Recasting a company's doll in unavailable resin

Artists make collages all the time, and they even make money off them. Is this illegal? Technically yes, because of the copyrighted materials they included in their art. Is it wrong if a student created a collage for a school project using copyrighted photos from magazines? They aren't making a profit. They aren't trying to hurt the original artist by depriving them of profit.

I'm still of the thought that it's illegal (no quotes ) to recast a doll if your intention is to sell the parts and make a profit, but if you are doing it for your own personal collection, then there's nothing wrong with it. You aren't hurting the original artist since you don't make any profit from the recast nor are you helping others to get the doll for free in X resin.

If DoA members shun me and others who agree with me because of my opinions, so be it. I'll let it be your problem that you assume someone who agrees with recasting a doll for personal use and not for personal profit (which apparently is a social faux pas) makes them such an oh-so-shady seller or buyer who breaks the law left and right. As for myself I would probably not buy a doll from someone who admits to actually bootlegging for sure, but just for having an opinion? Seems a little extreme.

(It would still be illegal to commission a sculptor to copy a pre-existing doll and cast it in blue, pink, whatever resin, so there's really no point in doing it. Might as well get a Bobobie if you're that hard up for colored resin, but it's definitely not the same.)

Micchi: I see you have Dollzone dolls. You are aware that at their beginnings they were known for bootlegging Volks dolls, right? But they have changed their ways and now are a legit doll company. Obviously you trust them as a legit doll company even though they bootlegged in the past.

EDIT: Now I realize it's come down to whether the falling tree makes a sound if nobody is around to hear it. I believe recasting dolls for personal use is not wrong, even if it is illegal, but you better not show photos of it on DoA.

 

DollZone, however, admitted wrongdoing, and that's the key here. They admitted to the recast, acknowledged that this was ethically and morally wrong (legally, it's very blurry, as copyright protection is very...lax...in China). They discontinued sale of the recast, and I'm pretty sure (although I cannot confirm) that the artist who "created" the bootleg was told to pack up and leave. I do not fault the company, with multiple workers who are individuals; I fault the individual artist, who knowingly passed off a recast as his or her own work and felt no remorse for this.

 

Actually, there are a great many resources that can legally and legitimately be used in collage, one just needs to purchase the rights to use them, so this doesn't actually work as a blanket statement for comparison. (There are also some free resources.) There are very conscientious artists who make sure they only use materials like these, and calling what they do illegal is more than a little unfair. This is how it should be done; that it isn't done that way often enough that it's expected to be illegal is a bit sad.

 

There's also a huge difference between someone in China (where, as I posted earlier in this thread, the minimum wage can be as low as forty cents per hour) deciding to bootleg a doll, versus someone in a first world country, with enough disposable income to be buying BJDs, deciding to bootleg one.

Both are immoral, but one is based on economic concerns and a different understanding of art and what can and cannot be owned. The other is just laziness, greed and informed disrespect.

 

Now I never said DOA would have to accept such dolls. Nor did I say pictures had to be posted of said doll. I'm just saying that it couldn't hurt. But then again, I see what you mean about the person being able to commission another artist to sculpt the doll themselves. I did not think of that as an option. And "I" shouldn't be ostracized because again, I don't plan to do something like this ever. My dream doll was actually discovered by mistake: a Multihead Ante in WS on top of a Camellia Dynasty Wong Body. And my friend, who I will not mention, should not be ostracized either because she has decided not to do this. I still don't think she should be without her dream doll, so I will tell her to try commissioning a BJD artist to make her dream doll.

I see what you mean here. It is illegal, yes...and you're right, it does disrespect the original artist. I can understand that. The only qualm I have is that no company will listen to feedback and try to cast a doll--even if it is a same sculpt just a different color--even if there are multiple people who want the same thing. I'm not going to say that they have to, and I'm not going to say that it makes them bad. And I'm sure not going to say that since they aren't doing that then it is 100% okay for us to make our own. What I am going to say is that the customer is always right and it would be nice to see some companies trying to open up a doll idea center or database and people can submit an idea for a doll. --It has to be one that the company has already created-- But they can show images of what the doll should look like be it color, transparency, or scars, etc. And if a certain number of people want the same doll, at least 100 or more...--This is just an example not sure what actual numbers would be-- Then the company should at least take it into consideration, especially if customers would be willing to pay the company for a doll like that. And really, I think it could work. But I know it would at least be a 1-4 year process because companies don't really make dolls all willy-nilly, they have to make a plan for it and do lots of tests on the resin just to make sure it works.

 

A great many companies do listen to feedback from their customer base.

The first part of this statement, however? Complete bunk. I'm sorry, but it sincerely is. I could provide you with a laundry list of examples to prove it, but really, that old saying was a marketing slogan for a luxury department store -- it is NOT a universal truism in the manner people think it is, or some golden universal rule that the whole of the world should be abiding by.

Edit to add: A great link discussing the pitfalls of this mentality, and just a FEW of them: http://positivesharing.com/2006/07/why-the-customer-is-always-right-results-in-bad-customer-service/

 

Let me just say for one...this is getting WAAAAAY too serious. I'm stepping out. ^^; Bash me if you want...but I know when to quit.

 

I think it is ok so long as it remains in your personal collection and isn't sold. But there are people who would disagree with me im sure. I would consider it customizing and leave it at that, just my humble opinion.

 

If in the end, only one version of the doll you paid for remain, I don't think it's wrong. IMO it's like if you dyed it, but with better, more long lasting results! (because since dye is only on the surface, it eventually rubs off, mostly on the joints)
I just don't understand why this would be illegal o.o'' it's like if you buy a magazine and see a picture in it you like. you make a copy of that picture and put it on your bedroom wall and throw away the magazine...

 

In the U.S., anyway, the making of a copy of the picture in the magazine is copyright violation. The copyright for that picture -- copyright meaning "the right to say who does or does not have permission to make copies" -- belongs to the person who took the picture, or the magazine publisher if the photographer signed copyright over to them. In no way whatsoever did you purchase the rights to make MORE copies, whether for profit or not. You purchased the right to possess that one physical reproduction of the picture.

The same applies, under US copyright laws and the case law that has come down over the years deciding finer points of discussion, to the creation of *any* piece of original work. As soon as it is made, the maker has the copy-right. The sculptor or writer or painter or photographer has the right to control who makes copies of his or her work, for WHATEVER reason. That is why, at least in this country, recasting a doll without the permission of the sculptor is illegal. Period.

On the other hand, if you get the permission to do so, or at least can show that you attempted to do so and got no answer, then you are covered.

It's the same as referring to someone else's words or research in an academic paper. If it's a little bit, you tell people where the information came from (citation). If it's a lot- like a test instrument or a diagram or sumpin, you get permission. Simple. This is why libraries pay into something called the Copyright Clearance Center, so that they have the right to have their students make copies of articles and stuff for their academic work. The Center does the legwork to get the permissions, since they have more resources on hand than the money-strapped libraries. If they didn't, every time you photocopied something from a journal you'd be technically breaking the law.

And yes, this is information from a lawyer. One of the committees I'm on in my job meets with the university counsel over just this topic, regularly.

Now the reason I said "technically" illegal is that in practice, the company or copyright owner has to 1) care; 2) be willing to track you down; 3) be able to show that you caused him or her financial loss and; 4) have enough money to hire a lawyer to sue you in court. That's why 99% of the copyright infringements go unpunished.

The fact remains, though, that it's illegal, plain and simple, unless you have received permission from the creator of the item in question.

(and sorry, Sahoma - it's not meant to be a lecture at you Soooo many people, even some of our lawmakers, have no clue how the law works or why. And I'll step right up and say that I have no idea whether the same would apply in Canada or anyplace else. Just the US)

 

I see I see. well thanks for the info! if I ever want to do that I'll contact the company then :3

 

And that raises an interesting question to me. I wonder what *would* happen if someone contacted one of the companies and said "I'd like to make a casting of your doll so I could make a blue copy, since you don't sell blue," and specified it was to be one copy for personal use only, etc.

Would they say yes? Would they say no way? Would they be impressed that you bothered to ask?

Interesting!

 

I was kinda wondering that too.
I have a feeling most would say no for some reason. (I kinda want to go ask a bunch of companies to see what would happen xD)

 

I don't think it would be "right" to recast a company's doll, even if you keep it. I think that it is their creation and it should be respected and not be imitated.

One of the main reasons why I think that it is wrong is because, if someone were in serious money troubles... I can see them selling the original doll that they made the cast from, or maybe even attempting to sell the one that they had casted. I think that would be very unfair and wrong to the company the doll is from, as well as whoever bought the doll.

I can understand the story that was written in the first post, about wanting the doll to be blue... But I am sure there would be another way to get the doll blue, whether it would be dying the doll, or even "airbrushing" the doll to be blue.

Sure, it wouldn't be a permanent change. Maybe it would fade over time or change colors, but I think it could be done again and again as many times as needed? (Correct me if I am wrong.)

 

Of course it's ok. After you buy the doll it's yours. It belongs to you and you can do whatever you want with it. You wouldn't be breaking any laws by copying the doll for your own purposes. Of course, selling said doll would be all kinds of wrong but just making a copy for yourself shouldn't upset anyone. I run off copies of my favorite fanarts and put them in plastic pages to make my own personal anime artbooks. Kind of the same thing, as long as you respect the original creator and the place it came from by not making your own profit off it and not spreading it around.

 

No, it isn't okay. You've bought one doll, not the reproduction rights to the entire line.

After you buy a doll you are free to do whatever you wish to that one doll, but that does not extend to making a copy of it, whether you never intend to sell the copy or not.

Do the fanartists you admire ask permission to draw licensed characters? Do you ask permission from the fanartists to make copies of their work for your collection? That is respecting the creators of the work - by respecting their copyright and respecting their decisions over reproduction of your work. Making copies of someone's work without asking their permission first (and waiting for them to respond!) is unethical. At least if you asked first, you'd be making the artist/company aware of your intentions. You never know, they may grant you permission to reproduce their work in a different resin, or they may even offer to produce the unique doll for you.

Companies aren't out to ruin our fun or our dreams, without them we'd have no hobby at all. It's important to respect artists' work and it is disrespectful to reproduce their copyrighted work without their express permission.

 

Hmm... Would it be so bad if I bought the doll, re-cast it in my desired color and all that lovely stuff, and just gave the old doll away? Would that be so bad? Or even sell it for just the shipping cost if it's to someone you don't know? I don't see the trouble in that. I would do that if I were in this 'dream dolly' predicament because I would just love to give the spare dolly to someone less fortunate than me AND I get my dream dolly. Forgive me if this isn't acceptable!

 

it would have been my kind honestly.
dye and airbrush eventally rub off and it drives me nuts! mostly the paint as it also tends to get thinner until it's completely gone with constant touch (I assume it does since body blushing does).

also when I started the hobby, the thought of epoxy almost grossed me out. I mean, you can totally see the difference from the resin and where the epoxy is! and that really wasn't good for me >.< so I would also have recasted modded head and bodies so that they are all perfect and even

but I am way too lazy, care less about epoxy (since rarely ever use it and the only think I want to change are ears and eyes) and I don't want all my dolls to be tan like I used to xD or any other colour for that matter. so problem solved for my case!


I don't think it's wrong. if the original one is destroyed it's just... quality mods IMO.
other option: if the original is still intact, forget it somewhere. when you no longer like this doll, destroy the fake and resell the basic doll *shrug*

yes it would be bad because only ONE doll was paid for at the company and therefore only one should exist.

 

Yes, it would. It's not yours to recast, no matter what you do with the original. There are other ways to get the colour you want (dyeing, asking the company if they will produce the doll in your desired colour, blushing/painting the doll) without doing something illegal. If you went to the trouble to ASK if it would be okay to recast in a custom colour, then it might be a bit more acceptable. I still don't like the idea, though. When you buy a doll, you do NOT buy the right to the mold or to reproduce it in any way. You buy that one single doll, and your right to do as you please with it does not extend to reproducing it for any reason.

No, it's not "quality mods", it's a recast. Whether the original still exists or not, a copy is still a copy. Giving a head elf ears and dyeing the original doll purple is modding. Making a mold of the original doll with the elf ear mod and casting it in purple resin is recasting. Even if you put the original doll in a woodchipper after you recast it, you still have a recast, an illegal reproduction of a legally purchased item.

 

I suppose the real problem is peoples individual perception of what may be "wrong". Legally speaking, you don't need the permission of others to copy their work if no profit is being made on your part. It's why we share songs with friends and print off copies of online images for our lockers and such things, all without asking the permission of the original creators. We aren't being disrespectful, rather we're expressing our love for the work.