Sara Naji― Possible Plagiarism of BJD Photos?

I think at the very least it's obvious that the characters she draws very much look like dolls. And not original ones, either! As for the novel she drew for, The Android's Bride, I think they look less like dolls and more like painted over photos of people. :/ I'll do what research I can when I get back to my own computer.

Edit: She also has a deviantArt here, which may be where she's seeing the photographs of the dolls, too.

 

This is reason why I never post up photos of my dolls.

 

She probably colored over the photos, but I'd say she did change the eyes a bit.

 

If she is selling this book then yeah. It is a plagiarism

 

This is kind of a grey area, because they are definitely using imagery from another artist, but because they are changing the entire composition (backround etc) the final image different.

As a graphic designer we often will pull images from stock photography and also online for projects.

If a painter found a picture of angelina jolie online and used her face, but changed the outfit and backround and body, it would be similar to what this artist is doing. I've seen artwork that took directly imagery from anime and superimposed it with classical style painting. We've all seen the pop art painting style of andy warhol and similar who use modern icons.

I personally don't think this artist should be doing this and should try be more original or try and take their own pictures.

 

touching on a bit of what @ChristyS75 said, the general rule of thumb is if the work is 75% or more different than it's not plagiarism. Still it's a pretty big fax pas to reference so heavily from one source. Especially if it's another artist's work and that includes photography. Not everything placed on the internet is for stock or royalty free. You can use some random photographer's image, yes, but only a teeny part of it. Say, you were having a hard time with a hand so you referenced one image and the fact from another. That is okay. But I'd say that the first image is for sure getting into plagiarism zone. The central figure matches up near perfectly, and I don't think the other figure in the background is enough to say 75%+ difference. Heck it even looks like the other figure was thrown in as an afterthought. Or, at least, they need to adjust layer properties or something... Those edges of the face are far too hard compared to the chest behind... ANYWAY enough of my art student drivel. For the others its too hard to tell without a source and some of the more complex ones, like DOLL L may be able to squeak by because of how many changes were made. I am super suspicious of the water pearl one. Just look at how the one eye seems more sunken in than the other...
In any case it can be surprisingly difficult to get plagiarized art taken down off of dA in general and many websites insist that only the original artist can file for a DCMA takedown or complaint. I'm not sure how amazon or the publishing company will react though. The best thing to do would be to find all the photo sources which may be easier said than done...

(Also for the ones that look like real people were painted over, there is the chance that royalty free stock images were used in that case you are free to do whatever with them and it would not be plagiarism. But the way this is going this is just wishful thinking...)

 

This is a common misconception and is completely untrue.

Any artist can challenge any work as being plagiarism of their own. If it actually becomes a legal case, the judge, or judge and jury if it goes to a court trial, is shown the two images. If, in the opinion of the the judge, or the jury, the images are similar enough that the work qualifies as plagiarism, the judgement is awarded to the plaintiff.

I suspect that these images would result in awards to the owners of the original photographs.

 

@Victoria Victrix The "similar enough" part is the 75%. like I said it was a rule of thumb, not a law. As you said the judge has to determine how similar they are. I'm not sure who came up with 75% or if it is an arbitrary number but that's what all my art professors told me. So if thats the case its not just a common misconception its a taught one. It could also be a cautionary thing. Like "oh if its X amount similar it's not worth the money and paperwork kiddo"
unless you have the money that disney does. they are unforgiving to fanartists. Yikes.

 

I can see the similarity in the first example, but without more examples I wouldn't want to condemn this artist's whole portfolio. It's obvious that the artist uses photos to reference faces and not a whole lot else, which is honestly not a problem and is done by artists all the time. The drawing is also not conflicting with the photograph's audience or revenue, so legally it would be hard to find a ruling in favor of the photographer if it went to court.