The consequences of copied dolls

But that seems to imply that the board members will be able to tell it's a knockoff. I always wonder how many knockoff exist on the forum undetected. After all some people mod their dolls to the point where they are hardly recognizable as the sculpt they once were. Hypothetically what would stop a person from buying say, a volks knockoff, modding it and posting on the forum. Without knowing how much that person paid or where they got it how would one tell? Of course this is all hypothetical as I'm not really sure if there are such high quality bootlegs out there or not.

While I know that nothing I say will make it right/legal to buy bootleg dolls I am merely trying to offer some insight as to why a person might turn to one instead of a legitimate company

 

One thing I really like about this hobby is the attitude most have about knockoffs. I find it very refreshing that so many recognize that the design of a doll is the intellectual property of the artist/company who created it.

My husband collects a variety of Japanese figurines and it is disheartening to see how willing many in those hobbies are to pirate or buy goods known to be knockoffs. In that arena, as in music and movie downloads there seems to be an "everyone is doing it, which makes it okay" attitude. Just because everyone in one's middle school class was pirating music doesn't make it okay. It's sad that many don't outgrow this attitude.

Someone up thread talked about the stupidity of throwing away one's morals over the cost of a doll worth in the hundreds. I see it a little differently. To me that action signifies the value of one's morals. It's easy to claim a lofty set of ideals. But it's in the doing that we find out what we are really made of. Some people crumble over the tough moral decisions, while others fall over a 300 dollar doll.

 

I haven't been following this debate closely, but I'd like to point out the following:

It is a fact that when people have morals and ethics, they like to stick to them. It is a fact that morals and ethics guide people's actions and thoughts. It's true that morals and ethics aren't facts, but that is no reason to say they have no place in this debate.

I'm glad to see that there are people who respect artistic integrity in such a way they won't buy bootlegged products. If you like an artist's work, you support it by buying their products and/or not buying bootlegs/pirated products.

 

There are a few people who the scenario you describe, clipped for brevity, has happened to. Many of them have posted in this thread, actually, about their experience. What I have noticed from them, on the whole, is that the initial positive emotions tied to that doll have not exactly remained intact.

Here's the thing: you can think it would be the community here jumping down their throats, but even if they never said anything about it on the forum, and the community never reacted to them, they got scammed by a corrupt seller, which never feels good. That's going to sour a lot of feelings right there. Add fear of this crowd of people discovering that fact, and possibly turning against them? That can't be fun either.

I'm going to add to Isenn's awesome response to this: for all the claims that people are insulting lower priced dolls, and Chinese dolls, I've seen very little of it. I've not seen anyone get in someone's face and call their doll fugly because it's lower priced or because it's Chinese. I see a lot of panties get bunched because people say it isn't for them, or because it's assumed that someone who owns 'high end' Japanese or Korean dolls instead must be sneering down at them, but I don't see this snarky abuse that so many people claim is happening so very constantly.

Bluntly put: if someone is the kind of person that enjoys sneering down their nose at people, they are going to find a reason to do it no matter how much you spend, what company you own, what company they themselves prefer, or how they came by their own collection. Equating people who look down on willful unethical behavior, like knowingly purchasing a knockoff, and people who think any doll under $1k isn't worth their high-falutin' time, is disingenuous at best.

I say that as someone whose favorite doll at the moment? ...is the $17 'Monster High' off-topic doll I picked up at Target the other day because oh dear mercies, she's frickin' adorable and makes me grin, and quite frankly I don't give a hoot who knows it. I say that as someone who owns two Chinese dolls, and dolls that are relatively lower in cost. You do know that even the 'high end' companies like Volks and Soom have lower cost lines as well, right? Popular ones, too.

Regardless, a doll is not a right, it is not food or shelter, it is not an actual need. "I had to get the cheaper/illegal one because I had to have one" is not solid reasoning. To people who use this reasoning, yes, I will say: grow up, save up. (Do I think it's just the younger crowd agewise that does this? Absolutely not! I do think the people behaving immaturely and spoiled, regardless of their age, would benefit from that advice.) This is not mean, it is reality. It actually boggles my mind to think that people have become so accustomed to getting everything they want now now now that 'save up for what you want to buy' is a brutal and cold-hearted attack instead of what every mother on the block here told their kids when they wanted something expensive. It was good advice then, it's still good advice now.

I reserve the right to distrust someone who knowingly buys a knockoff and defends their right to continue doing so, or claims justification for knowingly continuing to do so. I reserve the right to treat absolutely any and all of their sales in the MP as suspect, because I know they are unethical. It's just that simple. It's not a matter of taste. It's not a matter of snobbery. It's a matter of knowing flat out that if they're willing to steal from the companies in this fashion, I don't trust them not to steal from or scam me.

Quoted because it bears repeating. It's really galling to see theft excused.

Yes and no. They may transcend them; they may not survive them in the long run.

What is doubly sad is that a large industry or business may survive it, while smaller ones may not. Mattel may be able to survive a deluge of Barbie knockoffs, while a BJD company would drown under it and close up shop. They're equally wrong; company size doesn't have a bearing on that. I find it actually offensive in addition when it's a small company that is likely scrambling to make ends meet.

What kills me is this: for all the people claiming 'my budget made me do it', what would they think of the doll companies if 'my budget made me do it' meant a drop in resin quality, or dropping international sales pages or multilingual staff? Somehow, I bet that would be 'wrong' and 'unfair'.

 

QFT. If someone says they don't mind buying a bootlegged doll, who's to say they won't try to sell me that bootlegged doll without telling me it's a bootlegged doll? A thank you to those who are honest about having different morals/ethics than I have. It makes it easier for me to decide from whom I would or wouldn't like to buy something in the future.

BTW, if find "but it's a hobby and once you play with your doll, it doesn't matter if it's a copy or not" quite off. Say you make a living with photography and you made a good photograph, someone else takes it without permission and sells copies without you ever seeing any penny. The buyers then saying "Once I put it on the wall to enjoy it, it doesn't matter the original photographer got no money for his work. As long as the work of art is enjoyed, it's all right." won't make it right. Those cameras and lenses that allow you to make good photographs don't pay themselves. How would you feel if you got up at 3 in the morning for several weeks to lay in the mud to get that one right shot and then someone else runs off with your photograph to make money off it?
It's just an example, but a doll maker spends weeks on making and perfecting a doll and then someone else makes money off it, because people don't want to pay what a doll costs and they think they are entitled to get a doll for cheap. I'm sure that the doll maker is very comforted by the fact there are people who enjoy playing with the fruits of the doll maker's hard work, but don't want the artist to continue to make dolls. The doll maker will cherish that thought while he/she looks for a standard job that does pay the bills and where hard work means he/she gets paid for it.

 

Exactly!

This is an amazingly laid back hobby. Sand your doll's nose off, dress your boy in frilly panties, dye your doll neon green, set it ablaze on your front lawn, pop it on your wedding cake, wrap it up in bondage gear and dangle it from the chandelier, give it a sex change -- all of these "controversial" things are accepted in this hobby.

I don't think it's even slightly unreasonable to draw a very hard line at knowingly purchasing from a bootlegger.

If someone wants to think I'm an inflexible, cold-hearted bitch for having a zero tolerance policy for anyone who knowingly purchases from a bootlegger, or engages in piracy or theft, I will lose exactly as much sleep over it as I do when someone puts one of their male dolls in a skirt. (In other words: absolutely none.)

 

QFT... As a person who lays down in mud to get the perfect shot, it would completely decimate me to know someone is making big bucks off of MY photograph when I can't even make a thin dime on them. Why do THEY get paid when it's MY hard work? I'm the one paying for travel and equipment. They do nothing but sit back and reap in MY benefits. Luckily I can live with it as "just a hobby" and don't need to live off my photography. But I tell you, lack of income from the hobby really put a damper on my travel fund last year. When the economy is bad I can't afford to travel. I went to fewer places and so had fewer pictures at the end of the year to chose from.

What does that have to do with dolls? What's true for photographers are true for the other arts as well, including sculpting. Someone else making money off YOUR sculpt when you don't get one thin dime really hits you below the belt and deep in the pocket.

 

If it's anything like me and bicycle brands, the 'sculpt-hound' is only going to have to glance to know it's a fake.

 

Here's something a bit off-topic, but that I thought applied and addd an interesting dimension to the debate. It's from Tycho (Of Penny Arcade, www.penny-arcade.com)

Especially when you consider the lack of stigma in owning a second-hand doll in this hobby.

I, obviously, have no problem with buying second-hand - Four of my five dolls are second-hand, and I'm re-selling another second-hand doll at the moment - but in doing so, the company doesn't get any money.

Could there become a point where the market is so saturated with second-hand dolls that nearly everyone buys second-hand, thus possibly putting some companies out of business and increasing the prices of new dolls as a result? On the other hand, it could encourage companies to produce more limiteds more frequently - For example, although it's comparatively easy to get an old Soom monthly on the marketplace, the new ones will, initially, only be available from Soom and thus people will have to buy from them to get them *to* the second-hand stage .

 

In case of selling secondhand goods money is exchanged for a product the artist has already received money for. When selling bootlegged products the artis won't and never will get money for the product he helped create. Would anyone buy a doll that was stolen from an artist's workplace if the price is right?

 

The point about the LEs is true, I think -- that does encourage people to purchase direct. Also, some people actually do prefer buying new (I personally don't have a preference either way), and with more and more official dealers popping up in the US and other countries, it gives more oppurtunities to save on shipping and deal with someone in your native language while still buying new. Some companies also sell clothing sets, customizing supplies, accessories etc. Some people also don't want to have to wait for new releases to show up second hand even if they're standards.

Anecdotally speaking, people seem to buy dolls a whole mix of different ways, so I don't know that I see the second hand market suddenly swamping everything else. It is pretty typical in collectible hobbies to have active second hand markets, and yet those hobbies continue on with companies continuing to produce and sell their goods.

 

This hobby has grown so much that I find it doubtful. I for one, have a great deal of difficulty wanting to trust strangers on the internet with my hard earned cash for something in my life that isn't even necessary. Ironically, even more so with topics like these. BJDs have exploded in popularity and its become easier to order your own than to buy second hand. I just don't trust people not to scam me when I see so many people openly justifying how its ok to steal or buy bootlegged.

 

actually, while everyone is debating this, I have one thing to say. For people who cant recognize if they had bought a recast doll or something and not knowingly was selling it, wouldn't be kind of unfair for them to get in trouble? although their responsibility some people just dont know better. (not defending them just saying what would happen if that happened)

 

Writerm wrote:

While I understand the fondness that one could have come to feel for a doll after dressing it and taking it to meets, my own feelings would be tarnished by knowing it was a fake. And to me, having to lie about a doll is a red flag..if you have to lie, that corrodes you inside..it does effect your health, at least what I would consider my spiritual health. I'd always feel a little bitterness, and if I added to that by lying about the doll, then that would add guilt to the bitterness, and pretty soon I'd hate, not love that doll.

I can't go back and grab the quote, but if you love the art, feed the artist. Otherwise you kill the goose that lays the golden egg you admire so much.

HoushiChan, things happen, the test of character is *after* you know it's a fake..and what you do then.

 

I suspect that copyright would be taken a lot more seriously if it wasn't so badly misused and abused by many copyright owners.

Copyright is the stripping away of a person's freedom to take an item, and create a second item matching the first. By its very nature, copyright is "bad" in that it reduces people's rights rather than increasing them.
So, why do we have copyright? Copyright is a bribe whereby if people create art for society, they can have a monopoly over that art in order to make money from it for a limited time. The purpose of copyright is to increase the availability of art to society.

Problem 1: Big companies keep paying off governments to extend copyright monopolies indefinitely. Basically, by keeping the art out of the public domain, copyright owners end up reneging on their part of the deal.

Problem 2: The intent of copyright was to grant creators a period whereby they can make money to support themselves. The intent of copyright is not to allow creators to limit art, or to otherwise try and control their art after it's been released into society.


Now, in an ideal world, there'd be a solution which allows the creation of art without having to strip everyone's rights. If such a solution exists though, we haven't found it yet, so copyright is a compromise, and should be kept as a compromise until such a time when some bright spark finds something better.
In the mean time, copyright really does need some restrictions to cut down on the abuse. Reducing copyright terms back to a sane period would be a big one. There should also be consideration of abandoned copyright going into the public domain early. This would mean that whilst a copyright owner is under no compulsion to make the artwork in question available to the public, if they fail to do so for a certain period it will be considered abandoned, and other people will be free to make the artwork available to the public.

Final rant, copyright infringement is not stealing, and to claim it is is a blatent lie. If anything, copyright itself is closer to theft, as it removes something from a person that they had before. By all means, point out that copyright infringement is illegal, but at least get your crimes right.



Anyways, tying the above into BJDs:
My main concern with copies is the quality issues. In the current legal climate, I doubt there's anyone putting the effort into good quality copies, so you're only left with the crud. Also, I expect that the BJD scene has only expanded relatively recently, and that the great majority of sculpts out there are still recent enough that even sane copyright terms would still cover them.

On the flipside, I would have no problem with someone copying a doll that is over 10 years old. The creator has already had plenty of time to profit from their work. Likewise, I wouldn't be overly bothered if someone copied a doll design that was discontinued or otherwise abandoned (after a certain grace period). Either the copyright owner sees no value in the design anymore, or they're deliberately trying to limit availability of art to the public. Either way, I would say that that design becomes fair game.

One note regarding my views though - they should be paired up with tighter trademark laws (or some other form of "honesty" laws). Basically, a copied doll should not be marketable as "a Volks doll", but should instead as "an XYZ copy of a Volks doll".

 

This is outright horsepuckey, sorry. I've heard this self-serving logic spouted by every software pirate under the sun so many times it galls me to hear it spread again. It's some pretty epic entitlement to believe you are deserving of the benefits of someone else's labors without their consent, and that's what the reverse actually is -- theft of services is still theft, and you are, indeed, stealing someone's R&D and IP when you pirate, bootleg, etc. No one has a right to force someone to work for them -- and that's the right you're claiming is being taken away by copyright law.

Art is an investment. By selling the copies of the art, you are being paid for the work, when you are creating something for production, with the R&D costs and investments spread out over the estimated number of copies you anticipate selling rather than selling a single piece to recoup all costs. When you find a way to explain that away, maybe I will believe this argument holds water -- because as it stands, it doesn't. Observe the prices on one of a kind, never to be reproduced sculpture of equivalent expertise to the doll sculpts we see and the prices of our dolls, and you will see why maintaining legal rights is actually necessary to keep the costs of the work down; the disparity is glaring.

 

I think what nekomata might be saying is that the fact that you need to have a copyright takes away the point of ownership. I mean if i made something it is mine. But with copyright, I need proof that it is mine? And then when copyright ends i have to renew it (im not sure about this so screw me if im wrong) but cant other people take your copyright as well if you dont do it within time limit or something?

Thanks what i got from her... shoot me if im wrong sorry... \(TT_TT)/

 

Copyright is pretty essential not only to support artists but also culture and economy. Before copyright enforcement in the USA, our writers and artists struggled significantly just to make a living. For example, Edgar Allen Poe was a quite successful and well-renown author, but he died penniless in part because pirate printing operations would reproduce his work before he had any chance to earn money from it. Now authors have their work immediately protected and no longer have to flee to protect their livelihood.

It's not as if copyright locks the rights to one person forever, either. You could contact the artist and purchase some or all of the rights to a specific work. The artist can license the right to produce copies of their work, or receive royalties, or even grant full ownership for a limited time period. So really no rights are taken away from the public- they just have to contact the artist and negotiate a transfer of rights as per the law. It's a compromise which leans in favor of artists and creators, and I can't agree more

Uh, so before getting too far off topic- be sure to support the small studios and individual artists whose dolls you admire. Don't support anyone who sells pirated dolls or goods, and don't support BJD studios who copy designs from other companies, movies, video games, etc. It works both ways, folks!

 

I can never understand people who think buying a bootleg has no consequences and try to make excuses for it.

That is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. YOU wouldn't be overly bothered. If YOU were the maker, you still wouldn't be bothered? Please don't be selfish. Put yourself in other people's shoes. If people stop working hard and just keep copying off each other, there will be no new inventions, no new ideas. We would never move forward.

There's no need to justify a bootleg by saying but it's better quality. It's a bootleg. Bootleg is a bootleg. We do not allow it. And many of us who want to support original makers don't respect other doll owners who knowingly buy a copy/bootleg doll and think it is fine. If the bootlegger can make something that is of so-called better quality, then please come up with a design of their own and make THAT. Don't make copies from originals and try to pass it off as the real thing because it's not.

And even if they bluntly state that this is a high quality copy of a Volks doll (which is how Lolidoll doll advertise their Volks bootlegs now), how is that not illegal? How is that not wrong? They are still stealing someone else's original work, original idea and sculpt. Those people didn't create these dolls to not get paid for it. Counterfeiters is not involved in the original creating process, so why should they profit from anything?

No respect.

 

Sadly... no, that isn't what she's saying. She's saying that people always had the right to copy anything they wanted, and that copyright takes that away from them.

Basically, this logic goes as follows: you making something doesn't make control of it yours in terms of producing copies or derivative works.