'Stylistic Similarity' vs 'Copy'

a) It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original. Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why?
Well I actually sort of agree with this - since dolls are based of humans and real people that dolls are sometimes modeled off can look similar, there will be overlaps, it's just inevitable.
And I guess that there will always be overlaps in art, until people go extremely stylised - like having to compare Disney to something like the Simpsons. But getting that sort of clear originality with dolls would be much more difficult due to the question of, 'Will any one want to buy it?'. And with older paintings of realistically done people that are supposedly stylised, I'll be damned if I'm ever able to tell one artist from another, even with examples of their work and names laid out infront of me.
Buuuttt, say if Soom released something like a made up fantasy creature that wasn't very human, it'd be an entirely different story if another company released something similar, like what pinkbunnygirlmoo said. You can't exactly copyright mythology.

b) 'Stylistic similarity' is another way to say copycat. Agree or Disagree? Why?
I'd disagree, mostly because I am a member of Deviant Art, and I see many 'stylistic similarities' on a day to day basis. If it is more general and to the norm, you can't blame them for similarities, especially if it is something that is common. Like I see many houses that look the same, and some that seem to have started in more popular areas, but I'm not going to say the similar newer ones built elsewhere by different people are copycats.

c) Once a copycat, always a copycat. They should never make dolls again. Agree or Disagree? Why?
Disagree, as long as a total turn around is involved and they never copy any one else's things. Having to deal with such a ruined reputation would be hard enough, I think.

But then again, I own an Angelheim Luka the Pan and I'm sure many people would consider to be a copy of Soom. So think what you will of my opinon, hahaa~.

 

a) It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original. Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why?

It depends on how you define original. Are we talking about the style? The jointing system? The look of the faces? The 'niche' they fill (age, stylization, subject matter, etc.)?

Finding something that has all new joints, is a style no one has ever seen before, has a jointing system that bears no similarities to existing jointing systems, and fills a niche no one has done anything in before is probably not going to happen often. There will be differences, but there will be similarities, too. It depends on what you're looking at and how you're looking. Two dolls made with the same jointing structure and design but look wholly different aesthetically are going to be original to some, and the unoriginal to others based on the elements they are looking at.

Things have similarities, period. How broadly those similarities are defined is going to determine how original someone thinks something is, too. Ball-jointed human dolls are nothing new at all -- if you want to go broad enough, that means even the first on-topic BJD here is wholly unoriginal. Something, however, made it different and distinctive enough from the ones that existed before it that it is considered to be in a different category to some than the existing historical works -- just like anything else, really.

b) 'Stylistic similarity' is another way to say copycat. Agree or Disagree? Why?

Disagree. All the heavily anime-stylized dolls look the same to me, but they have obvious differences between them. They have a clear, obvious stylistic similarity. They are also not in any way copies of one another unless they are recasts, or someone is sculpting something deliberately to look like an existing sculpt.

c) Once a copycat, always a copycat. They should never make dolls again. Agree or Disagree? Why?

Sculptor? Company? Country? I've seen people say they won't buy from any one of the above based on the actions of what could be a single person. Personally, I would avoid sculpts from a sculptor I knew to have made a recast or copied parts in this way because I wouldn't trust their integrity. What I don't know is how complicit the remainder of the company is in this act, and unless the company employed only one sculptor, this may or may not be relevant. Certainly there are several companies in any given country that produces dolls that had nothing whatsoever to do with it, so I would refrain from tarring them all with the same brush.

 

In many ways, because I am new to the BJD's (and Doa as such) there are certainly many who would be more competent in answering than me. I'll go ahead, still, and post my observations.

a) It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original. Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why?


With regards to the bodies of the BJD's; it is a concepts that has been around since French and German doll companies first made ball jointed bodies (albeit in wood and woodpulp rather than resin) in the 1880's. The early bodies had stiff wrists and later they would add the extra joint in the wrists. The way they are strung are very similar/I would say identical to how the modern Bjd's are strung. They are because of this, not copying each other, rather they are all adapting a concept that was put in production by dollmakers 130 years ago.

b) 'Stylistic similarity' is another way to say copycat. Agree or Disagree? Why?

I must admit, although I am new, I still recognize that some new sculpts are remarkable similar to ones I know I have seen before (the only subject where I would say that my cognitive skills are reasonably good.
Why this is I have not speculated too much on. I do know that in every art-form there is the so-called family likeness, which makes us recognize the artist behind specific pieces. So if a doll-sculptor has a history with several companies, it would be natural if his/her sculpts are similar.

c) Once a copycat, always a copycat. They should never make dolls again. Agree or Disagree? Why?
similar.
Hmm. IMHO It would be a case of honesty and integrity of the artist. I personally feel that an artist lacking those two moral traits, I would have problems overcoming a "bitter taste" in my mouth, and would likely not purchase from them.

 

a) It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original. Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why?

I don't think it's even down to the numbers. Different companies are always going to have different takes on things, as well as similarities. There is almost a desperation in this hobby to come up with some sort of quantifiable aesthetic that will tie in everything from the Revival Disney Princess style of the Unoas to the angularity of Doll Zone, the giant Tonner-esque fashion doll style of the EIDs to the exaggerated human characteristics of Dollstown, the hardboiled glamour of the Impldolls to the straightforwardly anime style of Dollfie Dreams. There is a huge range of styles out there that I don't think can simply boil down to nationality of their creators, but they are still capable of being put into groups by "feel", that is, style.

b) 'Stylistic similarity' is another way to say copycat. Agree or Disagree? Why?

Depends whether the person talking is pointing out that they are of a similar aesthetic or sneering and implying lack of originality. Context is everything.

I have REAL problems with the way the hobby tends to jump on every new company and want to be the first to scream "Pirate!" or "Copycat!", with no proof, and every new company is guilty until proven innocent; the recent witch-hunting of Stardollfie is an example of this, as is, early in Bobobie's days, forum members jumping around screaming that they "knew" the dolls were pirated because they were snapshotted by company members instead of expensively photoshopped, not because of, you know, any actual evidence of pirating. Angelsdoll were accused of pirating because they have a nice dark tan and mobile bodies. Doll Love, no one could even agree on a single doll they might have copied by a single doll of theirs, but they were clearly recasts of -- well, just recasts in general, I guess. Impldolls and Resinsoul - well, don't you know Soom have a copyright on fantasy cliches, even though the three companies have completely different styles? It's exhausting. Sometimes I think people think there is a prize for calling "copy" first, or are afraid of being accused of being naive if they don't join in. But it's not a game, it's something that can have very real negative consequences for very small, vulnerable companies.

c) Once a copycat, always a copycat. They should never make dolls again. Agree or Disagree? Why?

I disagree. Most of the companies who have made "mistakes" in the past and claimed knock-offs as their own sculpts have gone on to develop really distinctive styles of their own and shown a lot of talent once they've been through the learning process (which may or may not have involved firing off staff.) I see no reason to cling to blame forever. Mind you, admitting fault is the first step... I understand that Leekeworld, for example, removed Milch from sale when contacted by the artist they plagiarised, and while what they originally did sucked, I don't think there's any striking reason to boycott their other dolls. A certain banned member here is still claiming persecution by Asleep Eidelon. There's a difference.

 

I haven't thought much about a) or b), but this is my attitude towards cases like c):

While it is possible for a company to "come clean" and produce only original products, previous copying can be an indicator that it will happen again. There is a good chance that they'll do it again, but we cannot say this for sure. In general, I don't believe in the "one strike out" principle, but I would be wary. Actually, most people tend to keep their habits, not change them, so I think the risk is always there.

 

a) It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original. Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why?

Disagree. You can always be completely original about anything. Put your mind to it and you'll think of something. Every company I browse at seems to be different. If everything was the same, we would be buying from the same company. Sure, the doll's body may look the same as another one's body, but there is always a significant difference, unless of course it is a direct copy.

b) 'Stylistic similarity' is another way to say copycat. Agree or Disagree? Why?

Disagree, similarity is a different term than copycat. People need to see something before they get an idea for it, sometimes looking at what other people do gives them the inspiration. Just because one mold looks like another doesn't mean it was 'copied'. It's a pet peeve of mine when a company releases a new mold and everyone jumps and says it looks like another doll right off the bat with no overlays of the images/other proofs. It's even worse when the accused doll isn't actually a copy.

c) Once a copycat, always a copycat. They should never make dolls again. Agree or Disagree? Why?

Disagree. If the company states "yes we did copy this doll (insert reason why)...we apologize" and they start to release dolls that they themselves made up I don't see why you should hold their first mistake against them. If a person stays in denial and wants others to rebel with them then yes they will most likely continue to copy other dolls and shouldn't be trusted. Plagiarism makes me sick, it's honestly not that hard to come up with an original idea and produce it into a doll.

 

a) It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original. Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why?
I disagree. I think most of the companies try to stay within a certain "type" or size range to capitalize on the success of something similar (and the clothing/accessories available for it), but there's no excuse for recasts that have been sanded down and/or added onto as I see way too often.


b) 'Stylistic similarity' is another way to say copycat. Agree or Disagree? Why?
Heh! It depends on whom you ask! Volks considered the other early bjd companies copyists and to some extent they were right... there were actual copies or recast/altered dolls. CP had to discontinue one of their early girls (Ari) because Volks claimed she looked too much like Nono. But Volks started a revolution in the doll world, so imitators of one kind or another were inevitable. I for one don't mind so much, as it's meant more/varied bjd! I do, however frown on the altered recasts and will not own any, however early they are. I had an Ari once, but I was too new to the hobby then to have been able to tell if she's a recast/atered Nono. I haven't seen one since, so my jury's still out on that one, but I do think they're disturbingly similar, just from photos.


c) Once a copycat, always a copycat. They should never make dolls again. Agree or Disagree? Why?
Well... I guess I kind of disagree. as much as I deplore copies and altered recasts, I don't *necessarily* think the companies should shut down and go away forever. I'd hope they'd become bolder and more skillful and create original dolls at some point One early Korean company I'm thinking of (not CP) has gone on to make some quite nice originals!

But if CP (for example) had given up and gone away in shame, think of the bjd world without Chiwoo, Shiwoo, El and Lishe, or Minifees and Littlefees and Pukis (of various sizes) that came after and were original and wonderful!

Raven

 

a) It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original. Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why?
Originality is always debatable. Every little thing on earth can be call derivative, wether wrongly or not.
b) 'Stylistic similarity' is another way to say copycat. Agree or Disagree? Why?
Also debatable. I have often had the misfortune of debating wether something looks like something else or not. There are some who can look at nothing without drawing the conclusion that the object is "just like" something or someone, or some style. It irks me that things can't just be that, why do parallels always need to be searched for. And then and again I've found myself looking at dolls thinking "wow, a rose by any other name is still a DOD."
c) Once a copycat, always a copycat. They should never make dolls again. Agree or Disagree? Why?
Disagree. If a company gets called out, and the copying is true, they should just stop it and move on. It's not the worst thing on earth. I also think that the onus of proving copying should be on the accuser. I really think it is unfair to say "burn her she's a witch" just because a company says so, based on some thin "evidence" or other. It should be just like in a court of law, the preponderance of evidence should be what counts. If a company is banned by this forum, it is a very serious blow to the doll maker in all kinds of ways, and should never be done capriciously or without real solid proof. It has been explained to me that the criteria on DOA is when the company accuses another, the other company is banned until the matter is sorted, but I don't really know how fair that is. After all, who sorts it? Judge Judy? That would be pretty amusing! But seriously, it seems akin to slander to me, and also just hurtful.

 

Personally, I like it when I can look at a doll and know immediately which company made it. There are so many that, to my eye, look the same that I can't possibly tell them apart. Are they copying each other? I doubt it, I think it's mostly a matter of many artists following a rather homogenous aesthetic that happens to be popular. People want to sell dolls and keep their businesses afloat, so they will follow trends. If one company does well with their fantasy dolls, it only makes sense that other companies will follow suit with their own fantasy dolls. As long as each company puts their own unique spin on it, I think it's perfectly legitimate and only gives people who like fantasy dolls more to choose from. No one's holding a gun to anyone's head, telling them they must buy from Company X. If you don't like a doll, and feel it's tacky or a copy cat or whatever, then don't buy it. It's all kind of a chicken and the egg question, there's no definitive answer. That said, blatant plagiarism should never be tolerated. Recasting is lazy and rotten and people who do it need to be put out of business (and I'm strictly speaking of recasting here, not sculpting that may or may not look a lot like someone else's sculpting, which is a really gray area).

 

a) It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original. Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why?

All BJD's share similarities. They all have ball joints. They have heads that open. So overlaps are a natural part of the process of making a BJD. However, the similarity ends where the artist begins. Each artist has a signature to their look - no matter what doll they are sculpting. It may be a certain facial proportion, hand proportion or whatever but it si not feasible to me that original sculpts will ever align in complete overlap.

b) 'Stylistic similarity' is another way to say copycat. Agree or Disagree? Why?

Stylistic similarity should be a term reserved to compare one artist's doll to another of their designs. For instance, I see a certain stylistic similarity in the Dollstown sculpts. I can always spot one and I like them so that makes it fun.) However, takig an original sculpt and building a mold from that original and recasting it is the theft of intellectual property and should never be tolerated. In this country, it is a crime. I can't refine my feelings about 'copycat.' Would a copycat see, for instance, Lusion Dahlia and decide to make a larger BJD sculpt? If so, I don't think that is copying. I think copying starts when art stops. It doesn't take an artsit to recast someone else's work. It takes a thief.

c) Once a copycat, always a copycat. They should never make dolls again. Agree or Disagree? Why?

I agree that anyone making molds out of original sculpts should be banned in the marketplace and prosecuted when appropriate. Frankly, I feel this way about anyone wo takes an original work and mass produces it, repreenting the work as their own. It doesn't matter whether it is a poem, a book, a piece of music or a BJD. It is not fair to the original artist.

 

It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original?

I wouldn't say that it's impossible, but I would say that all of them probably get ideas from elsewhere and are constantly influenced and inspired by different things. From other dolls, to people in their lives, to anything really. "Completely original" is a strong phrase.

Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why?

It really depends on how close the overlap is and how much creativity is their own, I suppose. As long as it's not the same doll, I think it's fine for the most part.

'Stylistic similarity' is another way to say copycat. Agree or Disagree? Why?

Not exactly. There are a lot of people who have the same style of doing something, or like the same types of things. That doesn't make them a copycat. A copycat to me would be somebody who copied the exact same mold of doll.

Once a copycat, always a copycat. They should never make dolls again. Agree or Disagree? Why?

No. Hehe. This isn't like cheating on your spouse. If they get caught copying and there are charges against them, once they've dealt with that, it should be the end of it. If they make a habit and practice of it, that's a different story. But to do it once and pay the price for it...or even if they've done it once and then stopped as their own choice...it's going a bit far in my opinion to brand them forever as a copycat company. Unless they personally copied off of you. I could only understand the company they copied holding this opinion permanantly.

 

a) It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original. Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why?
I agree and disagree. It is impossible to be completely original. I mean, you have inspiration from somewhere, and faces can only be so original. But overlaps aren't really that acceptable. Steeling an idea and being inspired by it are different. These overlaps in ideas, to me, seem to be a bit more than innocent sometimes, and that isn't excusable, even if it will be excused.
b) 'Stylistic similarity' is another way to say copycat. Agree or Disagree? Why?
I disagree. There are only so many possible faces out there. It's not possible for there people not to come to something similar to something else. I mean, look at all the different civilizations that came up with their own, similar, systems of irrigation, before meeting one another. They obviously didn't copy people that were forever's away, with completely different cultures, and completely different languages. People can and have come up with similar ideas, even written language itself, without having copied the original ideas.
c) Once a copycat, always a copycat. They should never make dolls again. Agree or Disagree? Why?
No, because companies can have more than one...designer(? I've never considered how I'd word that before), and can therefore be unaware that they've copied. They also might've only done it because of a lack of new ideas, and later on they might actually have ideas. And it also depends on what you mean by copycats. I mean, DZ's got some dolls that make you think of the vocaloid hype, but if you strip the layers of rock clothes and hair away, those dolls are no longer resembling vocaloids.

 

Dollzone and Ringdoll for example. Huang Shan worked for DZ and now works for Ringdoll.

 

Not really on topic, but I'd like to know this as well. Often when there are several sculptors at work for the same company, I'm attracted to the work of one man/woman, not the others. I would like to know that artist's name, so I could keep an eye on future work.

 

a) It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original. Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why?
Tough one. As is pointed out, it depends on what "original" is taken to mean. While it wouldn't theoretically be impossible, it probably wouldn't be very profitable. People tend to come into the hobby to get doll that look like what they already see. The ones out already have pretty humanoid shapes and joints that work well and skintones that look lifelike (or not, on purpose, in some cases). Originality would probably lead away from the standard shapes of dolls and humans alike.

b) 'Stylistic similarity' is another way to say copycat. Agree or Disagree? Why?
Disagree. Similar and identical are not the same. Even removing the issue of recasts entirely, which I am in my thinking here, I think there' s a lot of room between similar and identical-on-purpose.

c) Once a copycat, always a copycat. They should never make dolls again. Agree or Disagree? Why?
Deliberate intellectual property theft or recasting aside, I'd have to disagree. For one thing, it's entirely possible to plagiarize by mistake. We can absorb things, remember things, and regurgitate them without remembering where they came from. Artists in various media have run into this problem before with nasty consequences. One would hope that the sculptor/designer could be allowed to learn from the mistake.

I, too, wish they'd credit sculptors, designers, and faceup artists more often. Volks does this to a certain extent. It adds to the hobby when you can admire the collective work of a particular artist, at least to me. You can become their fan . (Big Valico fan here.)

 

Absolutely agree with this. I wonder if it's really alright to call a copycat all of the people sharing a drawing/painting/sculpting style, because, in that basis, every piece of art in our museum happens to be one...

BJD speaking, I wouldn't knowingly buy a recast (that's copying alright...), but people sharing the same beauty concepts are bound to create similar styles, because they are sharing the same image of a "perfect face".

 

a) It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original. Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why?

It's not impossible, but it can be tough depending on what kind of doll they're going for. At the very base, abjds are human looking and they do share certain aesthetic standards. They also must be functional. Also, it is normal for people to be inspired or influenced by other people's work. This is not the same as recasting (which is not acceptable) or attempting to recreate something to a T (also very shady). Overlaps are completely natural, and it would be unrealistic to expect otherwise.

b) 'Stylistic similarity' is another way to say copycat. Agree or Disagree? Why?

No, it is possible to be stylistically similar yet noticeably different. For instance my CP Chiwoo has large eyes, a pointy nose, and a smallish mouth. So do my Volks SD and SD13 Four Sisters. Yet, you can tell the Chiwoo is not sculpted by Volks. Those dolls have surface similarities that are often shared by the more stylized companies (my two B&G hybrids also have large eyes, small nose and mouth, but don't look like the CP Delfs or Volks), yet they retain a flavor that's individual to their own company.

There are now more dolls from different companies with fantasy parts, and while the hooves/horns where started by Soom, the other dolls out there don't look at all like Soom dolls even though they might have hooves and horns. They are stylistically different, just using the same theme.

You can also get into the situation where sculptors work for more than one company, so naturally the dolls are going to have a similar style if they were sculpted by the same person.

c) Once a copycat, always a copycat. They should never make dolls again. Agree or Disagree? Why?

Not necessarily...that depends on the company. If a company wants to straighten out and discontinue selling their recasts in favor of their own sculpts, that's great. That would be an example of doing the right thing. Some people still may not be comfortable buying dolls from them, and that's their choice. However, to me, the important thing is that the unethical activity is stopped in favor of making a genuine contribution to the doll hobby. I can't fault someone for that.

 

a) It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original. Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why?

To the letter of what this says, I agree. It is impossible to create something that is completely original - everything is influenced by context (that is, what has been seen and studied by the sculptor and company before.) However, that's a statement that is to the letter of this statement, rather than what I believe is the spirit of what is being said here.

I believe that it is possible to be original within the context of one's own aesthetic view. The trick is to take the context that you have and add your own original spin on it. It's a trick that was ground into us for the four years of creative writing classes I've had - you can't write anything completely original, but what you can do is take your own direction on an idea you've had. Some of the most refreshing stories come from taking the known into the unknown.

With the above - it therefore becomes okay for a doll sculptor to use other dolls for inspiration to their own works. The keyword here is inspiration, I'm not talking about duplication. In this case, they can take something that has already been created and drawing on their own creativity turn it into something new and fresh. For example, SOOM has been referenced a lot in this debate. They took something (the BJD) and then took their own creative spin - the SOOM monthlies. These generally reference commonly known mythos and draw their inspiration from mythological and fantastical creatures. Other companies have noticed this and I will discuss this later in my response.

Also worth noting is that no one has jumped up and down in rage that SOOM has made a centaur, even though companies before them have made centaurs. This is because the three centaur dolls that are available (That I know of, and including Epidos) are so unique and different that it's obvious the companies have taken a common idea and taken it in different directions.

tl;dr: It's impossible to be completely stylistically unique because of context, but working within context it is possible to be amazingly creative.

b) 'Stylistic similarity' is another way to say copycat. Agree or Disagree? Why?
...Agree to an extent. I turn people's attention to DeviantArt in my response. There are many 'popular' artists over there that in my opinion could be the exact same person under many different accounts, but they aren't. They all developed in completely individual locations with different influences and just happen to have a similar drawing style. It's bound to happen in the art world.

That said though, Deviantart is a MASSIVE place, and taking that sort of scale into account, the instances of coincidence go up exponentially. In the relatively smaller world of the BJD companies, coincidence is less likely to occur, and sometimes you do have to wonder a little.

We live in an age of commercial rule, and when people see someone making a lot of money, they're likely to copy them and try and make money too. Example, Twilight. Like it or hate it (personally, I'm not a fan) you can't deny that it had a great deal of financial success. What did we find happen shortly after? About a million different Vampire series' came out. Now, while I'm going to stick to Anne Rice over here and wait for the hype to die down, I can't deny I found it entertaining watching as the copycats and spoofers scurried quickly out of their mouseholes to catch the Twilight crumbs.

Another example. SOOM MDs. Dolls with fantasy parts weren't exclusively SOOM's idea to begin with, people saw that this made a LOT of money VERY quickly. It, quite frankly, was a piece of marketing genius. SOOM knew that there was a market for fantasy parts and they created a marketing model that would instil hype into people and encourage them to spend large amounts of money within a short time frame, with little time to consider their purchase. Other companies saw this - they saw that the MDs were making lots of money, and they decided to jump onto the bandwagon - but they went after a different market, they went after the people that were more considerate about their purchases, those that wanted time to think before they bought. They took the same idea and installed a different marketing plan.

Pinching ideas and applying different marketing techniques to them is the way that a lot of companies run. They might offer the same service or items as another company at different prices, or with different strings attached. Artists draw inspiration from others but turn it into their own creation. Meld the two different techniques together and what you tend to find is that slightly different versions of something successful, marketed in different ways start appearing.

tl;dr: It's like the difference between home brand and brand name. You know that one is ripping off the other, but you tend to buy the home brand because it's cheaper.

c) Once a copycat, always a copycat. They should never make dolls again. Agree or Disagree? Why?
Disagree. I believe in forgiveness and that people have times when they are really, really stupid. They should not be judged entirely on their stupidity.

Also, all artists start somewhere. Copying another artist's techniques is the best way to learn in the art industy. Saying that I'm not allowed to draw anymore because I used to copy stills from Dragon Ball Z is stupid. Saying that I can't write anymore because I used to write Pokemon rip-off stories is unfair. People need to start somewhere.

That said, BJD artists are professionals, working in a creative industry for profit. As professionals there are certain levels of decorum and skill that they are expected to already have. An artist in the BJD world that was blatantly copying another artist's work would have to grovel really, really hard and be prepared to come under extensive scrutiny if they ever wanted to work in the industry again - because they have behaved in a completely unprofessional manner.

tl;dr: Everyone starts somewhere in the art world. Everyone's copied a piece of art for the intent purpose of practicing. So, to the letter, disagree. To the spirit - copying in a professional capacity is not only unethical, it's career suicide.