The consequences of copied dolls

I definitely agree and to me, knockoffs - illegal copies of pre-existing products that are being sold at a profit without regard, credit, or monetary compensation to the original artist/creator/designer - are, in my eyes, some of the worst sort of intellectual and creative property violations possible as the original maker is not getting the credit nor the monetary compensation for creating the product in the first place.

An original costs as much as it does because the maker had to go through the effort and time and spend the money to design it and a copyist simply takes it apart and copies it and sells it.

Knockoffs are a complete disregard for the original maker's creativity, time, and effort, which is why in the art world, there is so much fuss related to copyright infringements.

It's frustrating and as an artist, offensive, but at the same time...

GAH, but knockoffs and copycats are just EVERYwhere, you know?

And besides utilizing the points I mentioned in my previous post, I don't what else one can do about it.

 

It depends on what people want out of the hobby. If they don't care about community acceptance (and there are those that don't), then it's harder to discourage them from buying a copy if they choose. There's less of a deterent. On the other hand, participating with a copied doll gets you in major trouble, then that might make some think twice--and keeping them out of the actual community is what concerns me most, since a lot of buying and selling go on in places like this.

There's always going to be people that just don't care--it's a fact of life. It's more a matter of holding those people at arms length where they can do less damage.

I kind of wonder what affect the number of less expensive legit companies have on this. Obviously if someone is set on a particular sculpt, it won't matter. But when it comes to just buying an inexpensive doll, there are so many more options out there now. I don't know the awnser to this, but it's something interesting to consider.

 

There seems to be a general feeling around the BJD community that things are going to decline in quality as the hobby becomes more popular. Some of this is people feeling annoyed that "their" thing is not going to be as exclusive as it once was, but another aspect is fear about the effect the growing popularity will have on the actual quality of the dolls. Now I'm a newbie not even into the hobbie a year so I can't really comment on this first thing (though I do find it somewhat silly) but unfortunately I do think there must be an effect on the established companies as more companies legitimately set up, and even worse, copy moulds and pass them off as their own. I don't know for certain if this will become a problem in the second hand market, but I do worry for the continued sustainability of my favourite companies should a lot of cheap knock offs start floating around. I suppose people are just going to have to be very careful when buying second hand.

 

I don't see any difference between a knock off handbag & doll. Both designs have been stolen. Both items are produced in sweatshops. Both items are illegal in the UK. The chances are they are produced by organisations linked to crime.

Here in the UK the Trading Standards regularly raid market stalls and destroy the counterfeit goods they find, be it handbags, designer clothes or cosmetics/perfume. And don't even mention pirated CD's & DVD's.

Last time I was in London at Camden Lock there was a stall surrounded by girls selling bags, purses & handbag mirrors all with pics of dolls. Some of the pics I'm sure were taken from DoA!!! I recognized more than a few dolls. I'm sure the seller had asked the doll owner's permission, not.

I have never and will never buy a knockoff. I refuse to support illegal practices.

 

I think comparing a knockoff handbag is kinda strange - people always try to make the same argument for why you can bring a Luts doll into a Volks store. Purses and clothing are functional items... true, a Gucci purse or a coach satchel is definitely an expensive luxury version of an everyday item. But I don't think that a purse is the basis for creative writing, photography, etc., and an active discussion community.

Why would you want to base your "art" on something that is intellectually stolen from someone else... and why would you shell a beloved original character in a knockoff?

From the consequence side, these are small companies with artists that are very emotionally (and sometimes spiritually) connected to their creations. I think of the pure pain of Mr. Dollshe when he thought that Dollmore had stolen his designs... and I wonder if that is part of why he has stopped production of the original Dollshe body in order make a new one that is untainted in his mind.

Copying hurts the parent industry - a lot of time and money goes into making the original masters (take a look at Twigling's Ylisande thread in the artist subforum if you want to see a professional-quality doll going from start to finish). Selling the dolls is the way to recoup the materials and time and actually make a living from the work. When a knockoff company steals a sculpt, they are stealing the opportunity for the original artist to sell a legitimate copy. Why would that artist continue to create and distribute if there's no money in it? Some artists would just pack up their toys and go home.

A lot of Japanese video games never cross the pond because people get burned copies and then the original company gets the mistaken impression that there is no demand because people aren't buying the real thing in English. So then they don't bother translating releases in the future.

 

I think you're mixing two things here. The popularity of the hobby and whether it is exclusive or no doens't really have anything to do with what this topic is about. A company selling cheap knockoffs of inferior quality is the issue here. I don't think anyone on this forum wants our hobby as exclusive, just not ruined by fangirls and consequently fakes

 

It took owning an artist sculpted doll and trying to sculpt on of my own to realise how truly hard it is to produce a doll. I've never thought the cost of any BJD was too high because of the justification and work that went in to it. On some levels when I first got in to the hobby I had wished for cheaper versions- I bought an Obitsu and a Dollzone because those were the low end at the time. When I heard the Dollzone was a knockoff I wasn't concerned. It was my doll and I had paid for it legitimately, I found out soon after the knock off was for a previous sculpt they had released. But now after almost 2 years in the hobby I would feel actual guilt owning something I knew was a knockoff. I have fake Dolce and Gabanna sunglasses and an fake Prada bag from Canal st, but I think of these as the same as the stuff I buy from Urban outfitters and H&M who also rip off other designers.

I guess the difference for me is that now I have something invested in my favorite doll companies emotionally that I don't have with human clothing and accessories. I admire the artists and recognize the dolls clout in the industry (CP, Volks, Dollstown), and owning their dolls makes me have a sense of pride about them. I'm by no means an elitist, but oddly seeing the similarities between say the Luts and fantasy doll bodies (boy version) makes me even a little iffy about owning one- and I do. I guess it's more of an issue of respect for me, and where my priorities lie as a visual artist and a consumer in this hobby.

 

I think the increasing popularity of the hobby, and the increase in younger people who might not necessarily have a lot of spare money (fangirls if you like) but who are desparate for a doll could be a deciding factor in unscrupulous people making knock offs. Also I think that both things (separate though linked I think) could turn out to be a whole lot of worrying about nothing.

 

Hmmmm...I would say I see a knock off doll as worse than a knock off bag. When you copy a bag you have to actually take the time to look at it, and figure out how to reproduce it. With a doll you just cast it, it's not like the copy maker rescuplts the head before casting. Maybe I just think that because I care about dolls though and not handbags....

In seems like there's a lot of things being copied now a days, but if the majority of people buy the real thing and the copiers are limited, it's something that various sectors have been able to overcome. (or else Rolex would be out of business!)

 

I'm not sure if the legitimate companies are really all that affected by the copies that are out there. How many dolls can one company produce while still keeping its quality standards high? I don't think a company like Volks is interested in a pure factory-production model, or their stuff would be cheap and easy to find. I think they're working at capacity already.

Dolls are not daily use items like handbags, so I think the analogy falls short. You look out the window... almost every woman has a handbag, but none of them are carrying a bjd.

I feel for people new to the hobby. Not only are there blatant recast copies to beware of, but reworked sculpts of dolls (eg Unoa) being sold openly by 'legitimate' companies. Without a good deal of careful research and a discerning eye, your chances of ending up with something that has little integrity are pretty high! (hey that rhymes lol)

Raven

 

One of the techniques people use to stop knockoffs is the logo. This is partly why it's such a good idea for doll companies to somehow mark their doll parts in this way (even if it's inside the cup part of a joint, very small).

Has anyone else noticed the explosion of logo-covered merchandise in the past few years? Did you ever make the connection to lightened trade restrictions in the US especially? Here it is in a nutshell: a lot of things can't be protected by copyright. (Dolls aren't on that list so far as I know, but this is in regard to the handbags and clothing especially.) Copyright cases are notoriously hard to prosecute, especially due to varying laws around the world. If a company trademarks their logo, on the other hand, and that logo appears elsewhere, they tend to have a lot more protection and the law is apparently far more clear cut. It's much more likely that a company will pursue a trademark infringement case; to protect items that would have been difficult to protect from knock-offs in the past, it's easy to cover it in logos. They may not be able to go after the pirates on copyright for a certain item, but if the logos are reproduced in their trademarked form on that item, it has now afforded the original company a different approach to take to shut them down or collect damages. Even a deceptively similar logo can be used in a fraud case, which is another approach.

There's a fantastic article about just how pervasive and knowingly corrupt the knockoff system is, even in the US, in an older issue of "The Crafts Report". It is sadly not online at their site. If you can find a copy at your local library, I strongly encourage you to read it. It's the November 2005 issue, and the title of the article is "Knock-Off Nation". It is very eye opening, and describes how some popular discount chain stores will send buyers to local galleries, art shows, and similar venues where artists sell their work to purchase these items purely for the purposes of reproduction without the artist's knowledge or consent to the extent that they have entire legal departments in place to deal with the settlements and disputes when and if they actually get caught at it because it's easier and less expensive for them to pay out forgiveness than ask permission and get proper licensing. It isn't just a problem in some nebulous "over there". It doesn't just happen to "those big name designers who are making a fortune". (Like whether they're making a fortune or not matters?)

Ahem. *kicks soap box back under the desk* Needless to say, you can't get me in the door of any of those stores. I have stood and will stand outside in the pouring rain rather than go in if someone else I'm with insists on it. Maybe I'm the idiot -- maybe I'm figuratively as well as literally 'all wet'. I'd still rather be that crazy lady standing out in the rain than a fraud.

 

Short but sweet:

Why buy fake when you can save for the real deal?

 

Since the original thread, I've been thinking about this a lot.

I have no doubt that eventually, people are going to buy knock offs and try and sell them on the marketplace as the real thing. It will be hard for us to tell the difference, and I can see a lot of people getting burned in the future.

It's probably going to be very easy to tell a knock off from an original in person, but in pictures, I doubt it'll be so easy. Lets face it, we're always going to have people selling knock offs, it's impossible to stop them all. So the way to tackle this problem is to look at ways to identify your doll as real, such as head plates and certificates, original packaging, etc.

I remember back when I had my first doll in 2005 and thinking that it was odd that it came with a certificate of authentication. Back then, the only company I'd ever heard of that had copied anything was Foreverdolls, and that had been ages before I got into dolls. So, I wondered what the purpose was.

I think it would be wise for companies to start making certificates of authentication and the like. Some of my dolls have logos and headplates that are made from metal and sunk into the resin, and I think that these would be an excellent way to tell the difference. They would be harder to reproduce then the companies that only mark the resin on the inside of the head, etc.

I can only see this problem getting worse, and I truly hope it doesn't lead to witch hunting and finger pointing. Unfortunately, like when many people accused companies of copying, I can't really believe that it's not going to happen.

 

This is a very interesting topic. I have 2 points I'd like to contribute to it.

1) When consumers buys knock offs instead of the orginal, the actual designer doesn't get any money for his/her creation. A big company moght be able to shrug off the loss, but the smaller companies and individuals can't. So eventually they go out of business because they can't earn living.

2) The people who make and sell counterfeit goods are criminals. The money they get for those goods is used to further their criminal activites, like drug dealing and terrorism.


Edit; I removed a comment as I couldn't relocate the report I got the info on, However, here are links that support my second statement.
http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/speeches/SG20030716.asp
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/12/business/fake.php
http://www.govexec.com/features/0406-15/0406-15s3.htm

 

I meant that the bad stigma comes from the whole "stealing aspect" in ADDITION to not being "real." My point is yes, dolls are work of art and it's a shame that people copy others dolls, but it is a fact of life.

Same with downloading music, burning DVDs, and things like that. There will never be an end to copying and stealing because the "real" things are overpriced. I'm not justifying it, but it happens.

 

*beats head against brick wall*

Don't make that assumption about pricing, I can promise you, you'll usually be wrong. Sure, I think the RIAA is as much a bunch of profiteers as many of the knockoff creators out there, but that is like comparing apples and hand grenades, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

They are, in fact, accurately priced for the work, materials, and so on that goes into them, because those development costs have monetary value and costs associated with them that do not vanish into the ether.

People believe that they are entitled to have anything they want, legal or otherwise, if they can afford it or not. It really is time to clue in that "I like that!" does not mean the same thing as "I deserve to have that!" and people are not, apparently, that bright. (I mean, those sentences use different words and everything!)

Knockoff companies prey on that greed and lack of ethics to provide a lower-cost alternative by stealing someone else's R&D.

 

I think that this is like a similar situation that happened in the Guitar community in the 1950's. (Guitars are not only musical instruments but are modded a lot to give personal touches, so in a way I personally believe in the aspect of modification that they could be compared to ball jointed dolls)

In the late 1950's Gibson brought out its most visually infamous looking guitar; "The Flying V". Shorty after gaining popularity another company brought out a cheaper version of it (this version was the same except for the brand logo) the exact copy got shut down. But the slightly modded version by other companies was kept and are still existent to this day.

People still use them to this day,but will I? No. I will always love My Gibson V "Stella".

People will use copies, they won't be popular and I don't think that the owner of it should be looked down upon (based on information like they didn't know, I can see that if they weren't apart of this community. Or if they didn't really care if it was a fake or not) but knowing what they're doing is something different, and passing it off as real, seems like there is a lack of caring (or moral fiber?)

But it's going to happen, or might happen. I hope people will have common sense that they might/will get found out eventually.

It won't drive prices lower, but the fact is some people will go for cheaper more affordable ones if the look is exactly the same.

 

QFT

And people who like the knock-offs don't give a damn about their actions because to them, whoever manufactured that knock-off doll/shoes/handbag/etc., does not exist or isn't real.

I don't know how many people actually realize that most knock-off stuff are produced by child laborers or slave women?

I'd rather own a product that I'm sure the artist and his/her assistants handled themselves and pay a higher price rather than pay for a knock-off that most likely had been made by a child laborer or a slave.