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
Severe ongoing issues and concerns with Dollshe Dollshe Ban

Copyright of doll vs Copyright of photos of dolls?

Jun 15, 2006

Page 7 of 11
    1. In the case of this artist, I'm going to have to agree with the people who have said that this is hardly like the Mijn case and seems legitimate. Sure, it would be kinder to Volks if the face was stylized to look a little different or the exact sculpt was credited, but generally in the art world if you own an object/are painting from life you are entirely entitled to paint it. Volks holds the copyright to those facial features in a 3-dimensional resin doll sculpt, which prohibits other doll companies from copying it.

      This is partly why the Mijn issue has me so upset - it casts a terrible light on all the genuine artists who are using dolls for inspiration!

      And just as an example, this is one of Mark Ryden's pieces, which I believe is considered totally legit in the fine art world as well:
      [​IMG]
       
      #121 candygears, Jul 8, 2009
    2. L Mikia, I've never seen that book before. I think you have me confused with another member. :sweat

      I inquired about the price of one of the paintings that interested me, and this is some of the information the gallery gave me in reply:

      Note that all the observations below are my opinions only, and have more to do with my views on what is and is not "right" than on any applicable laws.

      I don't see anywhere on that gallery site (and I've looked) a mention of Yang Jing using a doll as a model, whether is be a Volks doll or not. She/he does have a Facebook page that may give information about the doll she uses as a model, but I'm at work right now and cannot open Facebook, so I have no idea if that is true or not. Based on the information we do have, I personally feel that this artist needs to credit his/her sources, whether or not permission is actually obtained from the companies, and so far I can't find any evidence of that already happening.

      I'm actually of the opinion that paintings/drawings using dolls as models aren't immediately and inherently bad, whether the artist got permission from the company that originally sculpted the doll or not (though getting permission would of course be preferrable), as long as they cite/credit their source (the doll model and the manufacturer). I feel citing the source is especially important in cases where the doll is immediately recognizable to someone familiar with the model. When the doll is not immediately recognizable (either because the original model has been altered significantly, or because the derived artwork differs enough from the model to make it no longer apparent what model was used) I think that the ettiquette of crediting and citing may change.

      I do feel differently about photography of dolls that is professionally published or offered for sale - company permission should be obtained for that situation, in my opinion. I also think that an artist that is drawing or painting from a reference photograph (rather than directly from the doll itself) should obtain permission from the photographer (assuming they did not take the picture).

      My objection to Mijn Schatje's work is not that she's using dolls without permission, it's that she's using photographs taken by other people (which are inherently copyrighted) and directly tracing over them, without permission and without giving any credit to the creator of the doll or to the person who took the copyrighted photo, and then when confronted about the fact that the artwork was traced from (or "inspired by," if you prefer) photographs she did not take, she denied it.
       
      #122 Kiyakotari, Jul 8, 2009
    3. Ooh, after spotting the "A doll that looks like you" thread, that makes me think.

      Here on DoA there are always (and will undoubtedly always be) people who think this kind of art is wrong, because the BJD companies are the ones supposedly getting ripped off/copied/whatever you want to call it.

      Does it work the other way around? For example - how many of you own Minimees? Has anyone considered the ethical grounds of a character Minimee? Someone mentioned Rei Ayanami - well surely if DIM make a BJD likeness of Rei Ayanami without the permission of the anime company that's the same thing? They're making money from it aren't they? What about a regular person - what if a company, say Volks, saw a really beautiful woman in the street and took a snapshot of her (or saw a picture of her in a magazine or online or wherever) then created a BJD likeness of her. I mean, I suppose fair enough her likeness isn't copyrighted, but doesn't everyone have a right to know what's being done with their likeness? The company would be making money from that woman's looks and not paying her a penny (and legally I don't think they'd have to either). Is that ethical?


      It's very easy to be morally outraged without looking at the bigger picture - think of this poor artist next time you fangasm over your favourite character's impending Minimee ;)

      ETA as someone posted while I was posting:

      I agree there, and I think this artist whoever they are should be citing their reference source (though as you say and I'm in the same boat we can't get on their Facebook to check and I don't know if they have another site or anything). Of course, the gallery or distributor may not think this is very important, and don't feel it's necessary to mention it.
       
      #123 Ehryn, Jul 8, 2009
    4. I looked around a bit more, and here are some other sites (some well-known) selling Yang Jing's work or with information about gallery showings:

      Sotheby's: http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?sale_number=HK0278&live_lot_id=311
      Artnet: http://www.artnet.com/artist/424611186/yang-jing.html
      theArtWolf: http://www.theartwolf.com/yuanwei_jing.htm

      And an informative paper/article about Yang Jing on Artintern: http://en.artintern.net/index.php/review/main/html/4/768

      While I'd like to see Yang Jing actually citing that she used a Volks Megu, or the SD10 Four Sisters sculpt, as her model, especially since the doll is clearly the centerpiece of most of her paintings (or at least, of all of the ones I've seen), at this point I'm personally not feeling like she's infirnging on anyone else's copyrights with her work. I feel very differently about this artist than I do about Mijn Schatje. Based on that article on Artintern, I'm guessing she doesn't hide that she's using the doll as a model, even if it isn't clearly stated on the websites of galleries showing and selling her work.
       
      #124 Kiyakotari, Jul 8, 2009
    5. I do like the paintings with tattooed images on them........

      they look like a variation on still-life painting.

      but I don't know the mechanics of copy write
       
      #125 studio-BJD, Jul 8, 2009
    6. I think some of the people here are forgetting that the problem we were having with another artist was not that they were using BJDs in their art, but that they were painting over other people's photos (and therefore hard work) and stealing all their source material.

      This artist is actually painting on canvas her own imagery, just depicting a doll she happens to own. This is very different, and while it'd be nice if they also posted their reference material, it looks like they're not hiding that they used a doll.
       
      #126 Sonja, Jul 8, 2009
    7. It has been mentioned in the MS thread as well as the minime debate thread. ^_^ Here is a link to that debate thread
      http://www.denofangels.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241133
       
      #127 NabeeRain, Jul 8, 2009
    8. Volks has made many Rei Ayanami figurines/dolls/whatnot and they do not sell them on their US site because the company won't give them the right to sell them outside of Japan. So I don't think anyone who's painting Rei's likeness is doing it legally, or should be allowed to. Just because someone else gets away with it doesn't mean everyone else should too.
       
      #128 usagi665, Jul 8, 2009
    9. This seems totally different from the other situation to me. If he bought a doll or two to use for a model and is creating his own pictures pretty much from scratch more power to him. It's like the guy who did Barbies in a blender.

      The picture of the topless pair is based on one from art history, can't name it off the top of my head but it has to do with sisters. My only problem with any of these is how cold and bland the dolls' expressions are but that could be the point.
       
      #129 DollyKim, Jul 8, 2009
    10. Sorry darling, you can't stop free will and fan art :P ;) And I suppose, then, based solely on your posts that you don't agree with Minimees and don't think DIM should 'get away with' copying someone's likeness? I'm sure there has been or will be a Rei Ayanami Minimee at some point or other (since you seem to like that example) so should DIM be shut down or sued by the anime company for it?


      NabeeRain - I don't really care for Minimees, so I didn't know that! :lol: Thanks! :D I'll go read up, as it is a subject that does actually interest me. Has anyone in there made the link between the two being basically the same thing, just one the other way around yet? :lol:
       
      #130 Ehryn, Jul 8, 2009
    11. It isn't 'normal' practice for fine arts to 'cite source material'. A painting is not the same thing as a term paper, and in more complex works it would get a little ridiculous as the list of relevant sources would run in the hundreds of thousands of entries; I think I remember seeing a exhibition catalogue from an artist who did just that, until the field of the painting was nothing but a mass of text citing sources, completely obscuring the imagery - wish I had written down the name!

      I think some people are missing the fact that most of these paintings are pretty horkin' huge - 2m is about six and a half feet. This would make the image of the doll larger-than-life, which is an interesting transformation in itself. Very difficult to work on such a large image in oil paint, which stays 'wet' for a long time, even if a drying accelerator is used - no wonder she 'paints slow'! The more I look at these, the more I like 'em - I think they'd really be something to see, irl - especially a whole gallery filled with these great big doll paintings, in a solo exhibit.

      It's kind of sad, I think to see people upset about 'copying' instead of being thrilled to see an artist using their ABJD to make engaging and beautiful pieces of art.
       
      #131 tigerbaby, Jul 8, 2009

    12. Have to agree... as far as the Rei Ayanami image goes...well maybe they should look at how many variations there are of the image. I have painted at least 6 Rei's in resin as model kits that are sold from a model site for kit builders. And I don't think for 1 minute they gave the creator the credit for this figure/image. And many who have purchased these kits have shown them in model contests and art show across the globe. So it's just an image. At least she did not blatantly copy someone's doll, alter the image slightly and then claim it to be her work. When the original owners of those dolls can plainly show they own the piece in question and that it was used without permission. A doll is just an object... but don't let poor "Liam" hear me say that. It will break his lttle resin heart. *just kidding*


      - ShadowHawke -
       
      #132 themasterjinn, Jul 8, 2009
    13. Uh... does anyone remember Andy Warhol's painting of a Campbell's soup can?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell's_Soup_Cans

      Do you suppose Warhol asked the permission of the Campbell's soup can designer or the Campbell's soup company?

      Was this work, therefore, "stealing" by your standards?


      That's just the most famous example I can think of, but I assure you that many artists use copyrighted imagery and/or depict manufactured items in their work with immunity. Usually artists do this not as mimicry of the subject but rather as a commentary on it. (And most of these are not flattering statements.)

      There is even the matter of using manufactured, copyrighted items as material to make the art itself! Recently I saw a piece about feminism using maimed Barbie dolls, and of course there are always a bunch that use cell phones or cigarettes or beer bottles to make a statement about materialism/consumerism, and so on. Not to mention the long tradition of collage, in which every image the artist uses has been designed and printed by other people, who are usually never credited.

      You do not have to credit Volks for making the doll in your still life painting any more than you have to credit Pizza Hut if you are painting a still life of a Pizza Hut pizza box.

      You'll find that many, many traditional still life paintings contain busts, small sculptures, vases - in other words, items that were in themselves art, and were not made by the painter. The painter had no obligation to credit every porcelain statuette or leave a footnote mentioning that he had not himself made that Ming dynasty vase in the left corner - he assumed that the audience knew he hadn't. He wasn't laying claim to the creation of the objects he had painted just by painting them, any more than he would be claiming credit to the creation of the trees and grass if he chose to do a landscape!

      This artist is not stealing any more than Warhol is. Besides the Volks doll, he/she has used compositions taken from vintage chinese advertising, historical western paintings (DollyKim, the one you mentioned is "Gabrielle d'Estrées and One of her Sisters in the Bath" by the school of Fontainebleau), and some images that I think come directly from historical chinese silk paintings and from advertising kitsch (the overlay images from the "Secret Fragrance" series, the golden carp, and that bleeding eye specifically look familiar). There are a lot of other toys and knicknacs in there, all of which I assume were designed and manufactured by persons and companies having absolutely no affiliation with the artist nor any awareness of being featured in these pieces.

      If he/she is supposed to credit Volks for the doll, then surely he/she had better also credit, say, whoever sculpted the little golden Mao Zhe Dong bust I see in the corner. And the brand of playing cards. And the toy zeppelin. And so on...

      I hope I haven't come across as overly harsh, but I must say I find the idea that the artist is ripping off Volks kind of... bizarre. If I were to hazard a guess I'd say the idea of these paintings is something to do with the empty joys and chaotic frivolities of modern consumerist culture... The doll with its blank anime-cute doe-eyes, enshrined amidst random pop culture debris like a mock pin-up girl trapped in emotionlessly flirtatious poses, perhaps represents the distortion/inhumanity/lifelessness of manufactured/stylized beauty. (<-- Sadly, I'm only being half-sarcastic here. It feels like all these days is about this or something like it. And this artist even threw in the tentacles/antlers motif that every wannabe-edgy indie kid has been doing for the last few years.)
       
      #133 Kogepan, Jul 8, 2009
    14. I think that the difference of opinion is rising here between those who are viewing the dolls as 'art' and those who view them as 'product.' For me, I get rather uncomfortable when I see artists' rights championed, but the artist who created the original doesn't seem to have those same rights. For the Megu, I see it as a work of art. A sculpture made by the hands of a particular man. You can find his name. You can meet him. He is an artist. He has rights to the image of the doll that he created. The doll is so very recognizable, and if one views it as an art piece in and of itself, any derivitive works should cite, at the very least, the original source. Otherwise, to my mind, it is copying.

      Re: the Ayanami Rei resin kits that a person above mentioned painting, I would hope that they were licensed figures. Gainax is very particular about what they lend their sparkly little logo sticker to. I just got my sister a silly Kaworu Nagisa + Kewpie keychain, and wouldn't you know it, there was the Gainax sticker on the back.

      I guess, for me, I do hold artists and writers to a very high standard. I don't believe the adage that 'everything has been done before;' I find that it is used too often to mask lack of creativity. I KNOW there is lots of stuff out there that hasn't been done, and I expect that creativity to shine through, particularly in the work of professional artists. I look at this artist's work, and while technically it is very good, and excellent example of photorealism, I don't see her doing anything unique with the image of the doll itself. I've seen things here in the DoA gallery that are more exploratory. That's personal taste, of course...but I would definitely expect more, for myself.
       
      #134 Junkets, Jul 8, 2009
    15. This is perfect :aheartbea I think I love you <3

      Although, I would love to see this artist write down every source of every piece of created reference they have used, just so people who want the doll cited can truly see how ridiculous it is.

      It doesn't matter if it's a piece of art or a piece of wood, if the artist isn't claiming to be the original creator of the reference material I really actually can't comprehend the issue. I do agree it's different in the other case, the tracing one, because that person was claiming to have come up with all her work herself, just using 'reference'. But this person, while admittedly hasn't wowed us with originality, has clearly painstakingly hand made every piece and deserves recognition for that. I'm sure if you link the creator of that doll to that person's art they wouldn't be outraged as so many DoAers seem to be, he'd probably be flattered. I know that if I spent so long creating something for people to love like the creators of our dolls do and someone created a piece of art like that I would probably be moved to tears. The fact that someone wants to spend so many hours staring at and perfecting my creation would be such an expression of love for the thing that I made, it would be a huge complement to me.

      I also have to wonder if half of the outrage is because it's a precious Volks -_- Would everyone be quite so furious if it were, say, a Fantasydoll sculpt? A nice, less expensive, less well known doll?

      Though I have to admit, I wouldn't have known it was a Megi if others hadn't said, but I'd recognise a FD immediately :lol: I guess that just says something about me hm?
       
      #135 Ehryn, Jul 8, 2009
    16. Many people who believe that this artist is working within the boundaries of ethical behavior (or not) have expressed valid points and stated them well. Others have expressed themselves in an inflammatory manner. This is not appropriate in a forum of people bound by the enjoyment of a common hobby.

      Obviously, few of us are copyright specialists, and if we were the laws of many countries would apply.

      What we are addressing is whether this particular instance makes us uncomfortable. It is interesting to understand why (or why not).

      My hope is that we can express our opinions without rancor and learn from the opinions of others.
       
      #136 Merangel, Jul 8, 2009
    17. Ehyrn no problem. ^_^ I think your point (or one very close to it) was mentioned in the MS thread and original "artist not crediting" debate thread, so there might be some post you would find helpful/interesting there.

      *shrug* I have never had a minime and don't know if I will because I am pretty divide on the whole issue just as I am unsure about this particular case. *shrug* I dunno, it makes me uncomfortable as I <3 the 4 sisters supt and it will be my next doll and I do feel it is a work of art, but I am not really sure I think this person is unethical for using her as a model. Oh, Warhol was brought up numerous times in the other discussion thread and I think (not positive) it was said he was sued at some point and later granted permission. I do not remember exactly, but I know it is in there (lol that is a lot to look through)

      BTW: it is Megu, not Megi. Just in case there is another sculpt by that name I do not want to confuse people. <3

      Anyway, it really is an interesting topic and I do enjoy reading what everyone has to say about it.
       
      #137 NabeeRain, Jul 8, 2009
    18. Oh yes, it's a DZ MegI and a Volks MegU. I'm such a noob :lol:

      Merangel - I apologise if you're referring to me, I didn't think I was being 'inflammatory' but if you disagree then I'm very sorry o.o I was honestly trying to put my point across sensibly and pleasantly, but if I failed then I just want you to know that wasn't my intention -_-
       
      #138 Ehryn, Jul 8, 2009
    19. Ehryn, you've been very informative in this discussion and I appreciate your points:) I was only concerned about a general tone that sometimes comes across in many posts and I, too, apologize if what I said caused hurt feelings. It was a general comment. We have so much to learn from each other and keeping the discussion free yet polite is the only way to do this:aheartbea
       
      #139 Merangel, Jul 8, 2009
    20. Well, I'm afraid that's as polite as I get, so I think I'll leave now :sweat I've pretty much made all the points I can without repeating myself anyway.
       
      #140 Ehryn, Jul 8, 2009
Page 7 of 11