Edited - Are the Minimee Sculpts Original?

I think "hypocrisy" is far too strong a word.

I personally dont like minimees because my characters are mine, and I know a "celebrity" doll wouldnt fit in at all.

 

That would work except for one thing... Angell Studio never marketed or sold their two sculpts as "Angel Sanctuary Dolls". It was stated that the costumes were made for a comic convention display... dolly cos-play, essentially.

 

In lieu of this, I would respectfully like to point out something that I learned as an illustrator in a business class - the law of clelebrity protects any celebrity's image from being used for anything commercial. Anything that is deemed "newsworthy" does not fall under this category, which is why political cartoons and everything similar to that is perfectly legal. But if you want to use a celebrity's likeness for anything commercial, you have to get expressed permission, or you could run into legal issues.
... Having said that, since Minimee exudes a likeness that is only 80% correct, I have no idea/doubt if this would still be an issue. I am in no way shape or form a lawyer...

Just thought I'd share that bit of information.
-V

 

I think Yugami said it very well in regards to copyright laws, however i agree that i believe the reason that the minimee's havnt attracted any attention legal-wise is because of the obscurity of the hobby.

Although the molds are not 100% accurate they are still using picture of celebrities and anime characters to create an item which they make a profit from, which Im pretty sure probably isnt allowed Although it is true that celebrities realise that their image is going to be used in alot of products that doesnt mean that it is legal to do so without their knowledge, it simply means that they are aware that it goes on.

Possibly a good example would be the resent trouble square enix has had with a company that was making fake weapons in the image of the ones from their popular final fantasy series.
Square enix didnt even know anything about it until the items were held at an airport as some were being shipped overseas and they were contacted by the airport to confirm they were official products. Obviously now Square enix is making sure the company does not sell anymore of them.

However, i dont think many people think of the legality of the minimees, unlike the trouble with the Angel studio dolls, because these are molds theyre requesting from the company themselves, possibly because of this it seems more like DIM is simply offering a service and isnt really making a profit (I know what i mean when i say that but i realise ive wrote it a bit odd lol) because if no one commissioned them they wouldnt make them and therefore wouldnt be gettign any money from it?

Id just like to add though that im not prosicuting anyone for ordering a minemee, since its none of my business what people spend their money on

 

Sound like people will be making that argument wether we settle things here or not, so I'm not sure what sort of precedence you're trying to set.

I sincerely doubt that anybody could really get a subpoena allowing them to enter your house and confiscate your private property based on this, nor do I think D.I.M. would make their customer list public so they could find you in the first place. In the case of COH the users were using a server owned and monitored by the company responsible for the property and on view to anybody that had a mind to look. The mysterious THEM are not looking into your homes going: "GASP! That face looks entirely too much like Ultimate Wolverine. Let's get her!"

I was under the impression that the earlier argument was that they had done so not by calling the dolls Angel Sanctuary dolls, but by appropriating the name, look and costumes of the characters. By doing so they were using Kaori Yuki's characters without permission for their own profit, wether they called them Angel Sanctuary dolls or not. Though I'm not certain, I wasn't around when the whole thing went down. I'm just going by what I heard on this thread. *newbie*

 

All of Angell's SD-scale doll have "Biblical" names... Adam, Cain, Lillith, and so on... so the names Lucifer and Gabriel were consistant with their established naming practices. The face sculpts didn't particularly seem to be modeled on the AS characters, either. What caused the drama was the costumes they'd been photographed in. (Costumes that had been, as I mentioned earlier, made for a comics convention display-) That, combined with the names, lead some people to get snarly over "copyright violations" and how terrible it was that this doll company was "stealing" the characters.

Rather than deal with the angry fan-girls and the language barrier, AS pulled the dolls.

 

I really think the initial question posed in this debate actually deals with two separate questions/issues. First, a doll company copying another company's doll. Second, a doll company creating dolls in the image of a well-known person or character. I really feel that comparing these two issues is like comparing apples and oranges, regardless of how a person feels in regards to the morality of either issue.

 

Heh.. took the words right out of my mouth. xD I'm really not sure what else to add to what Yugami has said. Bravo!

 

Hold on...I remember DiM selling their sleeping Cloud sculpt while calling it a Cloud sculpt as well and if I recall right, mentioned Advent Children too. They might not have dressed him up and put a wig on him, but they still sold him as a Cloud. Wouldn't that be using Square's characters without permission for their own profit?

Just to be sure...this would imply that what DiM does is not actually legal and is only safe because of this hobby's obscurity? Less with the 'allowed', more with the 'flying under the radar'?

Upon rereading what you said earlier and seeing that people are agreeing with it, I would like you or anyone else to clarify this. I am not a copyright lawyer but I just realized that your talk about 'people can't sue something that looks like them because look, we have satires/parodies' can't be right because satire and parodies are protected from such claims by the fair use doctrine, not because we're allowed to have things that look similar to celebrities.

Also, public personas can trademark their images. It isn't all up for beck and call of the public (especially if used for profit).

I think this needs to be Quoted For Emphasis. I do think DiM is protected by obscurity. The reason they haven't gotten in trouble is less because the sculpting of celebrities is legal, and more because no one has sued them (wouldn't be worth it either, I think, for some of this super rich celebrities).


I have no vendetta against Minimee, but I do find the behaviour of doll owners to be odd at times. Brightfires' link to the Angell Studio's dolls controversy was an excellent example. We are extremely quick to judge in defense of our favourites, but when it comes to getting something we want, a lot of us seem to be turning a blind eye.

 

Unless they are cloning people, they aren't copying since you can't "copy" a living thing.

 

This hobby is not original in any way.
We all have molds that someone else created that we all call “our own”. (save the ones the original owners made) We all can make a profit from something we had no part in creating; just cause we painted a face and tweaked the eyes, does not make said mold our own creation.

Maybe that should be a thought when we go to sell the “doll we did not bond with?” (when profits are made!)

This has come up before, and I have a lot of Minimees and only two of them are their original characters by looks. And I still stand by the project.

I am not a lawyer, but I am an artist and when I was in school I was never reprimanded for using a reference. And that is exactly what Minimees are. They are “references” of a celebrity or a pre-made character commissioned by sculptors who put their talents to work.

Could you imagine the lawsuits ALL commissioned artist would get when they use their talents to create art of any kind for any customers?

Some have been sued, and sometimes the person who filed the suit won.

Does that make it right? Well, that’s a moral issue. An opinion. And all this thread will ensue is arguing just like the last few "minimee: wrong or right" threads.

 

Please explain.

 

With all this flack about who knows more about copyright law than whom, has the obvious question already been asked-- what about Korean intellectual-property law? I'm pretty sure American law does not cover the entire globe (no matter what Viacom would like you to believe). If DIM are in no danger of being nailed for IP violation in their home country, then they're probably not going to stop the Minimees. Unless they get directly asked by a celebrity-victim.

I've seen a lot of wonderful things done with those Minimee heads, so I can't exactly call them unoriginal, doll-wise, even if they are unoriginal human-wise. Originality is such a subjective issue ("It looks just like him!" "No way, it does not!") and very touchy. If there's no bright "Right/Wrong" line provided by the law, then everyone has to suck it up & bear their own outrage with grace and courtesy. Just don't take it out on the doll's owners. One can always show one's lack of support for a company by not giving one's money to said company.

Word up. The old saying goes, "Every tragedy is a comedy unless you are the victim." ^^ We're human, though, so we can be forgiven for assigning SILLY significance to the things we love, and leaping over our own principles to get the things we want. If you try to deny Desire, it WILL kick your ass in the end, and it will kick Principle's ass in the end. It always does.

Silly example: I wage my eternal battle against Cameron Diaz by not paying to see anything she's in. On principle. But, also on principle, I also read or view anything by the late great Dr. H.S. Thompson, and I adore Terry Gilliam's films. So imagine my dilemma that time La Diaz got a bit-part in Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas. Argh! What to do! Stay faithful to the Gonzo and the Gilliam, or keep my principles intact at their value of $7.50 (movies were only $7.50 back then)? In the end, screw principles, I saw the movie many times and loved it.

That Angel Sanctuary brouhaha last year, *pfft*! If they didn't want to attract Wrathful Fan attention, shouldn't have given those dolls their actual Angel Sanctuary character-names. If they'd billed Jibril as "Esther" and Lucifer as "Nebuchadnezzar" instead, much easier to fly under the radar. XD Still, if they didn't have a guilty conscience, they wouldn't have pulled those dolls off sale completely; they would've just reposted plain non-cosplaying pictures of them. 'Comic expo', OK, sure! However... Since Kaori Yuki was never heard to weigh in on the issue as far as I know, I kept my mouth shut, and the only feeling I was left with in the end was: "Oh well, that's over. Dammit, I still want a Lucifer like that."

 

Heh. I don't know the details (and it might apply for anime/games, not celebrities) but this has been mentioned quite often on DoA so I know the answer to this: Korea is under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (sculpting included). To quote, "the Berne Convention lays down a common framework and agreement between nations in respect to intellectual property rights." So, I believe that the points raised about copyright in US is valid concerning Korea due to the convention.

Ah, but when people don't seem to want to acknowledge this or kick up a fuss when the word 'hypocrisy' is raised, I thought it wouldn't hurt to point it out. I also feel the need to say that not everyone takes their principles so lightly. I won't say that I'm someone who stands steadfast by my principles, to death and so on, but I will say that there are people who have done so and I know people who continue to do so.

 

Up until a few years ago, outside of a book, you never saw Marilyn Monroe's face on anything other than a poster or piece of Authentic Memorabilia ...now it's everywhere...her estate finally licensed out her image as well as her signature...though you see knock off MM stuff all the time now....I always look for the label.

Elvis, John Wayne and James Dean are also examples of this.

Fan art falls into a completely different catagory...Since they are commissioned by fans who can't sculpt themselves, I am inclined to consider the DIM heads to be fan art. Just like if you got an artist to turn a doll into say...Jack Sparrow...they charge you for the face up, costume, any mods...DIM charges you for the sculpting service.

 

Personally, I think there is a bit of a moral distinction between using the likeness of a real person (Celebrity Minimee) for a sculpt, versus using an artistic creation made by someone, such as the anime/manga/video game Minimees. Legally, I'm not sure of the distinction because I'm not a lawyer.

But I know I tend to get a little more upset by what I consider an intellectual property violation (something an artist has created). This would include Minimees of fictional characters created by artists (manga, games, etc) as well as the copies/recasts of dolls brought up in the first post.

I'm one of the people who started the whole "Angel Sanctuary incident". I'll fess up to it. I get finicky about intellectual copyright, period. After that incident though, I just learned to shut up and stop raising a fuss whenever I see it. I'd also like to point out that once AS clarified that the outfits were for a one-time cosplay and the dolls were not to be sold as the fullsets, several of the "Angry Fangirls" (including me) backed down. If they sold just the dolls as basic sets, they wouldn't be making a profit from Yuki Kaori's work. Though I'll also admit that they were kind of asking for trouble by naming the sculpts the same thing, even if said names did fit into their already-established naming scheme.

A celebrity's face can be a trademark, but not an intellectual copyright. They didn't create their face (well... I guess in the case of some extreme plastic surgery that's debatable... but that's a whole new can of worms). Said celebrity happened to luck into that face by the laws of the gene pool. I don't see replicating that bone structure/eye shape/lip shape as an ethical violation. Once again, I'm not talking about the law here... just my personal beliefs.

 

This sounds like a stale issue. if the matter of similarity and copyright and how Minimee do their business is so crucial, don't you think there would be legal repercussions already by now? We don't know how their company works. Who knows, maybe they have established a form of payment for the copyright? Only a curious point, since i'm a total amateur. *flees*

 

Dear People,

I appreciate for any words regarding the minimee project as this can be thought there are many people interested in this regardless of which side ther are on.

I would like to explain some important points again(I explained this several times before).

I started this project for people who were interested in having their lovers to be made into a doll.
Then, there was an increasing number of people who wanted to have their lovely artists to be like a doll.
As someone called up about the reason why this project was started.
This was a new project and when I saw or felt the expression what people really expressed themselves with a happiness, I felt the same way.

As an owner of DIM company, we do not post images to sell this project.
This is not a doll, we call it as service.
There are so many kinds of works done based on customized requests.
This project is one of them.

Honestly, I have some other works for making celebirty dolls with athorized licenses(owned by other companies), when I take these kinds of works, we take thousands of dollars just for one head because we hand over all the rights to them for making it into production.

But with this minimee project, we are not making a big fortune as most of the payment is used for labor force of our team.(of course, there is some margin for production, that's the company's profit)

We take images from customers but those images are not officially shown at any place by us.
If you happen to see the content of the minimee project, we take payment for the labor force not for sales of celebrity dolls.

Please do not misunderstand about this that we do not sell celebrity dolls.

There are still people who order minimee service for making their family members as a doll.

The reason why I set up the maximum production per a celebrity for 10pcs is that this can be a reasonable and not to harm those lovely celebrity.
People have their favorite artists in mind and they are spending valuable money for paying thier respect to those artists as they love them.

If any celebrity or representative contacts me directly for this, claims that we violate their copyright or something, then, we will stop making this project.

I do not wish to argue with anyone in this forum and would like to make people happy not argument.

I think some people are misunderstanding us that we are selling celebrity dolls.

Again, we create dolls based on people's request and wish with their own expression to be added into their doll.

Of course, I understand that everyone in this article has their thought and their right to express their opinion and I respect it.

That's why I write this for explaining all about the minimee project.

Thank you for reading this.

Sincerely,

Denny