Copyright of doll vs Copyright of photos of dolls?

I can't believe the fuss over paintings like this. Dolls and objects created by others have been used as sources of art for centuries. For all we know Volks may be aware of it and may even like the free publicity! Did you know that Mucha "borrowed" a few of Michaelangelo's images from the Sistine Chapel for his own beautiful works? I don't think anyone was baying for his blood over that. I wonder how many other great artists have borrowed things like that? That's the way the art world is.
I agree with all the posts that are for the artist.

 

Wow, I really don't know anything about the ethics of this sort of thing, but that is a *spot-on* portrait of a default pureskin Megu in original makeup. I thought some of the close-up paintings were photographs! :-O

I wonder what Volks will say? That would be interesting...
I suppose I could be comfortable with it if they are, it's their creation after all, featured so, um... obviously here.

Raven

 

but the BJD are already someone else art (its kinda different of a company logo/product. especially since its written in big to who it belongs) so if i copy about half of your painting and just change/add a few things, wont you say this is stealing?

 

I'm going to be doing some modeling for the HotTopic in my area, for shows, and I think if my name or the other models names were NOT put SOMEWHERE it would be offensive. Not like "NAME IN BOLD LETTERS OMG SPAAAAAAZZZZ" spot light way, even if there are little program books just a "thanks to our all models...list of names" in tiny print it would be okay. Maybe just a caption by her SOMEWHERE on the page "This doll was made by VOLKS -link-" it would be better?
By using a doll that's been pre-created, they're using something of VOLKS's. If someone falls in love with her face, but think that the artist created her, VOLKS loses a sale. One may not seem like a big deal, but if she's a popular artist, it could be many, and hence not fair to VOLKS.

If I re-painted Andy W.'s Marylin Monroe picture, would it be stealing? It's more like that, because these dolls ARE art already. Plus, Coca-cola is a BRAND lable. She's not painting the word "VOLKS" she's painting their doll.

 

I also agree with this.

 

That is stealing, because it's the same medium.

What hasn't popped up in this debate is the differences of mediums. Volks has copyrighted the 3D version of Megu - what I don't know is that if they've copyrighted the 2D version of Megu. I'm sure that there are many 2D artists that have been in legal battles with 3D artists who 'essentially' stole their work... but put it in 3D. I think the judges ruled that since it was a different medium entirely, it didn't count as stealing. I'm not sure on that

MS was different, because she used a 2D medium to trace a 2D medium. Not to mention that others created the 2D art and she just used that without crediting the original artist. At no point in the MS debate does the actual sculpt come up. The companies' photos come up, other artists' photos come up, but not the sculpt.

I personally don't count it as stealing - much like still life, and that it was done in oil on canvas, not sculpted in resin. If Yang Jing re-created his works in 3D and sculpted a new Volks Megu from scratch, yes, that's copyright.

And for the Andy Warhol Campbell Soup painting - Why would Campbell sue Warhol when he gave them free advertising for one of their products? The painting was shown everywhere - and Campbell didn't have to pay a cent! I think I would live with that

 

Rather than make generalizations about when painting dolls is okay without crediting / when one should credit, I'm just going to talk about this particular case:

This person has painted what is clearly a Volks Megu over and over again (as someone in this thread said, since 2004). The Volks Megu is most of what this person paints. Furthermore, this artist doesn't even get far away from just presenting a default Volks Megu. And, just as a personal opinion, I don't even think she's really doing anything artistic with that image. I mean, the "Saint Barbie" portrait had more going on than just Barbie. But these paintings are ALL really... just Megu.

In this case, I don't think that the artist needed permission to sell these paintings, but I do think they needed to credit. This is because people buying the paintings might very well be buying "megu's look" -- a look they think doesn't exist anywhere but on that painting. They might think they couldn't find a doll like Megu if they tried. They wouldn't know where to look. They are paying $8000 for the artistic vision of Megu to someone who didn't create Megu, but really if it were possible, they would rather have paid $650 to own the real Megu. But, if the artist credited Megu, art patrons would know that they have a choice between buying Volks Megu or the painting of Megu -- or both!

 

But in that case, if I bought a Sailor Moon DVD and created a Sailor Moon doll from scratch, and started selling them with out saying Sailor Moon belonged to so-and-so (Nayoto Takuchi, I thinkkkkk........Not totally sure....) then it would be as if saying "Sailor Moon was my idea, I made her, that look, her charicter, up"

I agree it's a form of still life, but it's not like painting apples and grapes. These dolls are hand made and sculpted. Hence, they should at least have credit. I find nothing wrong with using dolls as models for pictures and selling them, but if they are based on a real doll, they should be marked, even just as a caption bellow the picture, what mold and from where. ^_________^

Campbell's can had it's brand ALL over it though. It was obviously theirs to everyone.
We in the doll world may know Megu, but "outsiders" wouldn't have a clue. Like I said in an earlyer post, they aren't painting the word "VOLKS" repeatedly, it's Megu, who belongs to VOLKS. There's no stamp saying that. If she painted her headback and VOLKS headplate, then it would be like the Soup Paining, but right now, it's not.

 

I very much agree!

 

Ah. You've hit an entirely different market there. You're talking about a recognisable character, with a specific background, name, hair, face, eyes, etc. If someone created a Harry Potter doll and paraded it around saying, I made it, look at me, whee! then I assume JK Rowling (+lawyers) would be on the case like a hot potato.

Now, I'm in the group that says "Yes, Volks made that sculpt, but she is not a character." All Megu has is a name, a company, and a specific sculpt. She doesn't have a story behind her, she doesn't have a certain pair of eyes or certain hair. She isn't immediately recognisable to the common people, like Harry Potter or Sailor Moon.

(I was just giving the reason why Campbell chose not to sue Warhol, but uh, ok)

If outsiders don't have a clue, then why not let sleeping dogs lie? It's great if Yang Jing credited the mold, but, at the end of the day, if the person buying the art piece doesn't ask "Hey, what is that doll in the painting?", then it signifies that they don't care what the sculpt is or what it is. They just like the overall painting. This isn't like BJDs, where you buy something and change it to suit you. Paintings come to you ready made, you don't change them. If the buyer honestly liked the sculpt to actually wonder what it is, they will ask.

I personally will NOT succumb to the idea of babying grown adults and practically spoonfeeding them everything. This seems to be the general idea popping up in this debate right now, and I would like it nipped in the bud. Grown adults who demand everything from information to how they should live their lives sound extremely unhealthy, not to mention selfish.

I sound horrible, but the idea of spoonfeeding everyone sounds worse to me.

Again, if they want to know the sculpt, they will ask Yang Jing. People could genuinely buy those paintings because they 'like' the painting itself, not because they like the sculpt alone. When I walk in art galleries, if I don't know something, and I don't care, I won't bother looking it up, or ask any questions. It's not important to me, and it may not be important to the buyer.

ETA: I'm sorry if I sounded forceful, debating last thing at night when hot, tired and bothered is not a smart move

 

Crazy Disney types eh? Volks. I don't really need to say more. >_> This is after all a company that didn't even want photographs of their dolls put in a book with other companies dolls. Not to mention there have been several cases before where they've gotten very about images of their dolls being used in other mediums for profit.

From a legal standpoint, I personally have no idea if this artist is "right" or "wrong". I don't even know if I'm ethically against it or not. I have no idea if she owns the doll, if she asked permission, if she knows the first thing about BJDs or that a company like Volks probably wouldn't be overly impressed with her art if she's making a profit from it, I don't know if she's making a profit from her art, I don't know if she's a little blue man from mars.

I pretty much just know if we're talking "crazy" Disney types in the doll world... Volks is pretty much it from everything I've seen and heard.

((And on a completely random note, I find this strange to write given I just got finished watching The Little Mermaid and Mulan. :B))

I'm not sure about the four sisters, but actually many of Volks dolls do have stories and characters. Most popularly (is that even a word? lol) The Oath of the Silver Coin, The Maiden's Promise, Tokyo Boys and Harajuku Memories. And re-released molds do for the most part have consistent hair and eye colours.

Not that this makes for any great or valid argument for or against the art, just something I thought I'd mention.

 

I don't really see this as a problem, I think if it's her or a friend's doll then there's nothing wrong. Just like if I wanted to do paintings of my doll. Who's right is it to tell me I can't. While I may not have sculpted him, he still belongs to me and is mine to do what I like.
Heck I draw and doodle mine all the time. It gives me something visual to work with pose wise. I personally need to have something to handle to draw movement realistically. I can often picture stuff but my hands do not obey the brain ><

 

Tigerbaby has pretty much said everything I would have about art, artists, artist rights and dolls. Being as Tigerbaby actually is a working professional artist who has actually earned national grants to pursue her artistic career, and has made a point of studying law and ethics in this area, (as opposed to someone who is not an artist, has not studied these things, and basically only has an opinion, however heated that opinion may be), I bow to her expertise in these matters.

I find it interesting from a sociological point of view, however, that this is a Chinese artist who has deliberately objectified a doll from Japan, rather than one of the many dolls available in her own country.

There are some...well...issues relating to how many Chinese feel about the Japanese that stem from the behavior of the Japanese military forces in China during WWII. I am not going to go into these things here (there are hundreds of articles and first-person, rather horrific stories available on the web to read) but psychologically and sociologically, if someone is working out some of those issues artistically, it makes sense to use a doll from the only Japanese company that makes them. And it makes sense to make that doll recognizable to the cognizant.

Though one thing that no one has asked is, is the original doll being used for the subject of the paintings a bootleg? There's no way to tell from the painting, and given that the artist is Chinese and has ready access to the bootlegs, it would make sense if it was. If that's the case then my whole suggestion above goes right out the window.

 

I think it's extremely tacky, legal or no. One of my favourite artists, Eli Effenberger, paints "ball-jointed dolls" in her work. This is one of my favourite pieces by her:

http://marmite-sue.cgsociety.org/gallery/628453/

BJDs? Yup yup yup. Look like any mold on the market? Nope. She had the creative talent to go ahead and make the faces in her own distinctive style. Another one:

http://marmite-sue.cgsociety.org/gallery/518425/

Oh, it could have been so easy to slap one of her own dolls' faces on there. Or any of the dolls whose photos she uses as models. But nope, she did her own work.

What happened to doing your own work?

 

This is a very interesting discussion o_O

I just read through everything, and i'm a little baffled as to where this lies in ethics myself, but i have to comment on something.


OpheliaB: "What happened to doing your own work?" You've gotta realize that everything you do, everything you draw, write, make, anything, has roots in something already created and is drawing upon the creativity of other people. If you're writing a story, its very easy to take a basic theme from another tale, or drawing a picture you might use dozens of other things as references, including other pictures and actual objects. If you write an essay or research paper for school....well, do i even need to detail that one? You're doing your own work indeed, just pulling information and concepts out of other people's ideas.


I'm thinking that rather than comparing the basis of these paintings and the obvious use of actual dolls to someone like Andy Warhol, who was known for various works in which he drew other people and objects which were not considered works of art (i could be wrong, i'm just generalizing a little. Forgive me if i'm off ^^;; ) I think a more "proper" comparison could be used, like comparing this concept to that of someone painting a picture of the sculpture "David" (first thing that came to mind XD; ) or another sculpture in general, and using it in various different contexts. Would that go against copyright ethics/laws? Would that change if the artist in question specifically said that they'd used "David' as a reference, or that they specifically used his likeness in their work?




All of this aside, i really like the feel of this artists paintings, obvious volks sculpts or not. They're beautifully done and very realistic, i think ^^ Still not sure on the ethics, but still love the work anyway ^^

 

Well...I almost don't want to post at all...as I fear I may be yelled at...but...

I'd just like to say that I rather like these paintings.
I really enjoy seeing photographs of BJDs and faceups on BJDs that artists here on DoA have done, as well as hearing backstories, and seeing beautiful costumes created for BJDs...I just think it is nice to see another form of creative work that used something I love, these dolls.
I like seeing the ways in which this thing that fascinates and captivates my imaginations works on the minds of others. ^_^

That was all...

 

By crazy I mean companies that trademark every aspect of what they make. Trademark is separate from copyright and an entirely different issue. Volks has a copyright on their molds as well as copyrights on their images, etc. Legally, this artist has absolutely nothing to worry about as she is not casting new dolls or tracing images, she is painting using a doll as a subject so far as everyone knows. I am fully aware of the laws surrounding this which is the only reason I posted. If Volks were capable of trademarking their dolls completely, you wouldn't be able to take an artistic photograph of your doll and sell it without paying them royalties(if at all). What this woman has done is no more illegal or unethical than what photographers on deviantart routinely do when they sell photographs featuring dolls. Telling the name of the sculpt is a courtesy to the viewer, not a legal obligation to the company.

Now I'm out gang, this is getting a little silly for me.

 

I figure I'll throw my two cents in on this:

Yes, the paintings are CLEARLY of a Volks Megu, but they definitely don't look traced. Using something as a model for a drawing painting isn't illegal, last I knew. I realize the sculpt is very distinguishable in the paintings, but isn't that the point of life drawing/painting from a model? When I draw a person, I don't change their features (not talking about anything abstract, of course). Why is it so wrong to paint a doll as accurately as possible? Maybe the artist didn't want to use a different face in their paintings.

Either way, as long as they state where the model is from, I don't think it's a big deal.
A 2D artist usually doesn't get much flack for creating a 2D version of something 3D, because really, that's how you learn and progress and has been a manditory practice for artists for a VERY long time. I have done VARIOUS drawings of 3D objects that are copyrighted in THAT form, but on paper or in another 2D medium, it's fine.

I can draw or paint a Volks doll with my own artistic interpretation, and as similar as it may look, it's not a Volks doll. I can say it was referenced, but it's in no way stolen. Legally I can go deeper into it, but that artist always has the right to say that his drawings are NOT a Volks Megu, but rather inspired by her, regardless of the similarities. I'm sure the representation isn't perfect anyway, so it's very difficult to legally take action against something like that, especially if he used his own Megu to paint from and has no pictures to show copying. (Whereas MS was CLEARLY tracing a 2D photo into another 2D drawing, which is totally different.)

Unless ALL 2D forms of a 3D object are copyrighted, it's really hard to take legal action against an artist who is only using the 3D object for reference (unless of course they use a copyrighted 2D source and copy it directly).

As a final note, if copying from 2D to 3D/3D to 2D WERE strictly punished by law, cosplayers everywhere would be having their butts sued off... that, and we definitely wouldn't be able to post photos and drawings of our dolls online or do commissioned drawings of other people's dolls.

 

hay- ty for the endorsement Sometimes it's kinda hard to let people know about background without seeming like a prat. Because of all this 'copying' nonsense I have held off on displaying any of my doll-related art until I can secure an endorsement from each of the companies. Which is a pain: in good conscience, I have to finish my images first, then ask (I fail to see why the companies should give me permission 'on spec') running the risk that all my work will be for naught if the company refuses, and all I can do with my work is tack it on my own wall.

I'd wondered, too, about the possibility of the doll being a bootleg, but didn't want to open that whole tin of herring...but if it is, then that sort of lends a whole new wrinkle of meaning in the work as a whole, whether read as a feminist, revisionist, or consumerist statement; in fact, the question that it might be a bootleg doll, unanswered- adds an interesting and relevant layer of tension, imho. The ghastly history of Sino-Japanese conflict is something...I honestly try not to think about; it gives me nightmares <vxv>

I don't think anyone would -realistically- ever purchase one of these paintings as a 'substitute' because they didn't know a Volks Megu existed. For one thing, the majority of them are flippin' huge (the artist is a trained muralist, btw), so the doll is larger than its original scale - sometimes close to 1:1 human scale. People who go to galleries to buy original works of fine art are not likely to be toting home a giant painting because they really want a doll; Volks markets its creations far too effectively for that to happen.

I am wondering if you have any idea how hard it is to make a painting or drawing perfectly represent a specific doll mold? It still feels like a miracle of craft each time I make it happen. Whereas, pulling a face out of mind is incredibly easy once one has a good grasp of facial proportion and anatomy (repeating such a construct from other angles and in different styles is another thing entirely, tho'). 'Creativity' - or inability to craft a precise resemblance? ::reserves opinion:: not my place to judge.

As for 'crediting' the company - the only way an artist could do this is in the title of the work, and the titles of paintings are an important component of how a piece is read for meaning. Changing the name of 'Seven Day Fantasy Tour - Tian'anmen' to 'Study of Volks Megu'? While it might make some people here happy, would effectively reduce a bold political statement to nil.

 

I think it's possible you are reading to much into this. The series of images was started back in 2004. If my memory serves, that is before most of the Chinese BJD companies hit the market. I could be wrong though.

David probably isn't the best example as Michalgelo has been dead for well over 70 years, so legal copyright is no longer an issue. The image of David can and does get used by the public freely. I had a friend with dress up doll magnets of the sculpture, of all things. A better comparison might be of a more modern artist. If the whole point of your image is just to show off the sculpture then you owe credit. If the image is about something else and just happens to feature the sculpture then no, I don't feel that credit is owed. I've been planning a series of works based on the sculpture garden at my old college and the often times hilarious ways in which students interact with it. I don't feel that I would owe credit to the various sculptors who's works are in that garden, despite the fact that their art would hold a prominent place in the images simply because the artwork will not be about the sculptures, but the place where they are and the attitudes of the people there. Likewise I feel that this artists paintings are not about Megu but about more broad reaching ideas about objectification and materialization. Megu just happens to be modeling. And as someone else mentioned, fine art is not a term paper. You don't have to cite all your sources.

This made me smile. Also, thanks for addressing the creativity as a by-product of ability to fabricate images issue. I had something typed up then deleted it because it came off to incandescent. Of course I come from a conceptual art school of thought and feel that artistic merit is earned via the communication skills of the artist, not by their technical rendering ability. An image created solely from imagined components has no more inherent value than one of preexisting components or else we would have to dock photography as a lesser art form.