Dollzone Originality - Discuss it here.

The mechanics of the doll can not be copyrighted; those would have to be patented. With the exception of the CP low waist joint, I don't know that any have been. In any event, however, the similarity of structure in that ankle joints are ball-and-socket (what else would they be?) or that Hounds, SD16s, and SD cutes have double-jointed knees, or anything else in the mechanics of the doll is not some "infringement", unless a patent has been filed in the specific mechanism in the country where the dolls are being made.

 

One of my friends has an aunt in China who works for an "art factory" where they employ talented artists to make copies of famous statues or whatever so you can have a miniature Michealangelo in your backyard garden. Some are very high quality reproductions, so some scuptors are very good at copying. They also make derivative works like sculpture cherubs that look like ones from famous paintings. This is a whole industry and it's not considered to be artistic plagiarism, so maybe it would not seem wrong to make something that looks suspiciously like a Yukinojou...

Even so, I think the Dollzone doll is a mixture of original and copied pieces. The hands and feet are very, very suspicious as being a direct copy, as is the lower waist joint, but the middle waist joints are different enough (The DZ one is longer and has a different muscle structure) that it would be easier to sculpt a new one than to laboriously modify Yukinojou. The chest, too, looks like it is original or at least heavily resculpted - they probably copied the shoulder cap design, but the copied shoulder caps don't fit the same way into the Dollzone torso, which is broader at the shoulders. I really can't say anything about the arms, since they could be sanded down direct copies, and it's hard to tell with the legs, too... the ball at the top is longer on the Dollzone body, and if they just stretched a wax copy of Yukinojou's leg I wouldn't expect such uniform size change... it looks almost as if they stretched Yukinojou in photoshop and sculpted what they saw.

Well, I dunno, I don't have a Dollzone doll so I don't really have that much of a personal opinion on the issue... just thought people might be interested in knowing that there are reproduction art factories in China that could do something like this and not expect the outrage here. It might seem like a really *good* idea to make designs very similar to some of the most popular designs from other companies, because that's what customers seem to want. And I don't think Volks could patent the entire concept of double jointing, because they're not even the first people to do it... the "KIPS" system may be patented, but it's more involved than just double joints and shoulder caps, I think... aren't there little silicone disks involved or something? Well, anyway, I do still think it's wrong, because copying part of a Volks design and passing it off as original is a lot different from making an "original" garden statue that looks a lot like one of Michealangelo's painted cherubs. There are intellectual property laws and public domain laws and all that. I hope that this Dollzone issue (like Forever Doll long ago) does not discourage other Chinese BJD makers like Mythdoll.

 

This is a really bad comparison/analogy.

The works you are speaking of are more than likely reproductions of images/objects old enough to fall within public domain (that said, many museums zealously guard reproductions/images of objects within their collections, but that's a really sticky issue and I won't go there).

I think that this issue's gotten so emotionally charged that both sides are grasping at some straws...I'd just caution everyone to not draw lines between apples and oranges and to try to keep an open mind until we have an official update from a reliable source.

 

with this information, perhaps it's not so much that they're straightout recasting the pieces from pre-existing or frankendoll parts, but simply that they're using existing popular doll company dolls for 'inspiration' and their artists have absorbed bits of the original design, and if they really ARE as good as you say, in trying to come up with an original doll, their influences are showing up.

and because their skill at imitation is so great, these aspects of 'inspiration' aren't too subtle.

but that's just my take, because i have a similar problem with drawn art. when i flip through artbooks, or after indulging in a long manga series, if i sit down to draw anytime within 1-2 days of my artbook/manga spree, whatever i draw tends to have striking resemblances to whatever i'd been perusing.

.......or maybe they ARE just copying. but i DO prefer the DZ body purported to be copied from yukinojo. i prefer more streamlined shapes. blatant plaigarism may not be right, but i personally like what they did with their 'copied' yukinojo.

 

Well yeah, that's what I said if you read all the way to the end of my post... I'm not saying that the fact they make reproductions makes a reproduction Yukinojou right, but that if people are in the business of making professional-quality reproductions, it's possible for them to have made something that looks a lot like a Yukinojou or a MNF El or a DOD body or whatever without it being a direct recast of the original. (I think parts of the Dollzone boy are direct recasts, but that's just my personal opinion.) We might not get official information for a long time if they have to conduct an extended inquiry.

 

Whoops -- I didn't mean to misinterpret you

I used your first comment (admittedly out of context) as a springboard to caution everyone against getting super worked up about whatever their personal viewpoint is.

From what I have read there's been a lot of apples-to-oranges comparisons from many who are new to the concepts of copyright and the law (not that I mean you personally); I didn't mean to single you out. :: offers cookie ::

And yep, it might very well be a long time before we get an official update -- all the more reason to avoid conjecture outside of places like LJ where it's understood that we're talking about feelings and not necessarily "news" like on DoA.

 

What I'm reading read from Iroha's post (and please correct me if I read you wrong) that Dollzone might not *understand* what would be wrong about directly using another company's doll as a model for theirs, since that kind of copying of art is routine in the art factories she was speaking of. Also, copyright laws aren't as stringent in China as they are in other parts of the world (Chinese bootlegs of US patented stuff is a BIG bone of contention in US-China trade relations, I've seen it come up in current events whenever there's talk of changes in said trade relationship. The US wants China to vow to more strongly cut down on bootlegging, especially out of Hong Kong), so what's perfectly an acceptable practice in China could be causing Dollzone some surprise to find out it's *not* perfectly acceptable to the BJD population in general.

As I said before, if someone can point me to the *exact* doll/body that the Mo head/girl body came from, I'd buy them instead, but so far no one has been able to provide anything but stuff that's close, but not what I want that attracted me to the Dollzone body in the first place. Quite often I wouldn't buy the original that the Dollzone bodies supposedly came from even if it were the same price as the DZ one, as I like the DZ one better. It's not just a price issue as it's often made out to be (at least, for me)

 

I don't think they need anymore examples that it's wrong beyond Forever Doll.

 

Unless they're not familiar with Forever Doll. Just because we as a fanbase are aware of it doesn't necessarily mean *they're* aware of the company.

 

They may not see it that way- Forever doll made literal copies of dolls- a straight forward re-cast- whereas the new DZ seems to be taking parts from lots of dolls as their inspiration (and I'm sticking to inspiration now until something is proved against these new bodies , just avoide confusion).
Using parts taken from lots of dolls to make something new is not the same as simply directly copying something- they may well beleive that that makes it OK. I sure know a girl in my GCSE art class thought that...

 

I believe FD also had one or two "original" heads that looked more like they had been merely inspired by Volks heads, and not direct copies.

 

Did they? I have always been told that they were direct copies, and the info is so hard to find now.

My mistake- sorry!

 

I can't actually remember them having original heads, but I haven't been in the fandom long. Does anyone know for certain, IE, the names of the 'original' molds?

I am still saying, in China bootlegging/copying is an accepted practice. When they started, they may not realize the rest of the BJD world doesn't see it that way. I don't think they're entirely bad or just out to grab as many profits as they can, as they withdrew those dolls that were copies from production without, as far as anyone is aware, a judge's order on behalf of CP for them to do so. If they just wanted to make a bunch of cash and run like most bootleggers, they wouldn't have stopped those dolls and made new dolls, they would have just sold as many of the copied ones as they could until the law was literally darkening their doorstep.

EDIT: Sorry, had to leave computer suddenly and didn't finish.

 

I was under the impression that this thing was original or a modified Volks head as opposed to a direct copy. I could be wrong, I don't know every old FCS head perfectly, but it doesn't ring a bell.

 

Oh I remember when they released that doll. Never was much of a fan of the sculpt. But anyway, yes it was original if I remember correctly.

 

Purely out of interest, if someone eowned it, would they be allowed to post it here seeing as it was original, even though other dolls of it's company were copied?

 

I'd be surprised if the doll hadn't disintegrated by now, and the body is still copied, only the head is original.

 

Nina is still available they just don't list her on eBay. You can request her.

 

There is a difference though between Hong Kong and China.

Hong Kong only recently became a part of China, a few years ago. Before that, they made many bootlegs because they hadn't signed the .. was it Burne convention? Sorry I forgot the name. But the international copywright agreement.

Now Hong Kong is a part of China. It isn't China that was known for bootlegs as much as Hong Kong, who could technically legally create them and sell them as long as it wasn't to countries who singed the international copyright agreement @.@. However bootleg trade seems to be continuing in Hong Kong now that they are a part of China, which is probably what China is being critisized for.