Copyright of doll vs Copyright of photos of dolls?

Kiyakotari - You're right it was Yako for some reason I thought it was yoU XD My observation skills are l33t *fail*

I kind of think that this is the *only* reason I have to raise my eyebrow to some of these artists. I know it's not entirely NECESSARY but unlike MS who (hypothetically) just found pictures of dolls and said "Ooh pretty! *trace*" these recent artists seem to have a specific doll that they should know the make-and-model of. I'd like to assume that this person knows it's a Volks Megu and I don't see the harm in just saying that somewhere. Hell, for all I know they did but all we have are gallery photos not WIP blogs.


I think I can say what I need to more succinctly now:
Just credit. Period.

That's all I need to see. Giving credit where credit is due.
Technically speaking the Mark Ryden piece candygears posted gave credit (right on the painting too!) "Saint Barbie"
But like tigerbaby has said

I just wish it was easy to find it somewhere. For example, the (Volks Megu) credit can be given once on their official site and not necessary on every.single.piece.of.work. I guess as long as they aren't claiming it all came from their imagination and are giving some sort of credit (Yang Jing uses "toys" as the focus of her works) it's as good as it's going to get right now.


*shrug* I enjoyed reading through this whole discussion (though it kind of turned into a debate more or less XD) I find it nice to see both sides, makes thinking more well-rounded.

 

I agree with Junkets. It does not take a creative mind to take a picture and draw that again and make a painting out of it. That is still copy IMO, cause you are in sum copying another person's sculpture and just putting it in a different medium.

I am mainly uncomfortable because the doll itself IMO should be the personification of an existing character. That is how I perceive dolls to be. So when the doll's sculpt becomes the main part of the character and the art that represents the character is very similar to the sculpt, I have issues with it.

~Gus

 

Per the Andy Warhol comparison--

Please, please read the MS thread before bringing up Warhol. The comparison is flawed, and not terribly accurate. For the record, although Warhol was not sued by Campbell's he was sued successfully by other people whose work he infringed on. And the fact that he got away with it once doesn't make it right, either. Campbell's didn't sue. That doesn't mean they couldn't have won had they chosen to do so.

 

Seconding this. No one is particularly fussed about the artist not citing the Renaissance painting the first image mimics, but that is also clearly source material. Or citing any of the other toys or figures used. Honestly, the only way I could see the doll needing citing is if the fact that it was a Volks Megu was relevant to the painting. But it's not. The fact is, from a content standpoint, that could be any doll and the painting would be just as successful. The aesthetics might not work the same, but the ideas about objectification and consumerism would be intact. The subject needed to be a doll, not a Volks doll, not even a ABJD, just a doll. The doll she chose to use was one we all can recognize, but she could have easily chosen another.

I also tend to think that dolls get a bit of preferential treatment in terms of copyright just because they are human shaped. If this had been a teddy bear would we be as upset? A unique hand crafted one of a kind teddy bear? How about a sculpture of a bear? But dolls a human shaped, and the human figure is more associated with art than that of the bear. So I think we are more geared to see a doll as an artwork than a bear.

 

It actually is quite obviously a Volks body, though. It's a pureskin, new knees SD10 body with the default H-01 hands. There really is no questioning that. It's not the body shape, it's the jointing and mechanics.

http://andrewjamesart.com/chinesecontemporary/yang_jing_portfolio.htm
In some of the portfolio pictures you can see they use an oldskin SD10 body with the older cupped thigh joints and wonky knees, and few other Volks heads: Rio, SwD Nana, and what I believe is an Aya?

I actually am not going to pass judgement until we have more facts about this artist. Do they have permission from Volks to use their dolls? Has Volks been made aware of their use of their dolls? Have they credited their model on another page of theirs and we just don't know where it is, or the majority of us are unable to translate to find it?

I'm slightly put off by the fact that they didn't change anything about this Megu, not even her wig, but that doesn't mean they don't have permission to be using the doll in this way.

I actually remember a link floating around about Volks ToS for use of their dolls images. Does anyone have that?

 

I have to agree that the art is beautiful and inspiring. I also see a difference in her work and that of the other artist (MS). The captions stated that art was oil on canvas, so there was no tracing. There is genuine artistry and skill demonstrated here. MS displayed some design savvy and CG skill in her work, but that was overshadowed by all of the ethical problems with her methods. I would not compare the two at all.

ETA: I think the cats look like a lot of Chinese cat paintings. I often see Chinese art with those round, fluffy striped cats. I don't think the Golden books were a reference at all- just a coincidence maybe.

 

Part of my wants to say this can't compare with stuff like giant Brillo boxes and the guy who makes baloon dogs out of stainless steel and the other part wants me to lump it all together in the irritating "modern art" catagory and all it needs is that guy who slices up animals and suspends them in tanks.

Is the artist trying to make a comment on the depiction of the female form or can they just not draw people? Is it easier to accept a naked doll instead of a naked person? Why choose a doll with what could be seen as an immature body?

The picture with the little girl praying to the Barbie says a million things. I wonder why she has an over sized head like a Bratz doll?

 

Using a doll that's obviously a doll and not being claimed to be anything else (such as the artist's own creation) as the inspiration or model for a painting is fine with me. There have been a lot of dolls used as models or inspirations in art over the long term - Barbies, Lencis, Blythes, etc.
It gets a little tiresome when people demand that an artist get permission for every single use of a doll in work, particularly when it's not photography. If the artist was claiming that it wasn't based on a doll or that he himself sculpted the doll which is obviously made by a company, that would be different.

 

I could not agree more. This perfectly summarizes the way I feel about using dolls in art. I could not have said it better myself.

 

Just a bit of information: the artist, Yang Jing, the theme of her paintings were of toys and games and their influences on modern China.
Here's another of her paintings, using Volks Megu with different hair and arm positioning.
http://shanghai.unlike.net/event_occurrences/105769-Yang-Jing-My-Carnival

One last link--Yang Jing's personal web page
http://www.yangjingart.com/

 

Actually, looking at her website, it looks like the Megu has been in most of her paintings from 2004 onward. Earlier than that she has some other recognizable toys such as Ultraman figures and what looks like a Godzilla.

 

These works are perfectly legitimate. An artist can use whatever they like for a model (you have to contract a human, and obtain rights from obsessive disney types, but this is a completely different issue). This artist is using a doll as a model for a painting, he is not reproducing the doll itself or stealing other people's images, therefore the art is original and perfectly ok.

 

If you buy Megu at the Volks USA site now she costs $636 for starts-just basic (with wig and underwear). If I paid that I would draw, paint, collage, and sculpt as many artworks as I wanted with her as a model. I paid for her likeness- don't know if that is a legal argument, but that is how I would rationalize it, anyway. Quite different than hijacking other peoples photos and tracing them.

 

First off, I want to state that I still have mixed feelings about these pieces and I do not want to state that what the artist is doing is wrong as I am not sure it is, but I do want to address some points brought up here.

Well...to play devils advocate (and I am not saying I think these paintings are wrong, I am still a bit torn on the subject, but I do want to address your point), just because you pay $636 dollars for a doll does not mean you can use the image of that doll however you want and it would be perfectly legal and ethical. I could pay that amount for a rare Disney collectible (brand new from Disney) and not be able to take photos or make paintings of it and sell it for thousands of dollars. I could buy a limited porcelain Barbie with designer outfit and hand painted face and hand sculpted body brand new from Mattel, and not be able to make paintings or photos of that doll and sell it for thousands.

So you are right, your point probably won't hold as a legal argument, however I am not sure it would hold as an ethical one either. Frankly, that other painting mentioned with Barbie might be infringing upon Mattel's copyright and they might be able to peruse it legally and just because they haven't doesn't mean they can't or won't, they just may not know about it or they might have given it permission (or maybe they do not care).

In certain countries the owner (usually museums) of said painting (edit: or other works of art) can and will sue if the image of a painting in their collection is used without consent. That is why art books so often cite where the painting is or the owner at the period in time (keep in mind publishing date of books as well as origin of books). Now, the legal codes for this vary by country, museum, and specific contracts involving works of art, and the works themselves including production, age, origin of the work. I do not mean to get off topic, but I just wanted to address the points brought up here. If you are interested in finding out more about intellectual property laws concerning works of art in museums, please feel free to PM me and I can provide full citations and references for you ^_^

 

IMHO as an oil painter myself, I don't find this artwork to be "copying" at all, or "making money from volks design."
These are obviously done with artist composition and design, these are, essentially, a still-life. I have never seen ANY painter reference every little thing in their paintings, it would be not only tedious but more often than not impossible, some don't even list names of live models! Paintings done with modern influences can not avoid these things, and it would be ridiculous to ask any painter to list every object in their art, copyrighted or not. This artist is obviously not a tracer, and is making her own original art, and is not claiming to have made this doll herself and therefore has every right to use it however she wants within her art.

Just think about this; Would you say an artist was "making money from a model's features" if they used the same model in multiple paintings? No, that would be ridiculous. Many artists use the same model in many of their paintings, and more often than not, don't even give the models name.

Another thing to keep in mind, painters tend to be allowed more leniency because they have to have a lot of talent to be able to paint what they see accurately, if you can recognize the doll she is painting, I think she should be allowed to use it however she wants.
UNLESS of course the "artist" is a tracer, tracing requires nothing more than hands, eyes, and pen&paper. They need other people's talent in order to do anything them self, and thats not art.

I myself thought about buying a BJD solely for the purpose of using them in some of my paintings (which I have yet to do.) They make wonderful models (and they don't move a bit! ) Much better than the ridiculous wooden pose-able figures often seen in art shops.

 

its just TOO obvious!! i recognixed pretty much all the dolls on the pictures!! i dont know their names but i've seen the mold MANY times!
its so wrong to steal other's art like this!! >( its not just inspiration, the face are obviously the same! so i say this is stealing especially if he/she is making money out of it!
she should credit the company!
using a doll instead of a wood manniquin is something, but she kept the original faces (some poeple worked hard to make this face. so i'd say this is THEIR'S)... i did not see any credits. THATS what i think is wrong.

 

So if I did a still-life painting that had an old Coca-cola can used within the composition, I would be stealing? I don't really think so.

 

i am an artist. i find those wooden manaquins terrible to use. i do draw from my imagination but somethings i just can't work out the angle of when it comes to putting it on to paper.

i know when i get my doll's i'll probably also use them as better detailed manaquins so i can get those nast angles that just won't come out right.

for example : sitting one on the others lap >.<

that kind of thing.

A.R.N.F

 

I know! ABJD are the perfect replacemnt for those dumb wooden things

 

8D indeed they are, better detail (not just sausages), hold poses better, can get put into better angles and ofcourse lovely to look at XD

A.R.N.F