To what extent can we claim...

Oh, absolutely - someone can take/create just about anything from something and call it "art". But it doesn't follow that then that art can be sold or marketed or even touted as "original". The issue - in most of these DoA threads - is who does the "product" belong to after its been art-ified.

 

Yes, I see that and it puzzles me. "Who does the 'product' belong to?" is not a particularly interesting question.

Bjd-collecting is a very, very young hobby (or craft -- or creative endeavour -- or art-form). No one knows how it might develop. It seems a bit sad to me to get hung up on questions of copyright and ownership this early on. I see wonderful art on this forum (two photostories I've seen recently come to mind) which the original doll-artist never dreamt of. Regardless of who "owns" it, there are interesting questions to be asked about it.

• What sort of art does a doll best lend itself to?
• With the internet and all the associated technologies we have now, how might doll-art develop in the future?
• And, above all, how can we make more of it?

Another idea which seems quite ingrained is that something is either original or it isn't -- that originality is a binary thing like a switch, either on or off. No art is completely original. If it were we wouldn't be able to understand it. The vast majority of artists start to be "original" by imitating other artists, either consciously or because the work of artists they love is ingrained in their psyche.

What I suppose concerns me about Den of Angels is that some people here seem to be saying, "Oh, this isn't allowed!", before they even pick up a pen, or a paintbrush or a camera or whatever. So they never do pick up the pen, paintbrush etc. This does not bode particularly well for the future of bjds.

Even if something falls under copyright, that doesn't mean that you absolutely cannot create something else based on that copyrighted art. What it means is that you have to ask permission from the copyright holder. If it looks like you are going to make money then that is the time to work out a contract -- that is the point at which copyright law comes into play, not before. The copyright holder may say no -- or they may say yes.

A couple of times I've been asked by young artists if it would be OK to develop some project based on work of mine, copyrighted work. I've said yes. If and when they look as if they might make money out of it, then at that point we'll work out details of a contract. I didn't do it because I had any expectation of making money -- I absolutely do not expect to -- but because the projects sounded interesting and the artists sounded worth supporting. Similarly about 18 months ago I wrote to an English fantasy writer asking if I might use a character from one of her novels in a novel I'm intending to write. She said yes straightaway and, what is more, told me something about her character that had never made it into the book. She was lovely about it.

So could I ask the following. We are all so sure that we are not permitted to use bjds in our own art, but has anyone actually put this question to a bjd company or doll artist and if so what was the reply?

 

I think that when a hobby is just beginning is the -perfect- time to discuss issues like copyright and air out the 'dirty laundry' details because it means that a precedent is developed from which a generally accepted definition of what is/isn't creative breech can be determined. (Not in a strictly legal sense, but in a 'this is what is accepted in our hobby' sense.)

The base sculpt itself is artistry. It takes time and effort of talented artisians to sculpt these BJD, and then we purchase that art. The process of customisation and development of our dolls into 'characters' is a creative purpose, and can become quite individualistic - one person's 'trash' is another's 'masterpiece'. Artistic vision is so widespread - look at the many interpretations of 'shadow' that came out of this years DoA anniversary competitions!

I disagree with psammedthat we don't use our BJDs for artistic purposes - I would claim that most of us do exactly that. I grab Lief down and plonk him in a pose to get a feel for what that pose looks like when I'm writing parts of my story. If he's sitting down, how does that restrict his movement? Could he reach an object if he was doing 'x' pse and reaching out? What features do you notice most prominently when he's standing 'y' way?

People take photographs that I consider amazing works of art right here on DoA, and some of the face-ups I've seen have literally left me mind-blown.

I think the issue of where the doll company needs to be contacted is if the art leads directly to commercial profit. Are you selling photos of the doll as your own artwork? Are you selling a doll you have customised as a one-of-a-kind art doll? It's this sort of situation that require a sort of speculation as to whether or not the company would protest.

I think the main point to consider is whether or not the object in question could easily be reproduced. If you heavily customise a doll, well, you've still bought the doll and the company has recieved it's share of the 'dividends' of your creative endeavours. You'd need to buy another of the doll and customise it in the same way to make more of the same thing. (This is, of course, ignoring completely the issue of bootlegs, but as bootlegs can't be sold/discussed on DoA, it's really a non-issue on this particular forum) Photos, however, can have multiple copies sold, without the company recieving profit from it. I think this is where the company needs to be contacted, and perhaps deals brokered. (Here, if you're working commercially, would the legalities come into it, imo.)

-shrugs- or at least that's my view.

 

^This. I would imagine that this is the general consensus of this issue for most doll owners. When the doll leaves the company's hands, the owner then has the right to do that which he/she wishes, so long as it doesn't involve direct reproduction.

On the subject of what is and isn't art, I only have this to add. One thing that was repetitively drilled into my head as an art student was that art is what you make it. If you want to take a toilet and stick it on a platform and call it art, then you have the right to and it's art...to you. Whether anyone else agrees with you is another matter. Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Also, because I like to play devil's advocate, one subject that has not yet been brought up is fullsets. There are some collectors who do not see reason to change any aspect of a fullset. How do they affect copyright? Do we have the right to call anything about them our own? After all, fullsets are designed by the company's design team, so if the doll owner chooses not to change anything about them, what artist rights do we have to those dolls?

 

Sorry, I think I've not made myself clear. I think that people on DoA are indeed using their dolls for artistic purposes and I agree that some of the art here is mind-blowing. That's why I said, "I see wonderful art on this forum..."

 

going back to the display in a museum point for a minute. i fail to see how putting your doll in a museum is different from selling the doll secondhand on the marketplace or elsewhere? many people donate stuff to museums that they have not made themselves. i would even venture to say far more items than those made by the creator... as long as you are not claiming to make the thing in it's entirety but crediting each person with the appropriate part ie sculpt, faceup, clothing, what is the difference? if more than one person adds to the "art' does it not just become a collaboration of sorts?

 

Ah sorry, my bad. There was a line in your post that snagged me into thinking it meant something else. ^^;;;

 

Dolls are personal art, I think. Legally speaking, you're getting into a pretty terribly grey area where there is a lot of room for error, wiggling and general nonsense.

The doll is technically your property. With proper documentation, you could sue for damages/losses or even purchase insurance, as it is technically your property (this may not be the case everywhere, these are only examples). What you can't do is claim creation of the doll. Though you may have customized it, it's still the creation of the company.
Think about a modded car. No matter how painted, modified or tweaked a Ford Explorer is, it's still a Ford Explorer, and any attempts to market it otherwise would allow Ford to take legal action of they saw it necessary.

It's a pretty difficult area. Most people who do publish or sell photos of their dolls never see repercussions from it, but that's not to say it's an impossibility.

 

Do you know a link to the copyright laws? OTL I fail at finding things on the interwebs. I've looked at a whole bunch of (Canadian) photography copyright laws and I can't find anything about it

 

Your question is are they art? To that I do believe these dolls are a form of artwork. Someone sat there and thought of a character which they spent countless hours sculpting and making look just right.
However I do not believe that the owners of these dolls can claim it is THEIR art. Sure if they made clothes, shoes, wigs, eyes, ect that is art. Even the photographs taken of the dolls are art, just like if you were to take a picture of a human. However the doll itself is not their art. It really does bother me when people claim that the doll is their art because it is not, it was made by another person and you bought it. Its like if you bought a Picasso and made a frame for it and you called it "your art" it is in no way your art. I believe BJDs help people express their artistic side, but if the doll was not made by you, it is not your work.

 

The way I view it, its like we bought a painting and added a ton of stuff to it. I do not view a doll body as a "canvas" because its a little more artful than just a plain old canvas. You did not create it, you only customized it (unless you built and cast your own bjd!)

 

this is really about what defines art, I think... that's a very vague question, and can vary depending on the person. I believe the sculpters are artists, and i believe faceup artists are artists. I believe the people who make the clothing are artists.

I am not an artist for BJD's. Not at all. But I do believe BJD's are a work of art, along with being a toy (:

 

most people have a tendancy to name the sculpt of the doll they used and what company it's from. like I always say my BJD Nohawka is a Resin Soul Song...so if I customize him and call it art, I wouldn't put that in the catagory of plagerism because I've credited the base doll to Resin Soul.

 

Isn't the doll just modelling the art? If you tattoo a person, or put clothes on a runway model, you're exhibiting those things, but you don't own the person they're on.

In the case of a doll, you do own it, but you didn't create it. It's art of course, but not yours. Anything you add after the fact that you did create certainly counts as art, and just as in the case of a human model, identifying natural features that will influence the design and impact of what you create for your doll is part of the artistic talent of the tailor, or face-up/make-up artist.

It's all art, and doll owners can certainly create art with their dolls, even if credit is due for the original sculpt to the company that made it...

 

Actually, this deals with a very interesting topic. I think you've hit on something.

If the original artist doesn't believe the work is art, but is something that they've done for profit - say the tattoo of a heart saying 'mum/mom' on someone's arm - is it still art? Is it the artist that creates the work that decides the artistic merit or is it in the eye of the beholder?

I have a professional artist for a friend who draws anything that she is commissioned to. Some stuff, she claims it's really hard to draw and she hates the finished product with abundance because of the subject matter, but she does it to put food on the table. She is not famous enough to be choosy about her commissions, and as such, she takes whatever she is given.

If a face-up artist was asked to do a face-up that they personally did not like (be it because they thought it trite, cliche', disturbing, etc.) is that face-up still art? Does the view of the commissioner that 'It's art because it's exactly what I wanted' trump the view of the face-upper who believes 'Boy, I'm glad that one's over. At least I have some more food/rent/bill money now.' Or is art purely in the eye of the viewer?

And if it is purely in the eye of the viewer, what stops anything from becoming art? Can they look at... say... my computer speakers and say 'Yes, that is art'?

/introspection.

 

Interesting.

Who is to say that art is art? I guess you could call it art if even one person says it is - be it the creator or someone viewing it. I've been to plenty of art galleries, and I've seen things that I find completely awesome, but I've also seen things that have made me scratch my head and wonder why.

Going by that logic, it could be either the commissioner or the artist who can claim their work as art. If the artist is proud of their work, and considers it art, then it's art. If the artist doesn't really care at all for what they did, but the commissioner sings their praises at such a good job they did, then that's art, too.

 

I think that even if the artist does not like the result, but someone else does, it is -still- art.
Yes, i do think the computer speakers can be art if you want to, ant it is purely in the eye of the viewer.
anyway, the artist's own taste can change.
they can -love- a piece when they are first done with it, and grow to hate/dislike it a year later. Would you say it stops being art then?