Would still buy a doll if the artist required a contract?

Yeah, they wouldn't be getting my money. No way I am buying from anyone who would presume they have a right to tell me how I play with a doll I bought with my money.

And good luck to this person if they think they could enforce their silly rules.

 

If they're doing one-of-a-kind sculpture pieces, then yes, I 'd agree to something like that; I'm likely to just resell it as-is if I decided it was no longer right for me. I think it's also fair to have these restrictions placed on, say, public sculpture; obviously you don't want someone graffiting slurs or whatnot on a finished piece. I think a good example of a case which these restrictions apply to is the bull on Wall Stress.

Personally, I'm much less likely to want to mod something if it comes to me "complete" as an art piece or sculpture as-is. But if this artist is selling blank sculpts, or pieces (heads, hands, bodies etc.) separately, then they're being sold for customization, and to claim otherwise alienates the audience.

 

(I like how MY comment was the only one to get deleted, but whatever... )
I still stand by my original opinion in that I would ABSOLUTLY NOT buy from an artist that demanded such a thing from their buyers, I mean how would someone know for certain that the people they sold to weren't modding or hybriding their doll? Would they stalk their buyer's online accounts and demand to see pictures of the doll regularly? Even so, unless the buyers posted pictures of their mods/hybrids the artist would never know for certain if someone had changed the doll to their liking...

Also the thought of trying to take people to court over a simple thing like hybriding a doll makes me laugh (I really like @errinreynolds scenario of how that would go down ), I mean, how would that work with an overseas buyer?

So really, like everyone else here has said, this is not the best hobby to try and enforce that kind of mentality. I'm sure there would be other doll hobbies where changing the way a doll comes originally isn't as commonplace but for BJD's it's pretty much 'the norm' and can't be controlled (nor should it, stunting creativity is super negative imo).

 

My comment was also removed, so don't feel bad. The moderators are just trying to do their job. It could have turned ugly and they have to be fair.

It really would be impossible to uphold certain laws, dolls like these would be high on the 'recast' wanted list because those re-casters don't have to demand one follow a contract. Depending on where they are based there would be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that could be done about it. Its how sites like Alibaba maintain their business. Countries that can copy your items and sell them for pennies without legal repercussion do so. All you can do is grit your teeth and pray your customers prefer the real thing.

Excluding members of a hobby (especially a majority) is just asking for trouble.

 

Yours wasn't the only one, Odii. My initial reply to the thread was hit with the mod-hammer as well, though I'm still not sure exactly why. I said nothing particularly "personal" about the seller in question.

In any case, the terms they're demanding simply aren't practical or realistic, so I doubt there's any real chance of them being enforced. Like the situation with Hypermaniac and her opposition to resale, there's just no way to pull off that level of owner/market monitoring.

 

It'd have to be about the equivalent of plated in gold (so not actual gold, because I don't care, but perfect in every way), and still I wouldn't guarantee I still wouldn't do what I wanted with it, never post photos online, and tell everyone who saw it that it's a Pullip.

I'd probably wait to buy it off somebody from the secondhand market, however, just to avoid the artist--scary that people think like this! So vindictive! (Although perhaps my plan is similar right back.)

(Even after telling them, most of my family thinks my dolls are Pullips--apparently learning the name of my newest doll hobby is hard, which is fine, as I can't remember the model of my dad's tractor either.)

But perhaps I'm a bit too contrarian. Since a doll that's perfect in every way would never exist (I hybrid most of my dolls, some of which are 3+ colonies), I know I'm pretty safe to talk tough. (Although I'm not lying--if it was extraordinary I might be that one stubborn customer.)

For anything less than perfect I'd probably just ignore it, honestly. You can't reason with this type of...logic...and it's not worth the brain damage for "not my circus, not my monkey, not my problem."

 

Honestly, as surprised as I was to see the post deleted, it doesn't really matter... In the grand scheme of things, it's a minor point.

Anyway, you're right about the materials. If someone's really serious about the no-repainting/no-mods thing, resin just doesn't seem like a good choice, size and engineering aside. Maybe it's a "But I want it to be on-topic here for sales and marketing purposes"- thing?

Which brings up another interesting question... Would an unmodifiable resin doll( if that could somehow be in any way enforced), actually *be* on-topic? Things like changeable hair and eyes at least used to be on the requirements list.

 

HAHAHAHAHA! No. Two thirds of my dolls are modded and nobody tells me what to do, noooobody! Seriously, any company or artist that had a contract and said they would sue me for customizing my own dolls to my liking would not get my business. I buy a dress from the store, I expect to be able to shorten the skirt, change the sleeves, do whatever I want. I buy a car? I expect to be able to change the paint color and the rims and whatever I like. I buy a doll and even more so I expect to be able to add scars, elf ears, amputated limbs, cyborg parts, open or close eyes, etc...whatever I want since I bought it and I own it. I don't understand the mindset of not wanting people to customize the dolls you sell them, you're losing nothing. You still have the original and as many duplicates as you want, why do you care if one of the copies you sold is floating around out there with a unicorn horn or something? With that mindset, the company or artist should do OOAK statuettes that wont be customized, they shouldn't be doing BJDs which are all about customization and bringing your own imagination to life.

 

I personally would not buy a doll from a company with such rules. It's silly and unrealistic for this hobby.
Even if I was a doll maker and was proud of my work enough to sell it for a high dollar value I still wouldn't add a contract. I got my money from the customer, after that it's out of my hands. If I wanted something to stay in its original unmodded state I would not sell it and just have it in galleries.

It's not like the doll maker will knock on your door every month and ask to see your doll to make sure you didn't mod it or hybrid it! They wouldn't even have a way to find out about it if the owner wasn't into social media or didn't share their pictures anywhere.

 

Absolutely not, I would never even consider it. The beauty of BJDs is customizing them! If this artist wants to sell unaltered works they should sculpt stationary statues or something. I think the only restriction I would accept to a doll I bought is if the artist wanted to add a "if you are caught sending this doll to a recaster you're in shit" clause, because that's fair. Hard to track, but fair.

 

The artist is free to stipulate whatever rules they want, but they would definitely struggle to enforce any of these rules once a doll leaves their hands.

The artist would surely also want to know how any buyer interacts with dolls outside of the one they are buying from them, to avoid selling to someone who may mod or hybrid the doll.

Personally I wouldn't want continued contact and possible monitoring from the artist for any purchase made via them.

 

I would never agree to such a contract, no matter how much I might like the doll.

I came into this hobby from a love of modification, doing my own styling, and kit-building/kit-bashing. I love getting "kit" dolls the best, just a blank bunch of parts that I can do with as I please. There was a focus on that in the early days--Volks' motto was (and still is, mind) "We Seek Creativity." At the NY Dolpas I've been to, the Volks designers and sculptors were very excited to see what people had done with their dolls, limiteds included, modifications and body-swaps included, repainted dolls included. It would have been a very boring affair if everyone had brought in a bunch of perfectly-kept full-sets, each one exactly like the others.

In twelve years in this hobby, I've never known an artist or known of an artist who was *genuinely* resentful of what a doll's owner might do. Or if they did have problems, they have been pretty mum about it. For an artist to suggest such a contract, it strikes me as an insecurity about their own standing as an artist. And where does one draw the line? If the doll comes with a full-set outfit, then are we to never change clothes or wigs or eyes? Because those could be considered types of customization, and under such a contract be forbidden.

If this is an artist's feeling, then they need to consider a different medium through which to express themselves. As others have suggested, porcelain art dolls might be a better choice. But not resin BJDs, which from the early days have frequently been intended as a blank canvas, and indeed are frequently sold that way.

The owner's touch is what gives so much of the beauty and personality to these dolls, and if an artist is uncomfortable with an individual owner putting their own twist or interpretation on a doll, then that is very unfortunate for the artist, but also this is the absolutely wrong community to try to enforce such a narrowing mindset.

 

I think it's a hard one to really keep an eye on from the artists part. If she only sole 1 or 2 dolls then it's easy, but if she sold hundreds or thousands she never really know if what's being done to each doll.

And I doubt she'd have a legal leg to stand on. Once the object is modified it is no longer her creation it's now the intellectual/artistic property of the new creator/modifier. Take Warhol for example. His Campbell soup can is a clear ripoff of the promotional ads. But no legal action happend (partially because it's free pr, and partially because he changed it enough to not be a clear copy)

I'd venture that if you'd moded the features enough on the doll that if she was to take you to court over it l, she'd be laughed at.

As far as ordering from the artist I wouldn't bother. I hate stipulations, especially on my own property.

 

The whole BJD hobby was created by/for people who wanted customizable dolls. If someone was selling a resin cast doll with the no mods/ no reselling/ no hybrids stipulations I would probably pass on the doll. I mean, I if I didn't have the option to customize the doll to make it my own then what's the point? But I don't see how such a 'contract' would be enforceable anyway.

 

I don't think there would be anyway of them enforcing this, it would just be their preference that the dolls sold remain unmodified. That said I would not purchase a doll from them as I would not support them giving them money when they are employing scare tactics threatening you with the law because you modified a doll you bought.

 

Short answer: nope.
a seller can't make me pay full price for a product, but act as if they still own it and I'm just borrowing it. :T
If you lend your lawnmower to your neighboor and they break it, they owe you a lawnmower. If you GIVE or SELL your old lawnmower to your neighboor and they break it or take it apart and give the motor to their brother-in-law, they don't owe you sh*t!

 

Um....no.

To me it would be tyrannical for a company to demand a no mods or alterations clause on a product they are selling, whether it's shoes, purses, video games or bjds. I can understand copyright infringement issues, but commercial art being sold for a profit is mainly that--art for profit. Once it leaves the artist's hands and goes to a company/caster to be reproduced and sold, it loses their personal touch and therefore isn't really their art (in the personal sense anyways) anymore.

It's more understandable on OOAK pieces and works released in very limited runs, possibly meant for museums and exhibitions, but even then it isn't free from the possibility of being altered. Would the seller sue somebody for natural wear and tear or aging? For any possibly damage that might occur unintentionally? If, say--Picasso came back from the dead to see one of his works on display accidentally fall off and get damaged, would he pursue a lawsuit over the matter? Or DaVinci? Van Gogh? Probably not.

For me, personally...I wouldn't purchase something with such restrictions, especially a resin bjd. Customization is at the core of my interest in the hobby, and taking that right away from me drives me away from a sale. I'm not collecting bjds to sit and look pretty on a shelf with another person's vision. I'm creating characters with my own personal touch. It just wouldn't work for me.

 

It worked for Frank Lloyd Write. He nailed the furniture to the floor so folks could not RUIN his vision of what their house looked like. Changing the wallpaper was forbidden too.

I'm betting she's NOT Frank Lloyd Write and will have a hard time getting anyone to sign the contract!

I certainly would not.

 

I've already read something similar here while looking for random stuff in older threads. Some were against people modifying dolls and they talked about it being disrespectful to the artist.

As an artist myself, I ask: why?
I mean, if someone bought a work of mine and changed it to fit even better on their interests... that's good!

Think about it, there's so many stuff out there, but still a person have chosen your work to adopt and be creative around it. It's a part of you, your creation, that intertwines with someone's else creativity to become something new! Honestly, I can't think of it being anything other than flattering!

Answering the topic then, my answer would be no. If you create something for a market you need to be aware that people will embrace it in different forms, too much rules around it will bring many problems like the ones described by Velicifoxtor.