Dollzone Originality - Discuss it here.

Gosh, I know posting pretty much anything here will send this thread back to the surface, swarming with another 15 pages of overly heated discussion, butI suffered through for three hours and read darn close to every word, and I really wanted to express my opinion.'

Yes, DZ copied in the past; that is undisputable. However, I think the rampant suspicion may be a bit undeserved.

As it has been pointed out by several other people, human bodies look like human bodies. The musculature and detail will be similar. It only serves to follow that there are logical places to joint a body to allow for natural movement and posing. Following that, only certain types of joints allow the proper range of movements required.

Yes, there are similarities of between the 1/3 scale bodies; however, I don't think it's enough to call it an outright copy; a stealing of the entire design. All this suggestion of the stretching and wax casting and modification? Why all that work, plus paying all that money for the other doll?

I am an artist, and although sculpture was not my focus, with a dozen photographs I could recreate a reasonable facimile of any doll. And I could probably work out the jointing system similarly. It is not out of someone's ability to mimic something without actually geting their hands on it. If they were heavily inspired, let them be.

Also, to respond to another previoulsy mentioned point, 'as an artist, how would you feel if someone stole your hard work ... etc.'

As stated before, I am an artist. I actually did have someone steal my work, from the concept of the piece to the execution, but it was a peer of mine with lesser ability. At first I was offended, but I found it outright humorous when the person scoffed at mine, yet displayed their own. Even a professor of mine found it amusing, considering that mine was clearly superior. The point? I knew mine was better, the other artist knew they had copied, and neither of us had to say a word about it, the evidence was right there. If DZ truly copied, do you really think a company with such a reputation as Volks would *really* feel threatened by a less experienced and well-reputed company with a *similar* mold? No, Volks will stay, regardless of the truth, and people's opinions of them will not change. They have nothing to be concerned about.

And finally, also as an artist, I was told by a great many of my professors to copy people! It happens all the time in art, which is what I feel all ABJD are, and the only rule is to make it your own. Take the idea, but change it; improve it. From the pictures I have seen, I do feel that this is what Dollzone has done.

I personally own a DZ 1/3 boy, and I find him to be very appealing, I love his look, and he is well made! He does not have the silicon padding, which from my understanding is an imporant part of the KIPS system, therefore, on that I can say I firmly believe they did not copy, as it is not present on their dolls. (clearly) However, having never seen an SD-16 in person, I cannot make a decision in the matter without any shadow of doubt.

I am not taking one side or the other, just presenting a viewpoint that has not really been expressed unbiasedly-- the artists viewpoint, on creativity, sources of inspiration, and 'borrowing' ideas.

 

I'm kinda sick of people talking about this. Yes I know most people don't like DZ but some people do. I personally think most of them are kinda ugly but I do own a DZ Yuu who I think is really pretty! The thing is I have a really hard time finding anything that fits him! I can't find shoes or clothes or anything! It's so frustrating sometimes >_< I think this in itself is proof that they didn't copy otherwise it would be a whole lot easier to get clothes to fit. They also have the weirdest stringing and their joints are a bit different from other dolls I've seen.

I think that people should just leave this subject alone until and actual lawsuit happens. I'm really tired of hearing people constantly complain about DZ dolls copyright. This is totally old! Yeah they are cheaper dolls from China and most people think they are ugly but get over it please.

 

I think DollZone dolls are neat. To me they look different from most of the other dolls out there, very stylized in an unusual way. Coming from the US, where baby dolls rule, I find the DollZone look to be very cool. I think that now that DollZone is no longer the "cheap end" (AoD, Bobobie, and Fantasy Doll are moving into that slot) it will be interesting to see if people will still grumble about them or move on to the other companies.

 

I think they're pretty original. I mean, I may not know much about BJD or DZ's past of "copying" but so far as I've seen, the DZ dolls now are one of a kind mold.

If they look like others, isn't it just more DZ giving the market what they want - for cheaper? Think of it like artistry, well.. it -is- artistry.

Brush strokes in paintings are the same, but it you're really looking they have a bit of "originality", don't see people bickering that one artist stole another artists brush stroke. (I mean, that's just stupid frankly.)

It's like programming code, too. Everyone learns the same language. There are only a few variations of one program, so somewhere along the line code is going to look the same. There is only so much originality someone can put into it.

Is there really something against "copying" to make something cheaper for a market that wants it cheaper? Do we really know the process DZ takes to make such "copies"? (They could make the molds themselves, just make them look pretty close to whatever else they're going for.) I dunno... these are just questions popping up in my head.

 

I have 3 DZ dolls by now and even if I can't say I know all the molds in the BJD world, I'm pretty sure these dolls are original sculpts. The bodies and hands are very different from other brands, and I've compared them in several meetings. I don't know about the past, but today I'd say their work is original.

And about hand poses - other brands have very similar hands! I was surprised to see my Kid Delf An hands were almost the same than a friend's DoD Twing Key hands...(I'd say they were exactly the same but I don't want to). Now, suspicious minds want to say anything about this? Both companies are quite famous and none has been acused of copying as far as I know.

 

*sigh* Its sad this topic keeps getting resurfaced. I think Dollzone has definately made up for their uhoh from their copy in the past and have proven themselves to be a worthy company that sells beautiful dolls. I recently bought a Dollzone Wing. I fell in love with him and he was perfect for the character he is going to be (Spock from Star Trek). I couldn't find another single doll that looke like him and believed me I looked.
All the pictures and the this joint looks like this joint mess is kind of sad. I would have to say like many others have said all over the DoA forum when the "copy" topic has come up is unless there is a side by side comparison or it completely looks the same the whole copy suspicion is useless. They are definately not a "cheaper" doll as fishcake said AoD, Bobobie, and Fantasydoll have come in to take that slot.
We all want to be careful in such an expensive hobby so when copy, scam, fraud is said it scares many of those in the hobby. We want our precious babies to be the best for what we pay for them. Its easy to get scared when you see something similiar, but only so many changes can be made to joints/etc before it is no longer a ball jointed doll. There are going to be similiarites in joints. Face sculpts/molds thats a whole different story.
I think this thread should be changed to doll originality instead of Dollzone Originality. There are more copycats out there that are proving that they are copycats and members of the forum find them as copycats, why not focus on the companies that are actually copying instead of a company that had one oops.

 

In your first example, you're talking about comparing techniques, not final product. DZs are made with the same kind of molds and resins as every other doll out there, yes. That's not what is making people question their originality, though. It's not an issue of technique.

In your second example, I'm afraid you're also comparing apples and oranges. Programming code is a limited language in which certain strings must match and be consistent in order for it to function at all.

If you'd like to use a language comparison -- which I'm not sure is actually a good idea, but I'll go with it -- it might be better to compare the features of a doll and its overall aesthetic to our usual, everyday English. There are word certain combinations that are recognized as beautiful, others that are recognized as ugly, and others that are recognized as being unique to a particular author or speaker, so that when people "borrow" them it is obvious. When a long series of words are combined in the same exact way as someone else has previously combined them -- such as in a term paper -- it earns a special name. Plagiarism.

 

Actually in art it's commonplace and expected to copy existing works and styles as part of the learning process. Many of the Renaissance masters actually had an entire workshop of assistants and apprentices that did the larger, less detailed portions of a piece, reserving the master and his energies for the most important parts. That's how you became a master, working your way up in a more experienced painter's workshop, gradually taking on more important responsibilities, until you were ready to create one of your own. So you see, it would be ridiculous, for example, to accuse Panini of copying Ravioli's feet if Panini had been a part of Ravioli's workshop and actually done those very feet themselves.

Even today in art school it's not uncommon to have an assignment where the entire purpose is to copy an existing work as closely as possible so as to train the eye and learn technique. It's only natural that one would incorporate those things into a personal style. So you see, the writing example is particularly inappropriate.

Given an environment in which artists learn their craft from one another, and perhaps even spend time working in more established shops as they learn (do we know how closely the established doll houses are linked by sharing workers, etc? I know animators, for example, frequently move between studios), combined with the fact that there are a reasonably finite number of ways to portray the human form in a realistic fashion... I think Nightmoon has a point.

 

However, if someone were to sell one of those works, it would have to say "from a painter of Botticelli's school" (just to pull a random painter out of the air), rather than selling it as a Botticelli.

Painting over a photocopy of a Botticelli and then trying to sell it as an original (even though it's not exactly the same and has your own "brushstrokes" on it, even if you aren't CALLING it a Botticelli) is copying. (Calling it a Botticelli would be counterfeiting, saying that it's your own work is copying.)

Yes, artists can take existing images and put their own stamp on them -- Warhol didn't necessarily ask permission from Campbell's before painting their soup can), but he also wasn't taking blank cans of soup and painting the Campbell's label on them.

I'm not saying this specifically in regards to DollZone, I'm talking about copying in general. I think that DZ has created an original and distinctive style in their head molds, and I'm pleased to see it. However, since the company started out by copying (and selling the copies as their own work), all of their subsequent work *is* subject to increased scrutiny as a result.

-- A

 

This is why I really think the name of this thread needs to be changed. It could possibly scare off those who wish to buy Dollzone dolls. I read this thread before I bought my Dollzone Wing and it actually terrified me because I thought I had done something wrong in wanting my boy. The thread title may scare off some of those that are new buyers and new to the hobby, I think the thread title should be chaged to addressing doll copying in general. Just my two cents

 

Well, if someone new to the doll world does a little research, they will learn that Dollzone has copied in the past, but is not at the moment selling said copies to the western world. There has been a problem with Dollzone originality in the past, and I personally don't see the problem of this thread reflecting that.

 

Agreeing with Feather.

I think this thread is important as it means people get the full picture. Imagine if you had bought your DZ, then later heard small snippets about Dollzone copying, without knowing the full history. You'd feel terrible! But if you read this thread first you'll know that Dollzone started out by copying another popular doll (or dolls plural, but that is really unproven) but now the dolls they make now are accepted by (this is my estimate only) the majority of collectors as fully original. You'd also know before you bought the doll that some people are still a little sore about the copying before, but at least you wouldn't find that out later.

I think this thread also helps people not to pass judgement on each other or presume things, because we can be straight with each other.

 

Mosaicwolf, your response about art was fascinating, but I was referring to the written word. I actually think a comparison with art is more appropriate than the one I tried to make, but I was attempting to use Nightmoon's original premise.

Since art is being discussed, though, I will say that learning by copying is one thing. Selling copied works under your own name? That is another issue entirely. I dread the future of the art world if budding artists are not being taught the difference.

 

I don't disagree, but since this is a thread debating Dollzone originality, when has there been an instance of selling copied works that has been verified as anything but speculation and hearsay beyond the original incident with a copied Woori? It has been pointed out on many occasions that Leonardo's John the Baptist (which was, we believe, modeled on his male lover) bears a resemblance to the Mona Lisa. Some have further postulated that Leonardo used that same familiar face as a model for Mona. Essentially, that the Mona Lisa is in actuality a man in drag. If you look at her with that in mind, you may begin to see it...but if you had looked at the Mona Lisa before I gave you that information, would it have occurred to you that she was anything but a strong-featured woman?

We see what we want to see, and once someone has put the suggestion of 'oh, that must be a copy' in your mind, you'll eventually find what you're looking for. Regardless of whether that was the original artist's intention or not.

 

The writing example is not inappropriate at all. In creative-writing or poetry workshops, students are frequently asked to copy/imitate another work (short story or poem) completely. They'll write it out a few times as it is written, to get the feel of the language, rhythm, devices, etc. Then they write a modified version of it, imposing their own words into key spots. Basically: making a recast copy to learn by, & then embellishing it with one's own personal style. Same premise.

However, if I tried to publish my freshman-year poetry workshop's "training knockoff" of a particular Margaret Atwood poem (it wound up being about two snipers on a rooftop, when I was done with it)... the literary scene would have me horsewhipped, and rightly so.

If Dollzone's past sins of copying were done for learning purposes (which I shan't even speculate on, either way), I think it looks like they've learned their lessons now. If they were done just for profit, well, it still looks like they've learned their lessons, because their recent heads all look pretty darn original. But that doesn't mean their past sins should be wiped clean, either. As Feather said, people do have the right to know that DZ once had problems with copying in the past, but is kosher now.... Compare it to wanting to know more background about of that friendly, churchgoing ex-child-molester who's moved in next door to you.

 

I'm sorry; I just found that sentence incredibly amusing!
It is true that since they copied in the past, their reputation will always have that following them. Like JennyNemesis's analogy; it's hard to fully trust an ex-convict, no matter how repentant.
However, like ex-convicts, if they are truly repentant, they still deserve their second chance.

 

Definitely agreed-- both ex-cons & bootleggers, if they've repented sufficiently to everyone's standards, of course they deserve their second chance. But, y'know, background checks, always a good policy anyway.

 

I will admit I never got the real reason why a good portion of people distrusted DZ and well I skipped over a lot of pages once I saw the same argument being stated over and over and over again. Yes they copied in the past, but why should that condemn the molds that are original? While I know this might not come off as well as I hope, I want my point to be made cause I like most of the DZ molds. If they did not make money off of the copies, sorta like a select boycott, do you think they would keep making the mold? Probably not.

The world with molds is only so big before things start looking alike. Like it was said on one of the first few pages, the human body looks like a human body and there is only so much difference that can be put into molds. If you are looking for a copy odds are you can find it if you look hard enough. What made me want to slam my head against my desk was the feet. Feet can only be made a couple of ways before they all look similar. MSD sized dolls can only have so big of feet before making shoes becomes a problem, so there has to be a similar shape and size so the companies that make the shoes can just make a "standard MSD sized" shoe. Hands there are a few more ways to pose, but you have to make the molds a certain way to make sure the fingers are thick enough to be cast and not break once they are touched. The bodies again the same thing, only so many ways you can toy with how a human-like doll can look before it starts looking funny or weird.

Just my two cents, but this thread makes me feel almost ashamed to own Rhiannon (Shoyo).

 

I've just started reading the this thread from the begining, so please forgive me if i have missed anything.

Many people have pointed out that you can only be a certine amount and others say that you can be as origional as you want. Let me point out that they both are correct. Doll makers can be as creative as they want-making the bodies as varied as the people on this earth. However, if they want to sell them as BJDs there is a certine look they must follow in order to cater to the mass market preference. And since most people who buy BJDs (please note: i did say most people; not everybody), prefer the more anime/asian look of the more slender built males and females. So most doll companies are going to try and make the bodies look like the idealistic BJD bodies that the majority of the market will buy. And some companies will plajorize (i'm not saying DZ did or didn't), and resort to copying to please the mass market-others will try to make thier own version of the idealistic BJD slender-ness. Now even those who make origionals can be acused of copying-especialy if the ideal look that the majority of the market for BJD's is specific.

Now again i am not saying DZ did copy volks or any other company. Then again i'm not saying they didn't. For these types of cases the only way to tell is direct proof. And in some cases artists get blamed for copying, sometimes not. and sometimes playjorizers get away with copying, sometimes not.

I am nuetral on this situation . And i wouldn't buy DZ dolls- only because i'm not as fond of the face sculpts and skin tones as i am of other ones.