do what we want with them. We pick their clothes(or lack there of), their make-up, the hair, the personality, everything. Once we get a doll isn't it our character? I mean once my BBB tony came home, he wasn't Tony, he was Dayton. And shouldn't I be able to do with Dayton what I please? I've done tons of artwork in my class of him and my other dolls, but should I be punished because they were originally owned by BBB or FL or Luts or whatever? I just think she loved her doll and should be able to paint, draw, sketch, whatever, as long as it's HER doll. It's different if it isn't HERS and she did it WITHOUT permission. But that's just my opinion.

 

You can't publish photos of your Mattel Barbies just because you own them. You can't put a Kanye West song in your music video on Youtube just because you paid for the CD.

 

That's totally different, most people don't buy a barbie to customize it to be their own creation like with ABJD. Some people do and I feel that they should be able to do with it what they want. And I think the song is a different story, you aren't changing the song to be your own.

 

Okay, you "remix" it. Still can't use it.

As for the Barbie argument, you could say since there are people who customize Barbies for a hobby and sometimes living, that it's the same. There are also thousands of people who buy BJDs for collecting purposes, not customization. And the whole point is the guy used a stock Megu, not a customized one.

 

I'm not trying to argue, just to put out my point, seriously.

I feel that as long as she OWNS the doll, even if it's "stock Megu" she should be able to do whatever art she wants with it. If she doesn't own her then that's a bit of a problem. But I agree with Sunnie and Tigerbaby, what about the vases and tables, and expensive fake fruit? Should we not be able to paint them or sell pictures we have taken of them? Someone put hard work into it.

 

Except no one can copyright a picture of a lemon, because anyone besides a farmer can't distinguish a lemon from one region from one grown in a different region. There are not designer lemons.

There aren't generic Megus. There is Megu. And that's it.

 

While we're mentioning the megu this artist has used, let us recall a discussion we've had here before on a Korean MV that had two volks dolls in stop motion.

I feel we need to look into this a little deeper. We shouldn't first point fingers and say "oh they ripped this and stole that". What is this person really trying to sell? The image of the megu or the story and emotion carried within the painting? If you look at Secret Fragrance 05 and 06, you'll notice that the artist hasn't even included the head of megu at all. Instead, they're showing the body. Quite frankly, if I hadn't seen the other pictures with the megu head, I wouldn't have noticed which body it was. Technically, I'm only assuming it's the megu's body. Maybe the artist used megu's head and body because it was what they needed to complete their artwork. Maybe it wasn't because this artist had no imagination and wanted to copy megu's design, maybe it was because megu was the only way to convey what they wanted to share through a painting.

Lastly, I'd like to add that people take pictures and paint and sculpt buildings of NYC all the time. Some go as far as using stores as models (great example would be the Macy's building and the Toys R Us of Times Square). Wouldn't Macy's be copyrighted? How come no one is punished when a picture or painting of the Macy's building comes up? What about the Toys R Us?

Again, we should think a little deeper. Partly as artists, partly as this artist on topic, and partly as the general public.

 

I totally agree with you jade161588

 

Please... tell me you're not serious -_- Volks may have a specific look/style of body, but come on - that's just silly. Are you going to sue if a young girl grows into a similar body that looks like a Volks doll? Get real. You can't possibly know if that artist has just traced a doll (or 'copied' yadda yadda) or if they have a physical model, a daughter perhaps? A sister? Perhaps even themselves? Who looks very similar, and because the artist has drawn joints on the painting and is using a Volks head mould for the face you're going to leap on "OMG THAT BODY IS A VOLKS TM!!! D8 D8" Please

I have to agree here, it seems that making any kind of art with this medium is taboo these days. I'd be reluctant to even post my photography on deviantArt the way things are going, for fear of some over-zealous BJD fanatic bashing me every which way because I've added the print option

Um, no. IT, is an object. IT is a doll. It is a doll with female characteristics, but it is still an inanimate object. I love my dolls dearly, and have characters for them, but even I know that they're not real and the 'characters' are my own creation, not the dolls. Volks Megi is a doll, a piece of resin. A very pretty one, yes, but not a character. Referring to a doll as 'he' or 'she' does not make it a character anywhere except your mind. Giving a doll a name does not give it a character. And as a matter of fact, thousands (probably more) of people do paint Rei Ayanami without paying for rights and getting permission first, and I would bet real money that some of them *omgshockhorror* show them in art galleries. Whether or not they sell the image, or claim it as their own is a whole other matter.


I really don't see what this person did wrong. This is clearly a doll, and while the website doesn't say (that I can see) that he's used a doll as a model, that is quite obviously an exhibition site for several artists, not a personal blog or portfolio. Perhaps if we dug just a little deeper, and looked for this Yang Jing person we would find a whole site dedicated to their work and they just might have a whole section about their muses and using dolls as models.


Or we can just go right on jumping to conclusions and waking wild accusations, it's your call I find this person's art to be extremely beautiful, but then I don't have the same level of hatred/caring for that other one (the tracer) either. Perhaps I'm just too apathetic, because further than one or two posts I don't care enough to be outraged

 

the whole issue here is copyright infringement or not crediting a model source. I'm guilty of painting a picture from a photo without the photographers permission (although I may have already had it seeing as it was on a computer program for me to use on cards)
it's important for an artist to make all necessary accreditation before selling art work. if there were any problems with this artists work they probably would have been addressed by now.