Edited - Are the Minimee Sculpts Original?

Kiskalla, you don't seem to be grasping the difference here between copying an existing doll and copying someone's face.

One is artistic property. The other's genetics. One is copyrightable, the other is not. I'd very much like to know if anyone's parents copyrighted their child's face, since it's their "creation".

 

Just a note as it was mentioned previously: Faces can be trademarked though. Some celebrities do trademark their own faces, which means no one else can use them for commercial purposes without their permission. (Yes, even though they didn't 'create' their own faces.)

As for the copyright of anime/game characters, that's another thing altogether but I won't get into it since it's been debated quite a bit here already.

 

Who has trademarked their faces while they have been alive? I've heard of it being done after their death, but I'd be interested in seeing who has. The most I've ever heard of is various celebrity body parts being insured for millions of dollars

 

Unfortunately, I don't have a list of celebrities who've trademarked their faces. I'm sure there's a book out there that can help answer your question. Other than that, alive or dead, the fact still remains that celebrities' faces can be trademarked.

 

I see. I figured that, since you brought it up, you'd have some sources or information on it.

Yet, trademarks and copyrights are different, are they not? I have seen logos that have both the (tm) and the (r) next to them.

"A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others." from http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/trade_defin.htm

"Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works." from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

I believe the specific word used by Kiskalla was "copyright". Can you indeed copyright a face?

 

its called the rights of publicity, or personality rights, but since it varies from country to country and from state to state I dont know about its use or rules in korea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

Just like to add that Im only posting it to be helpful since people are interested, as ive stated before its none of my business what companies do etc etc

 

Eh, I bring it up based on information that was brought up before on DoA. Like I mentioned before, even the Berne Convention that I brought up was based on information shared on DoA.

I never did say that faces can be copyrighted. I'm saying they can be trademarked. How ever Kiskalla says it, I'm just bringing up a reminder that there is still trademark to consider when it comes to faces and we shouldn't be so quick to say that we don't create our faces so we have no rights to them.

I'm not a copyright or trademark expert so I might be wrong anyways. I presume that trademarking faces are a lot more complicated than the usual trademarks. Still, there's the implication that faces aren't always a free-for-all.

 

But there is such a thing as right of publicity, which does cover the likeness of a celebrity. It's found in state statutory law or common law, so that means it changes from state to state. Some states are fiercely protective of celebrities (such as California and Tennessee) and have very tough right of publicity laws. You definitely don't want to be a defendant in a right of publicity suit in those states. The Lanham Act (which is also what trademark is based on) does also support a celebrity's claim for false endorsement.

Copyright and trademarks are relevant though since they do cover characters and people have made Minimee based on characters.

Though again I'd point out that this is Korean law we're dealing with, not American. I suppose it's still interesting to think about from the ethical/moral standpoint.

[edit] One thing, I think Kiskalla grasps the situation perfectly fine. It's just that she used the wrong terminology. Copyright and trademark are mainly for characters and right of publicity is for celebrities. Her main point is that there are actual laws protecting both (whatever the terminology may be) and yet people don't seem to care about that from a moral/ethical point of view. They only seem to care when a company copies another doll mold directly and that this seems a bit hypocritical. At least, I think that's what she's saying...Kiskalla, please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

LKJ and Zalem are right.

The right of publicity basically covers all use of a person´s likeness for commercial purposes, so creating a sculpture of a celebrity in order to sell casts of that would clearly be covered by it, too. (BTW, you do not have to be a celebrity to be protected by this, everyone has a right to their own likeness. That´s why photographers have their models sign contracts and release forms.) Faces are definitely not a "free for all".

Likewise, copyright law grants the exclusive right to the copyright holder to both publish the original work AND create any derivative works - which includes even non-commercial works such as fan art, doujinshi, fan fiction, as well as any kind of merchandise, obviously including sculpts of the characters to be cast and sold.

Which means in short, creating a sculpt based on a character/likeness owned by someone else can be just as much a breach of copyright as recasting or copying someone else´s work.

While most celebrities/copyright owners tolerate and many even support fan works, some others have clearly expressed their dislike or set certain limits: Anne Rice does not allow fan fiction based on her works at all; Aquaplus have asked fans not to use their copyrighted characters for doujinshi based upon their series (e.g. To Heart) and one of the major publishing companies (forget which one it was) recently made a dojinshi circle withdraw their Doraemon dojinshi because it was selling so well that it could no longer be regarded as a non-commercial fan work. The doujinshi market in Japan is huge in total, but most individual works don´t exceed a certain run. There are certain unspoken rules and limits even in the world of fan works.

This is where DiM´s limit of 10 comes into play; as well as the fact that those 10 casts are already spoken for at the time of sculpting and the fact that they only offer an 80% likeness. All of that limits the effect of the Mini-Mees on the "market" (for a certain person´s/character´s likeness) so much that they can still be considered as privately commissioned fan works that were never available to the public rather than commercial products.

It is unlikely that DiM will get into legal trouble for Mini-Mees, but if a particular celebrity or the owner of a character would ask them not to produce a Mini-Mee of them, they have every right to do that (still, the 80% likeness would make things difficult in a legal battle).

BTW - it does not make much of a difference whether we are talking American, Korean, Japanese or European law here as all of the countries mentioned have signed the Berne convention:

(my bolds).

 

It seems however though that the original poster was still taking about the originality of sculpts made from a celebrity. Which is moot because “originality” and “unique” have such grey area that will differ between person to person, and as I have read many times from so many people here on the Debate Sections "a debate is a discussion based on fact!" (which by definition is not ture!)

Facts are, using someone’s namesake to get famous, or for promotions is illegal and one can get prosecuted. And by the laws stated above using someone’s ‘being’ without proper permission is also against the law and also liable for prosecution.


Opinion, do I find that buying a minimee hypocritical? No, but then again I never boast about how original/not original I want my doll to be, nor do I boast how original/not original another owner’s doll is.

 

After reading Denny's quote, I didn't want to say anything on this topic, but I simply must comment on one thing.

This problem has actually crossed my mind several times before this thread, and that is: has anyone ever considered the ethical dilemma of copying someone's face? I find it horrific that people are saying, "Original characters are copyrighted, but a face can't be because it's all genetics and nothing to do with you." Well excuse me, but last time I looked, I was the only one with my face, and it's something I live with everyday. Regardless of how my face was created, it's an essential part of me. Now how would you feel if one day you suddenly discovered that someone had a doll of you made, without your knowledge, and basically stared and played with a likeness of you every day? I personally would feel very disturbed. (And note, this is in all likelihood possible - maybe someone could see your photos on your photoblog or something, and decide they like your face, and turn it into a Minimee...there is absolutely NOTHING stopping them from doing that).

This is NOT a post dissing Minimees, I think it's an interesting idea (legal and ethical concerns aside), nor is it a post regarding the possibility of celebrities copyrighting their own face. This is a post to say that in general, shouldn't everyone have a right to their own face? Just because you dont create it yourself, doesn't mean it doesn't belong to you. How can some people be so dispassionate about their own FACE?

 

chizzie_shark, While I understand what you mean I have to say that with several billon people on this earth it is likely possible that someone else in the world could share a similar face to you. I have seen at least two women with IDENTICAL features of my mother. Does that freak me out? No. Should those ladies get plastic surgery cause my mom should be the only one with that face? No.

I mean, the practicality of this irks me a little (same with the “original” name thread). I am not saying what your feeling irks me, just overall with this "originality" thing in the doll community—casue this is where we are!

I mean, why are we so self-indulged with the idea of “I am the only one who can have, or say, or look, or do this!”

And, who’s to say the dolls that people do make aren’t originally represented by people they see everyday? I look at people all around me and emulate them into my drawings. I may like the way some lady’s eyes look and I will emulate that. Or someone’s hair look and I can emulate that as well.

Honestly, how is that wrong?

 

OK Multi-multi-quoting here for emphasis.

First: I come from a 3D computer graphic background, and the discussion of "may you make [insert celebrity here] in 3D and sell it?" crops up very frequently.

Fame sells. Celebrities sell.

And here's the interesting point. What it someone used pictures of a doll to advertize/advocate for something? Not totally far fetched, I can tell you.

I'm very certain that is the cause. I think if some celebrities knew they were being made into dolls, they could and would stop it! There's a reason why for instance Harry Potter figures are trademaked and copyrighted and whatnot.

That would depend on whether or not Korea has signed the Berne Convention. Not all countries has. I do not know if Korea has.

Uh.. I'm old enough to remember when Paramount shut down zillions of fan Star Trek sites. Sites that were all made in homage to a great series. Some companies just won't allow fan[anything] while some other companies encourage fan art and fan sites.

But there are some actors who explicitly forbids any replicas of themselves as dolls or in 3D. And no I can't name them offhand because it's been a while since I last was in this kind of debate. But rest assured: They exist.

But how about the heads that has already been sculped? Would the owners be required to destroy them?

Oh and please don't get me wrong! I'm asking nervously beccause I HAVE purchased a Minimee head, and I would be happy to get one more, if another certain person was ever made in resin I LOVE the concept of Minimee personally. But the first thing that struck me when I heard of it was "wow! Is that legal?"

But if I commissioned you do make me a 3D model of a Coke bottle for instance - even without putting the Coca Cola lettering on it - it wouldn't be legal still, because of trade dress. Trade dress is the third sibling to Copyright and Trademark. And equally protecting things from being copied by everyone.
http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/tradedress.html

So while the minimee heads may not be breach of copyright, they COULD be breaching Trade dress.

Again, I sincerely hope it's all legal. I'm looking forward to my minimee and hope to get more. I just wouldn't like being told to smash it up because it was deemed illegal.

 

Problem is the Berne convention covers copyright, not right of publicity nor trademarks. Trademark is covered by TRIPS and a few other treaties. What I'm not sure about is whether there is any sort of international treaty covering right of publicity. I don't think there is because right of publicity is currently not a federal, but a state right only.

 

I'd just like to add an anecdote regarding that statement. On almost a weekly basis I get mistaken for someone named "Megan" (which is not my name, btw). Apparently there is another woman who lives in the same city I do, and our faces are similar enough that I frequently have to tell people a few times, "No, I'm really not her" before they'll believe me. It always seems to happen more often when my hair is a certain color and style, too. So does that make my face "original" or my property, if someone else has it too?

This whole debate topic opens up a whole new interesting debate idea... what about celebrity impersonators, or just celebrity look-a-likes? It's off-topic for this forum since that doesn't relate to dolls, but it's something to contemplate.

 

While I don't share the exact same stance as chizzie_shark, I think there's a difference between what you're saying here and what she means. We can't fault another person for having features that are similar to ours due to some genetic coincidence. But it's something quite different if someone sits down and sculpts a doll to resemble a person as closely as possible. I'm not talking, oh, I like her eyes, I'll just use her eyes as reference. I mean the entire face.

IMO, it's not a case of people wanting their faces to be the unique, the one and only, because these are dolls. Even if someone sculpts an identical (impossible, I know) sculpture of a person, it still wouldn't make that person less unique since they're alive as opposed to the doll. But everyone should still retain some right to their own face. I think that's what chizzie_shark meant when she brought up the ethical issue.

As an example, a story I've heard is of a friend having pictures taken at a studio. The next day, she found the pictures of herself posted outside the studio as an example without her consent. In this case, it made her unhappy, as I think it would many people. I believe the case of sculpting would be similar to this as well. And well, clearly many people feel quite strongly about having rights to their own faces as the 'right of publicity' exists.

 

But that’s the thing. You just used an example which is clearly a violation of her rights as the model who was the subject of the the pictures and did not give consent to the photographer to use her image for personal gain.

Commissioned artist/doll sculptors don’t need to advertise their works of copyright/trademark material to gain business, they can use their original work. But that may not stop people from asking them draw/sculpt a trademarked/copyrighted item would it? Does that still hold the artist liable? It’s not like they are using these images for personal gain directly.

Going by what you said about using a specific face. It is clearly stated that they do 80% resemblance and they clearly state to specify what you really want the face to be focused on. http://www.dimdoll.com/shop/step1.php?number=215 <-- scroll down, it’s in blue!

How is that, then, copying someone’s face? It is true that his team of sculptors are very talented and these sculpts sometimes do look spot on, BUT as a person who own minimees—a dolls blank face is pretty generic.

 

Are Minimee Sculpts original? Yes, because they are the first to do what they are doing. As to wether it's ethical or not, a point that has been totally missed here is another reason why to purchase Minimees. I personally love them NOT because they are similar to the actual celebrity, but because they are similar, and the nearest likeness I can get to the actual CHARACTER they have portrayed, ( which for example the actual actor has made money from acting as a particular person/ character in a film),So for me that is the most important thing. It wouldn't matter to me who the celebrity was that played the part, but when I'm trying to recreate that character it really helps to have the nearest likeness you can get to it. So it's all part of the creative artistic side as I view it* Just my two cents*

 

Yes, actually. The legally correct answer to "can you draw me a picture of Mickey Mouse?" is "no, Mickey Mouse belongs to Disney." It doesn't matter if you're advertising your ability to draw Mickey Mouse or not... you're not allowed, legally speaking, to reproduce someone else's intellectual property.

Of course, if you're not advertising, they're not likely to catch you at it. *shrug*

 

I think you hit the nail on the head. The original post was just a little sketchy when it came to the question and was read different ways. Since people are not copywritted doll sculpts and characters given to be sculpted are original sculpts not copies of another doll.

If a company cant chose to sculpet a doll based on an anime/manga character without the permision of the artist than it isnt right for a consumer to ask a company to sculpt such a character for them either.

However, it is artistic license to base a doll/painting/whatever loosly on another work. Very, very few works are 100 percent original. An artist may like the paint combinations, lighting techniques, painting style, canvas shape or subject matter of anothers work and use it as an element in their next painting. This is both accepted and encouraged in the world of fine arts. Why should doll styles be any different as long as something isnt a copy of anothers work?