Homage Dolls - One company's no-no is another's fortune?

As an artist, and someone who has created fanart for the purpose of selling, as well as purchased fanart pieces myself, I have to say that homage dolls sit just as equally in a grey area with me personally as they do in terms of copyright laws. I, personally, would never purchase a doll that was marketed, intentionally or not, as a fanart piece if it was not done with permission from the holders of the character's copyright. If I want a fanart piece, I will make one myself - I will make or purchase an outfit, a wig, and accessories for it. I find no fault with people who build homage or fanart dolls for themselves from existing sculpts in such a way.

Having a doll company market a doll for sale as a homage doll - even when just using imagery or costume or set-up or naming the doll in such a way, that fans of the original will be able to say with some degree of certainty, "Hey, that looks like ___!" - is completely different to me. That's not one person saying, "I love this character from this story, so I want to make one for myself!" That is a company saying, "Hey, this character from this story has tons of fans, so if we make one people will buy it!" That is a company using a fanbase as a tool to make money. That's not a homage - that's sort of disappointing.

I agree that with the new Idelian in particular, without certain articles, the doll itself could be anything. There are dozens of long-haired, pointy wide hat-wearing, treach-coat sporting supernatural hunters, and he could simply be another generic one. However, it has been pointed out numerous times in the thread that the doll has been named and given accessories that, while not necessarily exact to Vampire Hunter D, are both extremely close to and almost uncannily his. The sword, for example, is not a common weapon to give a supernatural hunter character, and while I am sure that it happens, pairing that with the naming (I had no idea what a dampyr was, as I am not a D fan and have never heard the term before) will obviously set off red flags.

Do I think Soom was using this portrayal of their new Idelian specifically to generate sales? Probably not; they seem to do that well enough without creating "homage" dolls. Maybe they just wanted to do something cool for their customers, and went about it the wrong way. Then again, I tend to think that way about most companies that do unlicensed fanart dolls, such as Ringdoll; they thought it would be cool, they thought people would like it, so they didn't put much thought into the whole copyright thing. But I'm the sort of person who tries to give the benefit of the doubt, and I'm not a copyright lawyer, so maybe I'm just to naieve. Something like this, that exists in such a foggy area of fandom culture, will do different things for different people. I do what I can do, as a consumer, to avoid promoting things that I personally dislike or disagree with: by keeping my hands out of my wallet.​

 

I was careful to omit the word "you" as I was speaking more generally about why people ask for links. Not you in particular. In this thread and others I see a patten of some owners projecting rather negative feelings on other owners based on a hunch rather than a fact. This results in lot of defensiveness from everyone etc...I don't think asking for proof is a "demand"! It is just that at some point if any of us is going to accuse someone of a double standard we should at least give some solid examples. That's all

 

*cough* Yes and when I see someone with the name of a scanlation site (under their user name) that solicits donations for their "work" and defends their "work" from anyone who might want to use it. . . I get a little suspicious about their motives in defending a particular companies actions regarding an "homage." Because it seems unless they know the reference in question then it's not an homage. . . and. . . and. . . leave Britney alone!

*snort*

And I still think you should PM a mod and let them know. They apparently need to re-educate this person on forum rules. But if that's the sort of fans Soom attracts. . . well I'm not sure I want to be part of them.

Somehow I was under the impression that discussion threads were for discussing the doll in question, even if the others found people bringing up the idea of this being a "character" doll distasteful. I don't think one person or group should get to decide how the discussion goes, other than the moderators that is. Debating the merits of homage dolls in general clearly belongs here. The clarion cry of "all clear" in the Hyperon discussion thread struck me as out of line.

Also I guess I'm mistaken that the waiting rooms were the place to go for fangirl squeeing and the discussion rooms were for conversation.

Now if Soom does a Tron homage. . . will that be on topic?

 

As far as I'm concerned I WAS on topic at the Hyperon discussion thread. I was by and large still talking about Hyperon and was just mentioning the other companies as a comparison. It's been done many times in other threads before and it's not against the rules. In fact, when discussion started heating up in the Ringdoll and Nobility Doll threads I don't believe people started kicking out the naysayers and telling them to take it to the Debate forum.

 

He doesn't have the pointy ears -- he starts off as sorta-human in the movie, from what I remember. The doll looks like an even mix of the two inspirations to me. He sorta has the Hugh Jackman nosetip goin' on, which... watch me not complain about anything that looks like Hugh Jackman in even the most roundabout manner. *cough* *shifty-eyes*

Slightly OT: I'm also totally with you on the lack of civility in politics. I live in Delaware, and things were "interesting" around here this election season in ways I have never, ever seen in local politics in my entire life. It was just plain ridiculous. I still have a pile of mailings around here that are full of so much downright absurd hyperbole masquerading as fact that they become pure comedy. (I'm saving them to paper the dart board I keep promising myself I'll get to help vent frustrations over inescapable ridiculousness. )

 

As far as I know, they did not. Although I may not have stayed until the bitter end, if there was one.

I had nearly put it out of my mind but, this seems similar to the Epidos height "discussion." There seemed to be much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the idea that the numbers Soom put forth, 57 cm by 30 cm as being height and length respectively. In the minds of many, there was no way the centaur Epidos could be that short. Much of the drama was deleted though. If people could throw a fit over an established fact (Soom has never left off listing the height of a doll) the I guess it stands to reason there would be a much stronger reaction to the notion that Soom just may have done something not entirely original.

Oh, somehow I thought 5 months (Edward was released/pulled in July) would have been enough lead time for Soom to change direction. Gluino may not have registered with people seeing that almost no one knows Castlevania's Alucard. Plus Alucard has silver/white hair, golden eyes, and his clothes were black. . . But I suppose I let the alchemist angle lead me to believe he was patterned after Saint-Germain and not Alucard. *shrug*

 

It's a very limited run art doll that is easily customizable. Furthermore, not many desire or can afford Idealian. Realistically I don't see them making much profit from this release (most assuredly not a fortune). Also, Soom is technically not breaking any copyright laws.

As for the Grell, Twilight, and other homage dolls/outfits...I would like to give the benefit of the doubt to the artists that they're sharing their vision. Like it consists of a few people from a different culture making things they think collectors want to see, and for the most part we do! People like to see the things that they love carried through in creative ways. If it's done badly, then people may assume that it was done only for profit--perhaps that is what some are seeing as double standards(?)

For these companies (Soom, especially) I have hopes that they can ignore the few people crying moral indignity for assumed motivations of unkown artists. I can't remember the names of even the popular mangaka (or whatever entity inherits the royalties), and I know even less about obscure doll artists. There are so many important moral indignities in the world, but some folks find time to knock down a few hobbyists. Seems silly to me, but then again I am not in this hobby for the love of drama.

Based on the comments on their website, Soom seems to have some staunch haters, which seems to have spawned staunch supporters. I would like to think most people would support any artist that they feel are getting unfairly dissed, even when they normally wouldn't bother saying anything.

 

In the end though it was a mod who told everyone to move this particular discussion to the debate thread. And not everyone was telling the others to leave. I only saw one person, who I also thought was out of line. And if someone doesn't want to participate in a particular discussion, I'm not really sure why it's wrong for them to leave and then come back when it's over. Which is what quite a few people did.

 

I think the reason why the mods stepped in to intervene is because the person who took issue with people not painting Soom in a positive light pmed them about it. Didn't the Nobility Doll and Ringdoll threads had much harsher comments than Soom? I don't believe any mods spoke up about it in during that time. Just saying is all.

 

I honestly have no idea. I wasn't here for the Nobility discussion and didn't stay around for Ringdoll. But even if they did PM a mod, it is within a mods right to say yay or nah.

 

Actually, in the Ringdoll thread it did become clear that negative discussion of Judges wasn't going to be allowed once Ringdoll "pulled" the doll (even if they didn't really, as they made a point of saying they'd still do that faceup by request and would still sell all the associated wig/props/costume/etc...), and several comments were deleted. IDK about Nobility Doll, etc. though.

 

I wonder if this trend of homage dolls will continue however, since there's so much stigma attached to it. I'd imagine companies would want to avoid the stress of it all.

 

The NobilityDoll thread is here: http://www.denofangels.com/forums/s...ity-Doll-Edward-Moon/page7&highlight=twilight for anyone who wants to glance over it again. Many of the points raised in this thread are also present there, so for the people who didn't see it, it's probably worth a glance, but not a revival.

(I am randomly amused that there was some discussion from a bunch of folks that the Nobility Edward sculpt would have made a good D just because of the way events have played out since. It's like everyone had a sudden bout of hobbydrama precognition. )

 

To be honest, I think homage dolls are cute- I've never in my life read Vampire Hunter D, but Soom's take on it was pretty enough to make me consider checking out the original. I guess my question is, what is it exactly (besides a supposed double standard) that makes these dolls so awful?

I accept the probability that the original artist/actor isn't getting paid for it, but it's absolutely no different to the myriad of other things that use their likeness that they aren't getting paid for. And, I just want to throw this out there: these dolls are not going to sell the way those other things are. Even if 400 people buy each of these homage dolls (just for example) it's a TINY fraction of the sales these people/creators need to worry about. We're a niche hobby- it isn't as if all of us are even going to buy one of these dolls. I agree with the idea that the artist should be told etc- it is their character/likeness after all, so it's only fair. But at the end of the day, bjd homages probably aren't going to be the thing that bankrupts Robert Pattison or the author of Vampire Hunter D.

 

I was wondering the same thing. Although it personally doesn't bother me, it does make me wonder why companies would continue considering that it does bother enough people to make it a...problem? Or at least a problem for them. In the end it seems like companies have more to lose by making these dolls, then they would gain.

 

Nope, it isn't. Again, I'd never heard of "Vampire Hunter D" until today.

Despite knowing nothing of Vampire Hunter D, I still recognized Soom's doll as a vampire hunter the instant I saw him... because he looked like a vampire hunter to me.

Point: lots of vampire hunters have that general look.

Seems to me that a bunch of Vampire D fans saw Soom's doll and naturally saw a resemblance to the Vampire Hunter D dude that they all know and love... without realizing that his general appearance is NOT unique to Vampire Hunter D. It's a fairly generic and well-used visual archetype.

 

Has anyone told this person they were out of line? I have no wish to participate in a thread where I'm not wanted, so don't look at me to do it. And no, people can come and go as they wish. It was on a glance through the thread to see if anyone had anything interesting to say that I got the impression they felt a house had just landed on the Wicked Witch of the East or something. That was the feeling I got from more than just one person. *shrug* They are more than welcome to keep their thread pure if that's their thing.

Which is sensible. I tend to expect this will come up again and again. Particularly if Soom meets with success with this one I expect to see a "me too" bandwagon on the horizon. If another company comes out with a dhampir vampire hunter will they be accused of copying Soom?

The thing is, allowing this to continue could cause them to lose control of their rights. It's the reason Disney so vigorously enforces theirs, you can't have Mickey Mouse on a cake or birthday card unless it's an official version. It's not just about money, allowing unlicensed or derivative works could "harm the brand." And if the brand is your bread and butter well, you'd probably do a lot to defend what's yours.

And now to swipe a quote from the aforementioned Edward thread:

Seems to be a lesson Soom forgot this time around.

 

I believe someone already has xtal, if the person they mentioned was the same one. To be honest, I've seen people like that and giving them a good talking to is going to do diddly squat. They are convinced that they are in the right and nothing is going to change their mind. The best thing to do is just ignore them, and hope that when they get older and wiser, they'll look back and realize what a silly goose they have been back then.

 

You realize this isn't the first fandom reference doll from Soom -- Onyx is the most obvious and notable of the previous ones. There's Gluino, and apparently some others. Breccia actually looks like a sketch someone from the community submitted -- and even I was convinced that they'd never make a fan-submitted design, but the concept was for a fox-girl in a harem-like outfit that was fairly distinctive, and that's what it seemed to be. (I looked for that thread again when she came out, but couldn't find it.) As giant stinks were not raised over their actions in the past, I see no reason they should have neccessarily expected it would be much different this time.

There have been companies accused of 'copying' Soom. AoD for Jurgis, who had promotional photos that someone did a lineup side-by-side with Io, and found some amusing similarities. Resinsoul for their hooved doll. Even Iplehouse when they introduced the 'chimera' parts. To put it bluntly, I found those complaints more than a little silly, too, because Soom doesn't own hooves any more than Grell owns red hair or D owns beaten-to-death hats.

April's post addresses this better than anything else in the thread. It's worth noting that Disney doesn't go after every cartoon mouse in trousers with the claim that it's Mickey and 'a copy' in the way this community sometimes does. The law paints with a much less broad brush than the community here seems to from time to time, as the 'the existence of other companies hooves = theft from Soom's ideas' should reasonably make clear.