The consequences of copied dolls

Ok, I had to giggle at this part. Isn't Stealing = Theft? Both "remove something from a person that they had before", both are illegal. In your view, does that mean that if I steal a TV from Walmart, it's ok because it isn't theft?

Say X design isn't too popular. It's been out for a decade, but the buying public is just not interested. If the Copyright Owner is trying his/her hardest to sell the design, then how is the copyright owner deliberately trying to limit the availability of it?

The selfish reason why copies aren't welcome in our community is because bootleggers don't give us cheap prices for poor quality fakes. There are two versions of copying - a poor quality for a tenth of a price, or a poor quality pretending to be the real thing and having a high price tag. Guess which BJDs fall under? As far as I can see, there would a lot more bootleg dolls on the market if they were stupidly low prices and accepted it. You pay for what you get after all. I know people that would be comfortable with a poor quality recast if they only paid $20 for it.

 

I really like this thread - It's doing a great job of covering all the nuances of the issue. Thanks to all who replied to my question, and I think you've pretty much got that covered. Can I ask a few more questions?

a) What do you think about bootleg LEs? For example - For example - CompanyX makes three Original Fluffydolls, and never make any more of them, never plan to make more of them, and any amount of petitioning won't persuade them to. Andi, Bobbie and Chris buy them. Chris realises that there's a gap in the market of people who want the Fluffydoll, but weren't lucky enough to get them. There's nothing similar to it on the market anywhere (It's a 36cm pigeon-winged sheep girl), so they can't just buy a similar doll and make do, but they're really dead-set on this doll. When Andi finally sold hers, there were riots and the auction sold for more than ten times the original price. Cautiously, Chris recasts his a few times, and sells them as "A replica Fluffydolls" for a similar price to the original.

b) Would it be different if they were being recast on a not-for-profit basis? For example - CompanyX makes three Original Fluffydolls, and never make any more of them, and never plan to make more of them. Andi, Bobbie, Chris and Dee want them, but only Andy, Bobbie and Chris are lucky enough to get one. Chris, feeling sorry for Dee, but unwilling to give up his prized new doll or ask Andie or Bobbie to give up theirs, carefully recasts his, dresses it up nicely, puts it in a lovely washi-paper box and presents it to Dee as a birthday gift, along with a note stating that it's not really a Fluffydoll, but it's still a heartfelt gesture.

 

The problem with this scenario is that no matter what the company says, sometimes they change their minds. Look at the Beryl re-release at Soom, for instance. While it wasn't a full re-release of the LE package, it is a re-release of the head sculpt. There was (and is, apparently) a lot of argument over whether that makes the doll still LE or not, and so on, but depending on which parts of the item are the sought-after ones -- be it a part, like a head, or the fullset as it is -- can make a difference. Limited re-releases do happen, too, even when the company says they won't.

Basically, the issue with this is that it takes the decision out of the hands of the people who own the design. They might plan to release the same doll later in a new outfit, for instance. Or maybe the company is in financial straits, and decides, 'Hey, people really loved that LE3 Sheepsie. We could do a different outfit and new blushing and faceup and sell a new LE version of 30 that way, which will keep our finances in line without screwing anyone over.' -- and similar things. Re-releasing an LE like this in a different format could also create a good influx of cash for new projects, or an expansion of the company, and so on.

Also, this sort of recasting involves the community as well. Think about it -- people bought part of an LE3. Some people will not care if there are suddenly 300 of Sheepsie, while others will care a great deal. How legit is it to mess with the value of their doll this way? The first Iplehouse Akando dolls were LE50, but sold out quickly, and Iplehouse received many requests for more. They made 20 more available, and increased the edition to 70. Some were fine, some angry and feeling betrayed.

The way I see it, the issues are similar or the same for both issues to some extent.

 

What I have seen several times is that someone gets a copy of a music CD for their birthday (although not that often any more, as my friends and I are no longer students, but have jobs and it's concidered cheap to give a copy instead of an original). It's obvious a copy, so they won't sell as an original, but what will keep birthday girl Dee from making copies of her copy? I've seen copies of music CDs been copied, because "everybody does it". ("I like this music." "Thanks, do you want a copy? Hold on, I'll make you one right away.")

I'm glad that bootlegged dolls aren't considered normal, because otherwise there would be a lot more. "That new limited doll looks fantastic. Are you going to buy one?" "Neh, I'll just wait untill someone starts selling copies." Or how about "You spent $600 on a doll? That's crazy, you can get a copy for $100!"?

Some people don't want copied dolls and with more bootlegged dolls on the market, the bigger the chance someone unknowingly buys a bootleg and then sells it as the real deal, because they don't know any better. That would kind of place a bomb under the secondhand market.

 

Right... So if a farmer has built (or bought) his own farm, after ten years it is okay for us to steal his crop or kill his flock, because he's made enough profit? What kind of silly reasoning is that?

I have to agree with everything Surreality has said. Copying is stealing/theft, no matter how you put it.

 

It's not stripping away people's rights -- it's protecting the right of the person who came up with the work originally. Why should people have the right to just take or worse profit from the work of other people?

It's not a bribe -- it's a necessary protection against theft. If I come up with an idea, and I carry it through, and I do all the work why the hell should you or anyone else be making profits off of it? Why should you get everything free of charge?

I have no idea where you're getting this from. If you want to keep art from being limited then you support the artists so they can go on creating more work.

I don't get why you think everyone should have free reign to do what they want with other people's work. There needs to be no compromise -- don't steal. End of story.

No, it is a form of theft. Whether it's stealing an idea, or stealing profits by say recasting a doll. You are taking something from the original owner. You can buy products, art, etc., but you don't get rights to reproduce it -- you don't get to own the idea behind it. Copyright law is removing nothing from you -- but it is keeping you from making a profit off of someone else's work, or hurting the maker by giving copies out for free. Artists have rights too -- it's not just the consumers, and those rights need to be protected.

You do realize that for a company to stay afloat that they need to keep on making profits, right?

Also, about LEs. This is a collectible hobby. LE's happen both because a fair number of hobbyists like LEs, and because they give companies the chance to offer more intricate full sets and dolls that would be to difficult to offer in unlimited numbers. Being able to recast just because the company limited the numbers would be defeating the purpose there and would greatly upset a lot of your fellow hobbyists.

Your plan actually doesn't do anyone any real favors, that's the thing. You act like you're protecting the rights of the consumers (in this case your fellow hobbyists), yet bootlegging causes a lot of issues in the community. That's why the community doesn't like it. People aren't pulling stuff out of their behinds here. If you haven't read the rest of the thread, I suggest you do so as it clearly outlines the difficulties brought about by recasts. Also, I would suggest you try putting yourself in the artists' shoes and try to imagine how it might feel to have your work stolen.

 

I think they may be referring to Mickey Mouse cartoons. It used to be that a creation would enter public domain so many years after the creator died. It was 25... then 50, now 75. Allegedly that has to do with Walt Disney's death and the Disney Company fighting to keep Mickey Mouse cartoons out of the public domain. Mickey and his friends are all trademarked (which gives ownership of the characters indefinitely) but their cartoons are set to enter public domain in 2023. It's called the "Copyright Term Extension Act."

And yes, Disney lobbied for the extension, but who cares? Mickey is a BIG part of their company. They should have control for as long as they want. It's a legacy they are intent on maintaining. Let them. If they want to bury a movie in their vault so it never again sees the light of day... they have that option (Song of the South).

 

That's 'life of the artist+time', too. The suggestion she made wasn't life of the artist+, it wasn't even for the artist's lifetime, but instead for a period of time shorter than any of those.

To be frank, I might be more supportive of such ideas if there was more prevalent protection with some teeth for someone other than the corporations with the big bucks. Instead, we have the culture of copying that Muisje describes perfectly.

Somewhere in the middle of all of this there is sane ground that is fair for all. It's simply that no one has found it yet. One of the biggest steps toward reaching that point is realizing that 'fair' doesn't mean 'I get everything I want just because I want it', and people are incredibly reluctant to do that, especially when there are almost no consequences for it in the vast majority of cases.

 

Wow, when did Ayn Rand enter the room?

By your logic attaching a penalty to murder is taking away your "right" to kill another person. And theft is taking away your "right" to pick up any shiny bauble that attracts your eyes. But who bestowed these rights unto you?

Society makes rules to protect itself, and it recognizes the rights needed to allow society to function. Property rights-- physical, intellectual, etc., are examples of these rights. Typically laws are written to protect the many at the expense of the few, and in so doing protect the rights that are seen as inalienable. The most basic rights, that is, the ones recognized as inherent to all. These are things that each of us can enjoy without infringing on the rights of others. In the US, for instance: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. But me pursuing my happiness does not allow me to hurt another. I cannot steal, although it might make me happy to do so, precisely because it hurts another. It infringes upon their most basic rights.

Certainly there are countries that don't recognize property rights-- but you don't live in one of these countries. British law is pretty well established by this point, and the basis for law in numerous countries. And in those countries it's pretty darn clear-- a person has the right to make a living from the fruit of their labors or intellectual/artistic endeavors. And if it inconveniences the rest of us-- oh, well. That's the price we pay for living in a society where each of us has such rights.

Surreality, I think she's confusing patent law with copyright.

 

This is what we we were replying to when we mentioned "artist life + 75."

The "big company" is probably Disney since they did a lot of lobbying to keep their art out of the public domain which sparked the CTEA (Copyright Term Extension Act). It was jokingly called the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act."

But how are the reneging? Were they supposed to give up Mickey because Walt died? Mickey as a character is actually trademarked so they own the character anyway... they are just saying they don't want to give up the rights to all the old Disney cartoons and films so they can rebox them and sell them on DVD whenever they want.

Her Problem 2 suggests that artists have their artwork placed in public domain while they are still alive... so they lose rights to their own artwork. That is a copyright issue. Artists hold the rights to their own artwork... and their estate keeps rights to their art for 75 years after their death... unless they make plans to trademark a character... like say... Charley Chaplin. His Little Tramp character is a trademarked to his estate.

Patent would be... if I invented a technology that (I don't know) allowed people to talk to whales. I apply for a patent. So if someone else comes along and makes something for people to talk to whales we can look at the patents to see if they copied my technology. If they did, they owe me.

 

In recent years drug manufacturers have lobbied to extend patents on drugs. This indeed has been to increase profits.

But patents are distinct from copyright. To clarify: a patent is intended to have a relatively short lifetime (compared to copyright)-- enough time for an inventor to recoup his or her cost of research and development. The idea is that once the invention moves into public domain the general public can benefit from the invention. So even though I may have the technical knowledge and experience needed to produce aspirin, I wouldn't have been able to while the patent was in effect. But because it benefits society to be able to purchase aspirin cheaply, that patent didn't last forever.

A copyright is intended to last at least the lifetime of the creator so that only the creator benefits from that particular work of art. One key difference is that it is a work unique to the artist. The idea of a ball jointed doll isn't copyrighted. But specific versions of the doll, each an artistic interpretation of an idea are. If you want to create your own big eyed, anime-looking jointed dolls your can. As long as you don't copy a Dolfie Dream. You'd have to be creative and make your own interpretation of the anime theme.

But being limited in this way doesn't infringe upon your rights. You can make a doll. Just not that doll. This is distinct from not being able to make the doll at all-- which would be true if it were patented.

 

Copying something isn't removing what they had before, so by your own words, copyright infringement isn't theft. Theft would be the removal of actual dolls from a company.

I don't know, how would the creator be trying to limit availability? (Seeing as you brought up such an example I'm assuming that you have a point here).
Under my example such a creator is making the design available, and so would get copyright protection until the term ran out.

Passing off a copy as an original is a trademark issue more than anything. As I said before, such a copy should not be marketed as an original, but as a copy of the original.

No, because you would be stealing, as in removing property from the farmer. Copying the farmer's property would mean that the farmer still has his property. Copying is not theft, not matter how you or the media spin doctors put it.

In that case, you must think that someone who builds you a house should be allowed to come back at a later date and knock it down until you continue to pay them extra money. After all, "who cares?", building houses is a big part of their company.


I must admit that I am confused as to why people think that a right to restrict other people's freedoms is more important to more important that a right to be free yourself.
Murder = Restricting other people's freedom to live.
Theft = Removing another person's actual property.
Copyright = Removing a person's freedom to do what they want to their own property.

I also find it disgusting that some "artists" think that just because they did some work at some point during their lives, they should be entitled to be paid for the rest of their lives at the expense of society.

As already stated, I fully agree that copyright is needed at the moment, and can even work when applied in a controlled fashion, but it's ridiculous to claim that we should stick to copyright if we figure out a less freedom infringing option.
Remember, laws are written by humans, and lawmakers will happily write law that benefit themselves (and their sponsors) rather than society at large. Copyright in its original form would give more benefit than harm to society, but the revisions since then are more at the expense of society.

Oh, and last point before I head to sleep, I do create materials that fall under copyright. Funnily enough though, I still value fair human rights rather than screwing over society.

 

I see how that whole comment about 'theft of services' was summarily skipped. Pity, since that's the crux of your argument's complete and utter failure. Your house example? Also fails completely; that's something called 'work for hire', and it remains property of the purchaser. For someone so dead set on destroying the rights of people who are actually creating something themselves rather than just taking from others around them, I would have thought you'd do the research to explain these things and create a more compelling argument than "but it isn't fair that someone who puts in the time and effort to make something doesn't let me skip all the hard work to copy it! They're taking away rights I never had in the first place!"

Between the person who puts forth effort to innovate, and the person who just wants to benefit from someone else's R&D and innovations, I think my sympathies are going to remain with the former. If the latter party wants to gain benefits from something, all they have to do is come up with their own original work to receive the same protections. Since this would require effort beyond saying, "I WANNA!" like spoiled toddler, however, few people seem inclined to do that and prefer to abuse the time and investments and efforts of others.

There's something truly laughable about the idea that the artists are doing something at the expense of society by doing this. Very, very little art is of public interest in the first place. Second, by financially supporting themselves, artists are are costing society far less than they would if their means of doing so were taken from them by others who somehow feel they're being wronged that not everything is being handed to them for free.

Why do I put it that way? Because that's the crux of it; most artists can and will license their work for use, often quite reasonably. I know many who will allow people to use their work for free, and there are specific license agreements that can be reached that are beneficial to all parties.

And do you support yourself in this fashion? (At this point, with the arguments I've seen presented? My vote in the betting pool would be that this copyrightable content would be fan art or fanfic.) I'm an inch from thinking this is a ridiculous bit of trolling on a topic that's been heated on and off, it wouldn't be the first time, even this week.

The 'fair human right' you're 'supporting' is theft of services from people who bother to innovate. Claiming that people who wish to protect their own creative work and intellectual property are abusing human rights is probably the most ridiculous thing I've seen on this board, and there's some pretty stiff competition from time to time. I'm sorry to be so blunt about it, but I rate this claim as being roughly equivalent to the timecube theory levels of ridiculous.

You know what's an actual abuse of human rights? Forced labor. Taking someone's R&D is a lot closer to that than telling someone that theft of services is grievously wounding society by telling people that they can't take an artist's work without permission, yeesh.

 

That analogy doesn't work. You aren't owning Steamboat Willie. You have a copy of the original which is somewhere in the vault owned by Disney. If you decide to make copies of your DVD and sell them you cannot claim it is "Public Domain." Nor can you stick an image from the film onto a coffee cup and sell it all over the internet. Disney will say, "Steamboat Willie is our property, you cannot use the images to sell coffee mugs." THAT is what is going on. The only rights you have to Steamboat Willie is to watch it and discuss it.

It's called copyright... and you can think of it as the artist has the rights to distribute the copies. They get to say when where and how the image or art is used. So... for instance... you CAN buy a print and then rip it apart because that has no affect on the artistic piece or the original. But you cannot take the print and make copies to sell to everyone else because you're messing with the artist's ability to make a living from their own work. Nor can you use it to promote something the artist doesn't believe in because THAT would misrepresent the artist and cause their reputation to suffer... which would be in the libel/slander vein and they can sue for damages to their reputation by that use.

And an artist carries their life work around in a portfolio for as long as they live. It helps them get new work and new clients. They may sign a contract with the client that says, "I'll provide art for you to use and in return I get paid and I get credit for creating it, but the original is still mine to keep in my portfolio." Very rarely does an artist give away full rights to anything they create and in that case the contract very specifically states that it's for FULL rights and the artist is adequately compensated for it since they can't use that work ever again.

It's not "disgusting," it's how business works so that the artist doesn't get stuck in a bad deal. Professional artists pay the rent and pay for groceries by doing what they do. By messing with their art, you mess with their ability to pay the bills. If they get messed with too much they have to quit and go find some other job.

Well... actually... anything created automatically falls under copyright. It's someone's work and they get credit for it.

 

Nope. Trademark is distinct from copyright and patent, and your example is definitely not trademark. Nice try, though!

Wrong again. It is theft. That is why it is prosecutable.

If you'd read other people's responses to this thread you'd see that in exercising our rights we are not meant to cause harm to another. If you exercise your so called right to steal another's intellectual work, you are harming others. Hence in first world countries, doing so is against the law. And I have to ask, what this "actual" property you speak of? Is it physical, tangible property and not the inception of ideas? Why is one better than the other?

I would strongly suggest that you look at the history of copyright before making such uninformed, unsupported statements. Here is a good link:
http://www.copyrighthistory.org/

It has the primary sources that led to western nations' copyright laws as well as informed commentary on the authors' rationales in making such laws. Please avail yourself of it.

 

I'm leaning towards nekomata_fuyu either being a troll, or just not having a firm understanding of copyright. She may think copyright laws mean other artists can't legally create an inspired/derivative/satirical piece of art based on another artist's work. You can create works like that. If I see a pink coach bag covered in sequins, I can make my own similar pink sequin bag and sell it. I will have done my own work to construct a pattern that looks good, is comfortable to carry, and fits together well but if I take the original bag, cut it apart, and trace their pieces to make an identical purse and sell it, that takes profits away from the people who actually did the work in creating that pattern. If I had made my own pattern it would be perfectly ok. BJDs have even more work put into the original.

Lets take a 10 year old doll (the age you said you would have no problem with someone selling recasts of) the Volks 4 sisters dolls. The 4 sisters mold is still one of Volks most popular and top selling dolls if someone decided to recast and sell duplicates of that doll, it would cut Volks sales, possibly significantly. Money that would have otherwise been spent on supporting the original artist who actually did the work is diverted to some random person who is too lazy and unscrupulous to do the work themselves. If they had said "hey this Volks 4 sisters is a cool doll, I'll make a similar doll with chubby cheeks and a button nose," then went and sculpted a new doll themselves, that would be ok.

Here's another example: You spend weeks making a gorgeous digital painting and upload it to deviantart so people can see and enjoy it. Then some random person uses your painting as the cover of his picture book, making money off your work without paying you or even asking permission. People buy this book because of your art on the cover, they think inside the book will be the same quality as your work but it's utter garbage, because the guy printing the book doesn't care about art or his customers, he just wants to make a quick buck off someone else's work. Not only is your hard work making him money which you never see a dime of, but customers are being screwed over by a crappy product. The guy didn't come into your house and steal a one of a kind painting leaving you with nothing, but it's still theft.

If you want to buy a doll, buy it from the people making it. If you want to mod it, photograph it, talk about it, take it everywhere with you and name it Fred, you can do that. How is not letting a 3rd party make recasts restricting anyone's rights or preventing people from getting what they want? (except the recaster who wants to make a quick buck)

 

Yes it is removing something -- his/her rights to that work. The ability to control what happens to it, how it is produced, etc. Just because it's not tangible doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Plus, they would be losing the ability to profit off their work, so they would actually be losing real money. I can see why you're very invested in trying to convince yourself and everyone else that this isn't theft, since few people want to come right out and admit that they support thievery. However, that's what you're in effect doing.

In this case the builders where hired and paid for their service. They don't own the house, they had an agreement with the owners of the property where they built a structure in return for pay. This is a completely different scenario and utterly fails to back up your point.

That's not what copyright is. For instance (since this is a subject about dolls) when you buy a doll you can mod it any way you like, keep it, sell it, destroy it whatever. Why? Because that individual doll is your property. However, while that individual doll is yours, the rights to reproduce that doll is not. You did not buy the rights to the sculpt when you bought your doll. Those rights stay with the company unless they choose to sell the molds to someone else. No one is dictating what you can and can't do with your doll -- only how that sculpt can be produced. See the difference?

It's disgusting to want to make a fair living off your work? You don't understand how the whole art thing really works, do you.

*Cue Twilight Zone music* You are equating following copyright laws with human rights abuses? Really? Seriously? Are you sure you don't want to rethink that? I don't know whether to be highly offended that you would equate copyright laws with things like torture, unfair trials, child labor and genocide or whether to laugh because the whole idea is so preposterous. Or just assume you're trolling, as I'm having a hard time believing someone would actually believe something like that.

**ETA** Lots of people on this board create stuff that falls under copyright -- some in conjunction with this hobby as it is a protection that you are afforded as soon as you create something. My question to you is, do you make your livelihood off of these endeavors? It's hard to believe you would argue against copyright protection if the ability to support yourself actually depended on it.

 

Actually, by your own words, stealing is not the same as theft. On the other hand, copying someone else's idea and using it for your own profits is a) stealing the idea and assuming it's your own, and b) copyright theft.

Again, this was your original assumption. You said if the artist wasn't making it available to the public or wasn't 'worth' much (and a poor selling doll is just that) then it's their fault because the creator was trying to limit availability. Again, how does blaming the creator for bad business work?

If this a troll, it's certainly livening up the debate. Besides, it's always interesting to see gigantic pit holes in their argument

 

I myself laughed quite heartily. I don't think I've ever seen an argument against copywriter spun like this before. Human rights abuse, indeed.

 

At the expense of society? I don't agree that people are suffering when they have to pay the original artist for a luxury item. There are no evil artists wringing you dry by making things you love so much you cannot live without them. The more I hear, the more it sounds like you don't want to spend money on what you want to have. Or a troll.