The consequences of copied dolls

Yep. Same reason I take issue with statements like that as well. I mean... just because you cant afford the "real thing" doesnt make it right to cause monetary loss to the artists who originally created what you are buying copies of at a cheaper price.

 

@ Tez

I believe those percentages still stand. However, I can never remember the numbers exactly so I would just go look that stuff up to be sure.

I'm glad someone read my posts. :I

I have a friend that sculpts and builds costume props. He lost thousands of dollars due to a RECASTER. That poor man had lost his job, and his work was his livelihood. He still hasn't recovered from that blow. Like I said several posts back, this is a serious issue to me and people should be vigilant and pro-active. The info is easily accessible, it doesn't hurt to be informed.

I mostly just spoke up though, to clarify the differences of copyright, trademark, branding, patents, etc, etc, etc. Because the examples used in previous comments were inaccurate or misguided/misinformed.

I didn't want other people who are watching this topic, to be scared off from buying dolls, or follow the same misguided assumption. I figured my input would be beneficial and informative for those "not in the know."

Since in this hobby recasting is rampant compared to others, and not many people seem to be as aware or vigilant here as they are in other hobbies.

 

So it's okay to use David Bowie's head but not pay David Bowie because it's "fan art?" Sorry but I doubt Bowie's lawyers would see it that way and I certainly don't. Hello, celebrities have fleets of lawyers just to prevent just this from happening. They usually don't care for their likenesses being used sans permission and they sue people all the time to stop that, particularly when it comes to things like commercial endorsements and toys. Elizabeth Taylor at one point sued to make sure exactly that didn't happen that ONLY the doll makers she licensed her image to got to make a doll in her likeness.

You think I 100% approve of the copying. I don't. But I can't just sit here and say "Oh this is okay because it's just the fans after all." when one doll company does it and then join the roasting of the re-casters for then going and doing the very same thing. What makes it okay for a BJD company to make a celebrity head and not another to then cast their heads? In my mind that's two companies doing exactly the same thing, using someone's face/mold sans permission, only one is getting lauded for it while the other is being seen as the big bad and saying the one is okay and the other isn't is just not right. I believe they are both wrong actually and that it's hypocritical as heck to then do one vs the other and innocently claim it's okay. If you're going to bootleg then everyone should be able to bootleg, or we all should get permission like we're supposed to and stop making excuses for why some copying is okay and some is not.

FYI, I'm a photographer. I make my living using my images. I guard them like crazy and I'm first one to say so too. My photo site. It's 90% locked and my clients get to see their stuff only via my laptop when I am showing off the results of a shoot. I've got a few demo shots on my site, but I'm not dumb. I don't have all of my best work in galleries online. I've already had one photo stolen and used sans my permission and yes, I was ticked, but I was also realistic about it I knew it was going to happen sooner or later.

I've also seen a few of my clients put photos on Facebook and not credit me as I asked, which was very rude and irritating, sure, but I know I can't really stop that. It's just too big of a fight and I'm not up to it. I've got too much on my plate to go there and I can't afford that kind of legal representation anyway. Best I can do is talk to my clients, watermark my images and hope for the best. Thing is, if I don't take a neutral approach on stuff like this I know it could come back to haunt me. Yeah, I could be a total biatch and threaten to sue anyone who goes there, or I could be polite and professional and just maybe turn an infringement into an opportunity to get my work shown more. Might even get paid.

Actually that did happen. Someone actually saw that photo, saw me grouching about someone using it and actually claiming it as their work and they actually bought the use of it for a calendar they were doing. I got the credit and the cash and I hate to admit it but it might never have happened if some jerk on an art site decided to claim my photo as his. Not just use it, claim it. But he did and it got talked about and I got it credited back to me and I actually got paid for it, miracles of miracles....

What you folks see as me not wanting to take a stand I see as not wanting to deal in the negative. Even when I think people are wrong I like to give them a chance to decide for themselves what they will do. I feel I get better results from trying to be polite with people than I do getting in their faces about things like that. I'm a low key person. I don't like heated battles. I had enough of that growing up, thanks. I'd much rather reason someone out of a bad situation than fight. I'd rather be neutral and open minded than end up in the middle of a war.

I have allowed a few people who have actually used my photos sans permission online to continue to use them. I just asked them to credit me, and that was it. Some chose to. Some didn't, but to go there and make a big fuss, it would have cost me more in terms of potential work than it was worth. The more hardline you get the more people won't listen to you, and I want those people to use me again the next time they want a photo session again so settling it in small claims court isn't really going to be the right way for me to handle it.

It's the same with recasts. I just don't feel I can go there and say one type of copying sans permission is okay, but another isn't. I just don't think that the minime situation is all that different. But regardless I don't think I am going to change anyone's mind on that score by getting in their faces about it. In fact, from what I've seen online that tends to make people even more defiant about it. Is that really helping anyone to stop it? I don't think so. If anything I think this war over it encourages people to want recasts even more. I think all this arguing and blame laying is probably helping to feed the very situation you say you want to stop.

 

Magkelly no one is saying you cant have an opinion. It's just that in certain types of situations where copyright is concerned, it can seriously do more harm then good to sit back and not do anything about it. I know you say you think it will harm you more than it will help you if you fight to protect your photos, but in all reality, not doing anything about it just makes more people want to steal from you because they know you WONT do anything about it. Do you see what I mean? Sometimes it's harder to fight it and go after the people. I get that... I dont have money for a lawyer etc. either. But you should still do as much as possible to protect yourself. Even if you want to remain neutral and you say you cant judge people for recasts, you shouldn't sit back and say that you personally cant do anything because of things that you've experienced personally. I get you have an opinion and a position in all of this as much as others, but by saying you "cant" or "wont" do anything against those who recast is pretty sad. I mean... just because you may understand or see the situation in a different way, does not make it okay. You dont have to go completely out of your way to "stop" them but you could at least be diligent in making people aware that it is wrong. I dont have an opinion really about the minime stuff atm but I do see that as a completely different issue from recasts [more along the lines of what phobia was saying]. Recasts to me are literally stealing from these companies that are very small and struggle a lot in the first place just to create these dolls. It takes a lot of money and a lot of time to make just one of these. Celebrities on the other hand arent "making" anything. They are famous and get paid just for being them. Yes of course they worked hard and either acted etc, to gain their celebrity status, but that is not the same as painstakingly sculpting and spending hours upon hours trying to get the most perfect batch of resin, dealing with weather issues, etc. If one small thing goes wrong they have to scrap the WHOLE batch of resin worth a lot of money and start all over again. Celebrities RARELY have issues anywhere close to this. So that being said, celebrity minimee dolls may be an issue or may not be any issue... but recasting definitely IS an issue. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with your statement on whether or not minimees are the same as recasts... I just dont really have enough information regarding that aspect of copyright to say anything more about it right now.

EDIT:

Basically what I'm trying to say is... its OKAY to be open minded and be able to see both sides. Its OKAY to not want to judge people. But its NOT OKAY to not do anything about something that you know is wrong. Even if you feel like you dont have the right to do something about it, If you know that it is bad, you should still WANT to help and stop it. I'm very open minded myself but I can clearly see what recasting is doing to this hobby and what they are taking away from the hard working creators of these dolls. Its just not right.

 

If you are a photographer, with some sort of professional training or background...you would know the differences between Creative Commons Licensing, Creative Attribution, Rights Managed, Royalty Free, Copyrights, Copyright Infringement, Branding, Patents, Trademarks, and everything else we have been discussing.

You would know the difference, period. You would have contracts and license agreements on hand. Cease and Desist letters on hand. You would know, and your clientele would know their rights and your rights. It is very easy to access those documents and pursue legal action without loosing an arm or leg over it. I always have to sign contracts when I submit work or photos to magazines. I have people I work with, sign my contracts.

You would understand what all the huff is about with recasts, and you wouldn't be making misinformed posts. The first thing every professional photographer I have come into contact with, had me sign a contract and a release form. So they wouldn't get sued and I wouldn't get hurt if their image was stolen.

Now, I am waaaay off topic.

 

Now I just have to say, even though it shows how materialistic I may be, that like my Rolex/Fendi.... I like the name/label my dolls have.
I could never buy a recast, because I like to advertise my luxuries as luxuries.
And if somebody is buying a recast because it's cheaper, they probably shouldn't be in this hobby because the clothes are going to break their bank.

But on the other hand, if I went somewhere and I saw somebody with a recast doll... I don't think I'd unload my frustrations on them.
But to be fair my mind would be going Real Housewives on them... I'm just not one to preach.
The re-casters/bootleggers themselves are a completely different story. And if I know where you bought your recast, willingly or no, I will attempt to legally shut them down.

 

A lot of recasts could also be made from stolen dolls. There are people in tears right now because their dolls were stolen,and I wonder how many of those dolls were stolen by people who wanted to recast them.

 

Good, 'cause that would only make matters worse. I believe there is a big difference between taking a stand against recast and harrassing people. It is possible to be against recasts and be civil about it. You wouldn't even have to preach about it, it's more of a personal choice.

When I was still a writer for Nintendo DS games, many of our games were downloaded. This is a huge problem for DS-developers, because the console is easy to crack and as such many owners have the option to download, instead of buying games.
Officially and personally we were against this practice, because we saw the damage it did to the industry. Still, we weren't actively sueing everyone we encountered and we didn't send rage-filled emails into the world. It was a problem we had to deal with, but not by harrassing people.

Actively trying to shut down recasters is ok. Abusing owners of recasts is not.

 

@ Magkelly

In regards to your occupation as a photographer, I commend you on your job, I think photography must be very fun as a living! ^ ^ In that case, you would know better than anyone how it might feel like if someone broke into your site, downloaded all the photographs you labored to take, reproduced them, and sold them for profit without your express permission. How would you feel if the people buying the photographs knowingly bought them (say, as prints) because the thief, not having to pay for any of the fixed start up cost (ie, camera, photography lessons, time, lighting equipment, etc) sold them for cheaper than you would have, since you in fact did. Wouldn't you tell them to stop? You mentioned that you were already upset that your clients, who already paid you for your services, didn't credit you. Imagine not only do you not receive any credit, but lose money from sales that you would otherwise be making. Personally, I would be furious.
Also, for the record, if your clients paid you for their images, unless you stated in a signed contract that they will credit you, the image belongs to them and they are not obligated to credit the photographer if they choose to post it online. They merely cannot claim that they were the photographers.

Secondly, regarding your point on DIM Minimees and other services like this-- it is actually not copyright infringement, because it is not in the same category as general fan art.
Especially when it comes to celebrities, the copyright becomes very hazy. I suggest you read this: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2163&context=ilj

But I doubt busy ppl would go through all the legal lingo, so I'll try to help break it down > <
Basically tort is the legal term for any damages done to a person, physical, financial, emotional, etc.
In the case of celebrities, photographs that are tort-feasors, or cause tort, are illegal and infringe upon privacy laws. This would involve shots of a celebrity's intimate moments, or anything intentionally causing substantial financial loss or damaging to the celebrity's career.
But I'm sure as a photographer, you are aware of these cases already, so I won't go too much into them.

There is no copyright on celebrity faces. The government considers people's faces in general to be a "beneficial externality", or a benefit that is accessible to anyone. As with above, as long the works produced in the celebrity's likeness are not done with the intent of causing tort or gross invasion of privacy, it is not copyright infringement. However, a celebrity does have the right to his own celebrity, and if he, or anyone in general, explicitly requests that you do not take pictures of them, you are obligated not to.

However, already existing images of celebrities are considered more or less public domain. These images may be licensed by the publishing company, but generally can fall under the "fair use" terms. The only time you would run into copyright problems is if you reproduced exactly licensed photographs through digital imaging (even minor editing), repainting, tracing, etc. However, even in this case, it is not the celebrity who had their copyright violated, it is the company in possession and owns those pictures. This is why, if you ever go to some sort of convention, you should be wary of people trying to secretly take pictures of you (ex. if you cosplay), because once they take it and you do not react immediately, that photo of you legally belongs to them. If you see them aiming it anywhere near you-- tell them no, and to stop, and delete any picture they have taken.

In the case of Minimee heads, the sculptor is not using a single photograph to sculpt the doll, but a collection of various images to create a 3D interpretation of the celebrity, which is no way representative of any of the single images used, since photographs are only one dimensional. Furthermore, in some DIM minimees, the likeness is not exact enough so that there is ground for creative interpretation. The only time this sort of thing would get into legal trouble would be if some other company had already created a doll of the celebrity, and DIM produced one exactly similar. But this again falls under the topic of recasting. Case in point, even if you have two doll heads of say, Robert Downey Junior by different companies, as long as the heads are distinct and not identical to each other (different expression, details, etc), it is not copyright infringement.

I hope this makes sense to you, and I'm sorry for the long posts > <
Please understand I'm not trying to cast you in a negative light over this topic of copyright, just trying to help in responding to a very valid question. ^ ^

 

I have always hated the idea of having a 'fake' of anything. My friend went to Thailand and offered to buy me a knock-off Louis Vuitton bag, and I said no. I, myself am an artist, and originality and authenticity, is high-demand. Just like what 'DoIgotta?' said; if I have purchased a luxury item, I would like to show it off as a luxury. And post pictures of my doll on DoA, Flicker, Deviant Art etc. I have saved, and savveeeddd for my doll/clothes/wigs etc. And it is my pride and joy to share it to the world. It's just sad that us authentic customers have to take X amount of photos, proof to even sell their legit doll. And it's even sadder that the authentic sculptors/ companies of the dolls are getting copied and loosing money because the illegal re-casters. :\

 

I gave up the battle to police my work to that extent practically before I began doing pro work. The way I was trained was very old fashioned in some ways. Both of the people that trained me are totally scandalized that I actually give the clients I have their photos on CD, that I don't even try to get sets of prints out of them. But I realized that their way of doing things wasn't going to increase my sales one jot. It's not hardly working for them anymore and I saw that. I decided to go with the flow and ditch that business model. Fact, anyone with a scanner and a decent printer can make copies of any prints I do give them, as many as they like, and many of my clients will. They're not going to ask me either. Rude, well heck yeah, but they will do it regardless and I can't stop it.

The old business model of making prints for your clients, it's dead. The only people who still want that are people who want wedding books made up and I absolutely won't do weddings so that's a mute point for me pretty much. All people really want these days is a CD with the photos already teched and already printable and the right to do as they wish in terms of making prints, using them on Facebook etc. That is the reality of doing what I do these days. I'm being paid to take the shots and edit them, and that's it. If I want the business I have to cater to the client, to what they want, even if I'd much rather do it the other way.

The people that are going to steal from me online? The ones that won't give me credit? They're likely not my regular client base anyhow. If I get the one shoot out of them, fine. They're not going to buy much from me anyway and I'm fully aware of that. I don't actually sweat the small stuff. I see my photos on Facebook I seldom go out of my way to get nasty. I just politely ask the person to credit me and let it go at that. What's the saying about bad publicity being good publicity? Well, that's the way I see that. I always try to turn a negative into a positive, if I can. But I also realize that it's not going to stop everyone and when you get down to it I'd rather be taking pics than fighting legal battles all the time.

Most of my better photos at this point, my own work, not the commercial stuff for clients, the ones I would care about, are legally copyrighted and registered with a couple of stock agencies. They're online as "my" photos, for sale and it would be a lot harder for someone to claim them now. The client stuff? That's a very low priority thing with me. That's my bread and butter work and most people would not want it except for the client anyhow. Fighting with them over usage? That might be within my right, but it's extremely bad for my business. I get about 75% of my work from referrals. Getting all testy about usage rights? That will not help me get more work. Bottom line.

As for someone dl my site. That would be hard because all of my photos except for an image stream are locked up pretty tightly and even if they did crack the site the low res images they would get would not make them happy. I don't store the hig res images online and I have made it so much work to get at my photos that it's really not worth it to anyone trying besides. My being a photographer in this age it's totally different from say 25 years ago. Trying to work in that old model, trying to police everything I do, intimidate my clients into not making prints, it just won't work, and it may work against me, cost me work down the line. The only time I've ever gone after someone with a lawyer helping was when a guy tried to take a photo, one of my best, claim it as his own and sell it to a stock company. Which was laughable because the only copy he had could not even be printed it was so low res and it couldn't even be printed. It was way too low quality for them to even use. They wouldn't even accept it, but they found my copyright info in the exif and notified me anyway of the illegal usage. Yeah, the guy was that dumb. Not only did he try to sell them a photo that couldn't even be printed but he couldn't even edit the data to reflect that he was supposed to have taken it. :P

That incident I nipped in the bud just to make a point, and as I said above the situation actually resulted in me selling the use of the photo later, because they asked me if I wanted to submit it for sale in a higher resolution. That stolen photo actually got my foot in the door with that stock company, not an easy thing, so in a way it was a good thing for me, the exposure that the situation led to. I later made $500 and I continue to make a few $$$ on that photo sometimes because that stupid guy went there. Plus they've put up more of my photos and though I haven't gotten as much from them yet, they're out there and people are seeing them and hopefully I sell the usage of some more stuff. The way I see it I can live in a negative space and spend all my time fighting people on this stuff or I can actually try to create a distinctive brand for my work so that everyone will know it is mine and the people who do this kind of thing will find it counterproductive to mess with me. I'd much rather just work than worry myself to ulcers over it.

FYI, I'm living with a chronic disease one that really feeds off of stress. It's not going to kill me anytime soon but the more upset I get over bad things the more I end up paying for it, the less I can do. Maybe that's why I have the perspective I do. I spent literally years not doing what I love. I hated it and I did stress out to the point of making myself sick a lot. Now that I am doing what I love I don't want it to be like the career I had. I don't want to spend my time stressing and maybe making myself ill, and wasting precious time on doing the stuff I hate. I hate fighting with people. Even when the fight it righteous it's pointless to me. It's a huge waste of time and energy all the negativity it creates, the frustration, it just really gets me down usually when I need it the least. Peace and happiness they are very hard won things for me and keeping them, keeping it positive, keeping things healthy, that is more important than anything, even someone disrespecting my copyright.

Anyway, that's where I am coming from. That whole pacifist thing it's not just an idealistic stance or not me not caring. It's rather an evil necessity. No offense, but I just feel that the waging of heated battles it is just not worth potentially ending up in the ER. I've learned to carefully choose my battles, the ones I truly feel are worth the risk, but I won't go there for something like that, not all the time anyhow...

 

I'm rather neutral about the whole thing, to be frank.
To me, it's pretty much the same as illegally downloading music or listening to the music at youtube, downloading movies/tv-series or watching them online, reading unlicensed manga-scanlations, whether translated or not, on the net, buying a bootleg CD, etc.
I'd have to plead guilty for every single one of those crimes. Nowadays, I try to buy the official version of whatever I want, but I have done all the aforementioned things, and every single one of my friends still do pretty much all of it. If I were to be against recasts, I would also have to be against all of those things, and if I were to write off or frown upon friends who bought recasts or did any of the aforementioned, I actually wouldn't have a single one left.

Whatever company or artist owns the rights to all the aforementioned media, loses out, but usually at a much larger scale than doll-companies do, when it comes to recasts. The thing is, when buying a recast, you have to go through some rather shady types, and there are plenty of horror stories out there. I've seen quite a lot of people who won't buy a recast simply because they don't find it safe. A recaster pretty much lives by ripping other people off, and there is always the risk of them suddenly disappearing, refusing to reimburse for a damaged doll, and some of them, like BJDbaby, from what I've heard, has very shitty quality. A legit company is dependent on pleasing their customers all the time, else they would go bankrupt. Some times legit companies will rip off their customers too (like some infamous cases I won't bother to mention here), but the legit company has their products on the right side of the law, while the recast dolls are more in the muddled "in-between" line no one quite can identify because copyright is a vague and tricky affair. That is quite a difference, and makes for quite different levels of trustworthiness.

When it comes to a download or a scan of any sort of media, it's right there for the taking. No shady dealers, no money involved, and so many millions do it that no one bothers to go after the small-fry, all those who only downloads a few things a day. It's to a large degree safe, which is why it's become so common.

The copyright-holders suffer for it, but most of them still manage well enough, because there will always be those who want to actually own the hard copies of the media, or will purchase a download because they respect the copyright-holder, or their work, enough to make sure they do support them. I guess the exact same thing will happen in the doll-community, and therefore, most companies and artists will still manage because they will always have supporters.

Now, then, about what will happen to the second-hand market, and consequences for the hobby. There has been a decline in the second-hand market, as far as I can see, but that can have many reasons. First off, there are so many more companies out there now than before. Quite a lot of these make dolls with similar features, which may make people less eager to buy a scalpingly expensive limited second-hand doll, when they can get a similar one for much less. If you look at the quite unique artist dolls, they still fetch original sales price or more on the second-hand market. Also, many dolls sell in large quantities, so people may not be all that willing to pay a high-price for one when they can wait and hope a cheaper one appears. And let's face it, the BJD second-hand market is about the only second-hand market where selling a used item for more than original sales price is considered normal. That also seems to be changing, which probably explains why so many dolls with a 100% mark-up just stay on the marketplace, without being bought. So the way I see it, recasts are hardly the only factor which may contribute to the decline.

Some people may be afraid to by second-hand because of recasts, but it's not hard to find information on which dolls recasters have. People in the recast-community keep updated lists on who has what at which time, so if you just look, it may often be easy to rule out if the doll is a potential recast or not.
If it may be a recast, it's much easier to identify a recast than it is identifying a bootleg CD. You can find lists of signs on the internet; some good, some not, but it's usually enough to decide if the doll is a recast or not. And recast-owners are usually friendly and more than happy to help. Additionally, if someone scams you into buying a recast, and that person refuses to refund you, you can file with paypal for a full refund, because paypal doesn't allow for sales of counterfeited goods.
Buying a second-hand doll is also usually safer than buying CDs, DVDs, books, brand-name etc. on ebay, because there you only find the occasional legit item among hundreds of bootlegs, and telling which is which is usually not all that easy, before you've already gotten the item in question. And sometimes, not even then.

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure copyright isn't at all "vague and tricky" when it comes to directly copying another person's work for your own profit without the original artist's permission.

Uh...no. Actually, this holds true for almost every single collectible market on the planet. BJDs are treated as collectibles, not consumables. Limited editions and rare items are going to sell for more...exactly like they would in any other hobby consisting of collectibles. It is perfectly normal to sell, say, a 1955 Chrysler C-300 for far, far more than its original sales price (in 1955, a fully-loaded C-300 cost roughly $5,200; in 2012 one went for $126,500 at auction). Any rare, highly sought-after collectible will go for more than its original asking price. It doesn't matter if that collectible is a BJD, a car, a commemorative plate with an acorn on it, or anything else.

 

Yes, it is, because the copyright laws of China differ from many other countries. Say that the dolls are actually legal to copy in China due to China's VERY lax copyright laws, and it does become "vague and tricky"

It holds true for almost every single collectible market where the items stay in the original shape when you don't use them. BJDs however do degenerate over time (yellowing), so they would by default lose value, imho. And also, I'm mostly thinking about basics, and dolls which will be released again. Have you seen how many of them are listed for a higher price than company price on the MP? That doesn't work in any other collectible market. There is also the 100% mark-up on limiteds that just arrived and haven't had time to become rare. That doesn't work in any other collectible market I can think of either.

 

This is partly true. Within China it is completely legal to copy products. The problem is that these recasters are also selling their products to foreign customers and as such they are violating international copyright law.

 

That, again, depends on the law of the countries. The problem is that in most countries (that I know of, mind) it's legal to buy counterfeits and knock-offs, but not legal to produce them or sell them for profit. That gives us China, where it's legal to copy them, and other countries, where it's legal to buy them from other countries. And that makes the whole thing kinda tricky.
I'm not saying it's morally right or anything to create them, sell them or buy them, mind, but the reason they can get away with it at such a large scale is that they aren't per se on the wrong side of the law.

 

You don't know very much about collecting, do you?
Let me guess... You either came into BJDs from the MIB-loving toy/anime/action-figure hobby or you're a Barbie fan. Those guys seem to be all about the perfect and untouched... A lot of other communities? Not so much.

Many, many collectible markets aren't so fussed about having items in their original packages, or in perfect mint condition in order for them to command higher-than-retail prices on the secondary market. Classic cars are one example already mentioned. I can give you three more based on my own personal experience... antiquarian books, 19th century photographs and 25-30mm gaming miniatures.

A rare or particularly desirable "basic" example of any of those items will be more expensive second hand than it was new and directly from the source, even if it's in less than perfect shape and even if it wasn't "limited" at release. Foxing on the edges of a century+ old image doesn't always mean it's going to be less valuable. Damage to the cover of a book printed in the 17th century isn't going to let you have it for cheap. 'Want to assemble and paint a group of Rackham's metal wolfen or one of Julie Guthrie's old Grenadier dragon miniatures? They'll now cost you several times what they did ten (or twenty, in the case of the dragon-) years ago when they were still in production... even if they're not in their boxes, somewhat damaged or sporting someone else's awful paint job that you'll have to strip before you can re-paint them.

BJDs are FAR from the only collectible items that can be worth more second-hand and in less than perfect shape.

 

What I know of collecting is pretty much limited to the kind of cars my father collects (Alpha Romeos, sells for less than original price over here at least) or the teacups and such my mother collects (which has to be in perfect condition to be worth more than original price). No, I did not come into this community through Barbies or MIB action-figure collecting (dislike the barbie-aestethic and open and play with my action figures). I just stumbled upon them over the internet, through a manga-site, I think.

All those cases you've listed are all about scarcity. A rare collectible, in less than perfect shape, may well be worth more than original price now, I agree with that. Same goes for RARE, discontinued, sought-after BJDs. But my point was that basics, STILL available from the company, "limiteds" you can be 99% sure will be released again etc., are to a very large degree still listed for way more than original price at the marketplace. But with Soom limiteds, there's a high chance they'll be released again. Same goes for Iplehouse dolls, etc. That does lower the price people are willing to pay for them. The more times a limited is released, the more examples will exist. And the less rare it is, the lower is the resale value.
You would not get more than retail for a car if it was still available from the company, so why should you do it for doll?
You would not be able to sell a car for a 100% mark-up if it was only temporarily out of production and would be sold again soon, so why would you get that for a doll? Yet very many still list their dolls for that much on the marketplace, and don't lower the price when they don't sell. And honestly, I think that has a more fatal consequence for the second-hand market than copied dolls could ever have.
But as noted originally, hard-to-get dolls still sell well, and for more than original price, and those may well be compared to the rare collectibles. I just think the comparison of rare antiques to still available or "probably soon available again" dolls is a bit strange.

 

For what it's worth, price in other areas of collecting isn't always a matter of strict rarity. There are literally millions of fairly generic 19th century portraits out there, yet none of them are worthless. Some personalities of the day had thousands of copies of their photographs made and sold... You wouldn't believe how many pictures there are of Lincoln, for instance... and yet, they're still valuable, because collectors still want them. Demand exists, even for very "common" items, and that drives price, too.

All that aside, I also think you're over-stating your case more than a little when it comes to the average price of common dolls. When I look through the marketplace listings here, I honestly don't see this vast sea of over-priced, readily-available, bog standard sculpts that you seem so convinced exists. Granted, I'm not an expert on every single line out there in every scale, and I suppose it's *possible* that all of this rabid over-pricing is only happening to the brands I couldn't care less about or in sizes I don't personally collect... but somehow I doubt it.

I also won't claim that over-pricing never, ever, ever happens, or that occasionally we don't see someone price a doll or other item for an absolutely ludicrous amount (I remember quite a few of us on DoD snickering over an $800 MiniFee once upon a time-), but those really are the exception and not the rule, and I think you'd find the items never actually sell for the initial list. It's much, much more common, in the larger scale at least, to see even limited dolls listed at much less than their original purchase price. It's become very hard to sell second hand dolls and that's resulted in a lot of people settling for quite a bit less than they paid, not more.

 

This has nothing to do with whether or not it is legal to purchase knock-offs. It's against copyright law to produce them, which is why recasters are acting against the law.
China is a member of all international copyright treaties, so even when it's legal for bootleggers to copy works created within their own country, it becomes illegal the moment they do the same with works created outside their country, because of the minimal requirements members of these treaties had to agree to.

The only reason many of these bootleggers get away with recasting, is because it is quite a hassle - not to mention very expensive - to start an international lawsuit.