The consequences of copied dolls

An amusing aside: I had sent a message to the seller of the recast Unoa currently up on eBay, asking her whether she was aware that recasts are illegal. Her response was "In what country are they illegal?"

Given that US copyright law gives the right to make copies to the artist unless and until those rights are specifically reassigned in writing (license agreement) the ONLY person who has the right to make copies of an item for resale is the artist. Given that this seller is using the US ebay site, I would have thought the answer rather obvious.....

I mean really. This kind of attitude boggles me.

ETA: OK, just to be 100% sure I knew what the heck I was talking about (was pretty sure I did; I did go to law school and worked in three different law firms over a span of a number of years, so I'm fairly confident in my ability to read a raw statute) I just read the whole stinking US Copyright law. So boring. I checked out all the exceptions, all the limitations, and so forth looking for anything that might tell me that it is actually OK to make a copy without specific permission from the artist in the case of a sculptural work. I didn't find such a thing with a couple of really rare exceptions.

Sect. 113. Scope of exclusive rights in pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works

(a) Subject to the provisions of subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work in copies under section 106 [17 USCS Sect. 106] includes the right to reproduce the work in or on any kind of article, whether useful or otherwise.
​

Notice the words "exclusive right to reproduce." That includes casting, recasting, putting pretty pictures to paste on a cheap wallet, and so forth, yo. That does mean that the only person who can legally reproduce such a work of art is the artist, unless specific arrangements have been made. (It's always ok to reproduce something IF you can show written permission from the copyright holder). There is a provision to excuse for the recasting, copying, re-recording, whatever applies) in the case where the original item is in imminent danger of destruction. So, say you had the only remaining copy of some movie, and it was in danger of destruction because it's on nitrate film that is ready to go splodey. It's ok to copy that without hunting down the copyright holder. But when there are MULTIPLE legitimate Unoa dolls up for sale right this very moment on ebay, I would venture the opinion that a recast Unoa does not meet those criteria. Just sayin'

The subsections Secton 113 refers to basically say you can't copyright a "useful item" (no copyrighting a pretty spatula, ok?) or a work of art that is firmly incorporated into something else, like a cool gargoyle that is a fixed part of a building.

 

To stay OT, of what I do consider interesting...
It was brought to my attention about sellers who've had their doll(s) for years and maybe not having or knowing were their doll(s) paper work is and they want to sell it and people are asking for it.
I know of the 3 I have I only have paper work for 1.
I wouldnt sell any of them but still...

 

But can you copyright a pretty spatula that's been turned into a cool gargoyle that is a fixed part of a building?

I NEED TO KNOW THIS.

/totally randomly off-topic

 

I haven't read this whole thread in it's entirety, but the one major point that should really be talked about out most often and that I didn't see while skimming a few pages is that:

Bootleg items always drive the original item's costs up.
For everyone that goes the cheap route and buys a knockoff product, that's one less person saving a few extra dollars to buy an original item from the person who put a lot of work into what they created.

If more original BJD's were purchased, they would be able to be sold for less and companies wouldn't need to profit as much off of each item. But as more knockoffs get sold and less people save up for the originals, it's obvious what happens in the long run.

Sometimes a bootleg/knockoff product's success can bolster the original item's popularity as well by exposing more people, and that's a valid argument - but in this hobby, I just really don't see that as possibility for bjds. Reason being that it's usually a public image kind of thing like with the watches and handbags and what-have-you, but this hobby is nowhere near such a publicly popular trend as fashion items, etc. Heck, I still have yet to meet one person in real life who knows about bjds. BJDs are far from a public image type of thing.

In summary - knockoffs and bootlegs will continue to drive up the costs of legitimate companies' bjds.

So if I'm part of this redundancy problem.... well too bad, I came to the party late and still want to have a drink :p

 

There are other ways one might could prove authenticity. If they ordered the doll through the company, they should be able to take a screenshot of their order history from the company's website or forward the email from the company that confirmed the shipment of the doll. That wouldn't be perfect proof, but it would be useful. Also, if the doll's second-hand, but still has the default face-up, that would indicate that it's authentic. If the doll is second-hand, has no papers, has no default face-up, and is known to have been recast, proving authenticity might be a bit tricky, especially for sellers without much feedback. Although, if the second-hand doll was purchased prior to the recast of that sculpt being produced and there are records of the purchase (like feedback on here), that might work as proof. For example, I bought a second-hand Crobidoll Lance in 2008. I don't have papers for him, but I do have copies of all the PMs that were exchanged when I got him. There were definitely no Lance recasts back in summer 2008, so I could at least prove that I purchased an authentic Lance. I don't have any intention of ever selling that particular doll - I just used him as an example.

 

Just one thing... Company transaction databases aren't "forever", so you really can't rely on being able to get a screen-shot of your company order page years down the line. Soom and Luts, for instance, got rid of all of their old order information when they redesigned their sites... If you purchased from them before the redesign, say back in 2005 or 2006, there's no longer a record of that transaction. (And what's even worse in Soom's case is that the serial numbers on CoAs issued with dolls prior to the 2010 re-design CAN'T be looked up using the on-line verification tool they have on their front page, and mention in their current pop-up warning re: recasts. Something they've neglected to mention at all themselves. <_<)

So... yeah. While it's nice to say "Oh, you can prove you bought this older doll by going back to get a copy your order record from the company!", it's not necessarily possible in every case. Data can be purged over time (eBay), in redesigns (Soom, Luts, IpleHouse) or when companies go out of business (Unidoll, Hypermaniac), among other problems.

As someone pointed out in the Boxes-and-Papers thread, it also doesn't help with dolls purchased "live" at conventions, doll shows and Dolpas... o_0

 

^ This.

Within the last year, I have had someone expressing disbelief that I didn't have a receipt for a 10+ year old doll that I was selling. Why would I save a hobby receipt for so long? Was I supposed to expect that 10 years down the road, someone might question its authenticity? Possession of box and any paperwork that came with the item is good enough for any other collectible. The company didn't seem to have a record for such an old transaction either.

Not to mention that the IRS only requires seven years of receipts; I tend to purge after that point, regardless of what the receipt was for except for house-related stuff like appliances.

This makes me feel the need to save every scrap of paper that comes with a doll including the shipping box because it has a date stamp on it.

 

Oh, wow. I don't have the receipts of any of the dolls I've purchased, save for a paypal receipt from the latest doll I bought over the summer, but as for the others? Not a scrap. Moving in the past few years, I don't have all the company boxes either. It's an interesting issue, one I didn't think of when I first got in to the hobby. When I first heard recast, I confused it with something like a re-issuing of a doll that had previously been discontinued.

Along with copied and recast dolls, something I've seen crop up at anime conventions are photos of BJDs on cosmetic mirrors, purses, nicknacks-- most assuredly not company issued.

 

See now this direction of conversation is all Minerva's fault!!
I just contacted someone who bought a doll from me like 5 years ago...guess what I found when i moved!
We just had a water pipe burst and my Soom MD Sard Box...SOAKED!!! But his papers were good!!
My DZ...no paper work.
I just, it's so foreign to me to even think to ask for paper work...

Laugh if you will...
I only know how to do screen shots on my iphone and thats cause i did it by accident and was all "THAT'S how you do that"!!

 

Well, I never said it was a perfect method that would work for everyone, but it could definitely help for some transactions. I didn't know that some popular companies had purged their old order info, though I did think after I posted about how it wouldn't work at all if the company went out of business.

So, you had the box and paperwork, but they wouldn't buy because of the lack of receipt? That's a bit paranoid, unless it was a sculpt that's been recast by people who send fake CoAs along with the doll. Though, I guess someone could buy the original doll 10 years ago, then buy a recast and sell the recast with the CoA from the legit doll. I can't imagine many people would go that far...

Probably another redundant point, but one "consequence" of copied dolls is paranoia. I would be hesitant to buy certain sculpts second-hand now, especially from someone who didn't have much feedback. And I'd never buy from Ebay.

 

I have only ever once been asked for the paperwork when I came to sell on a doll. Being a bit short of space and having moved house a few times in the past 5 years, I haven't kept boxes anyway, and threw them out forgetting the paperwork inside. Some companies don't send you any COA when you buy direct from them, anyway, so you would have had to carefully peeled the shipping labels off the parcel (which would still not prove which sculpt you bought) and paperwork is way easier to forge than recasting a doll.

This is one of the biggest problems with recasters and their fans, the amount of mistrust that is gradually seeping in. The fear that the counterfeits will be passed off as the real thing on the secondary market and people will get conned into paying full price for something that was bought at a fraction and wasn't made with the care and attention you expect for something of that value. Some would say that those who sell Recasts on ebay and state that is what they are selling are being honest, but somehow I can't really trust someone who would buy what is basically stolen goods in the first place.

 

Yes, the sale fell through because I couldn't come up with a receipt to go with the box and paperwork that I would be including. It was an old Volks doll that hasn't been recast as far as I can determine. I did tell the would-be buyer that s/he was being paranoid in this case. :lol

I've also had recently had the delightful experience of someone following a paper-trail through previous owners contact me to demand proof of authenticity (again the receipt issue) or the name of the previous owner for a doll that I had sold several years ago. We shouldn't be responsible for keeping track of receipts for dolls we have long-since sold.

 

^ This scenario is definitely a consequence…but I'm hoping/assuming that this is a very rare occurrence. I wonder have other sellers been put through the paces to prove authenticity by digging up receipts.

And while I can expect this level of authentication for culturally significant works, historical artifacts, jewels and the like - the kind of proof scenario that Minerva mentioned seems excessive for a bjd. We aren't selling jewelry supposedly owned by the Queen of England, or putting up an item for bid at Sothebys. These are toys that we customize the heck out of, depreciate in value (save a rare few), not stored in a preservation safe….so who is expecting years later when they want to sell, that someone wants to see a receipt from 2005?

I do understand not wanting to be ripped off. I would be livid, if I paid pull price or more for a forgery. I would hunt the seller down with the full wrath of Khan. But I toss receipts all the time and know I've tossed some of my doll receipts too. I'm lucky for now because my dolls are unpopular (not prone to recasting), I buy company direct, take box opening pics, have email confirmations from the company and I'm not selling anything. Imagine if this doesn't become "enough proof."

I can only imagine how annoying this whole proof of authenticity issue might be for veteran collectors who purchased dolls back in the day when many companies didn't have certificates or maybe shipped dolls unstrung in a kit and not a pretty doll box.

 

I haven't had anyone demand a receipt yet, but since last summer I have had contact from two different people tracing the sale history of dolls I'd previously owned and sold on. In one case, that trail ended with me, since I was the first owner and had ordered her directly from Luts. In the other case, it happened to be one of the few second-hand dolls whose former owner I actually remembered, and so I was able to pass on at least some information (Though the individual I'd purchased the doll from left the hobby some years ago, so I have no idea if the new owner had any luck contacting her or not-).

Thinking about it in light of this thread, I'm a little surprised now that the person in the first case simply took my word for it when I told them I'd ordered the doll from the company. I doubt any order records are available from that far back, so I probably wouldn't have been able to prove it, but after going through all the trouble of back-tracking that doll's chain of ownership, it seems odd that they decided to be so trusting once they got to the "source", so to speak.

 

It is so annoying that the 4 recast dolls are still being listed on Ebay UK. The good thing is that they haven't sold, I guess, but BJD always do hang around on Ebay UK for a very long time. All my repeated efforts (and of others) to report them for being counterfeit got me nowhere because Ebay say only the maker of the goods which have been counterfeited can report them... how convenient for Ebay!

 

...you're kidding me. That's the most ridiculous counterfeit policy I can think of!

 

Hmmm my thoughts about the Ebay situation is this: Ebay doesn't want to lose revenue on selling bootleg/recast/illegal copies or stuff. Because let's face it, pirated items do sell a lot more often then legit items which is sad thing for a big company like Ebay to throw away it's ethical standards for revenue.

 

... so if the seller blatantly lists his doll as "Recast" and "copy of famous dollmaker's doll" and you report it to eBay as fake - you can't actually because you're not the manufacturer? Even though it's crystal clear it's a fake? That IS the most ridiculous counterfeit policy I've ever heard. So tell me again - why is it they got that "report item" button and why is it you can report an item as counterfeit? Maybe you should mail back to them and tell them - politely - that you're gonna tell your dear friend about this, the one who works for the Guardian. And that he'll be happy to write about it.

 

It took me ages to manage to speak to someone on the phone about it, I got passed around a lot and so don't even know who I eventually spoke to. I met a brick wall because I was told that they refuse to enter into discussion with anyone who isn't a representative of the company whose item is being counterfeited... that was the response I got and it was obvious I wasn't going to get any further. I just felt really flat and like I was wasting my time. I have no idea if that is Ebay's official policy or if it is just bad training on Ebay's part so their staff don't even understand their own policies. Seems a bit of a Catch 22 situation.

 

Have you reported it to Unoa? That might be the most you can do at this point. I did a search on Ebay out of curiosity and noticed that the seller also sold a Fairyland recast. I wonder what Ebay would do if someone bought a recast, and then filed a claim stating it was fake? Would they get their money back if they claimed not to know what "recast" meant?