Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

aceinti - I agree - I posted this before but it probably got overlooked since I just linked it so:



The only thing that isn't perfect it the left speaker because it looks like she just copied and pasted what she drew on the right (and tilted it a bit) - obviously the same boom box though.

If she just called herself a collage artist she would have been fine. She could have been a collage vector hybrid. This all makes me sad because it could have so easily been prevented if she just swallowed a tiny bit of pride and didn't claim it was all her own.

It was funny, I searched radio and then decided to search boom box - I didn't expect to find it but on the first page - there is was. I was shocked how easy it was to find.

 

Sorry if someone already addressed this but...

You're talking about the Orphaned Works Law.

(Which I think is a perfect example of thievery gone glorified myself.)

It basically means that after someone who has created something, any form of art, (and I'm assuming lesser known literature as well) and due to death or mysterious disappearance or otherwise becomes impossible to contact you or anyone else is free to use their creation's likeness in any way that you saw fit without the need to credit the original artist because they 'don't exist'.

The problem with this law is that it does not protect the anonymous, those that do not have a broad following, or those that are simply unknown to the mass media. It wouldn't be hard for someone to simply say "Oh I tried contacting the creator of this image, but I couldn't get ahold of them so this picture is orphaned. I can use it now." Of course they'd be busted if the original creator came forward, but I would think it would be hard for the creator to prove themselves or get fair treatment. Such is the nature of art theft.

It has nothing to do with years, so to put an end to the whole Mona Lisa thing, no one could claim that as their own creation no matter what they put it through, it'd still be based on it. Then again, that should apply to all works of art regardless of fame. Which is exactly my point. Sorry if that didn't make sense. Check the websites listed below. They make things much clearer than me. Ha ha ha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works
http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/ow/myths-and-facts
http://eldred.cc/
http://www.llrx.com/features/orphanworks.htm

 

hummm and the quote on the keyboard is from a song from the Gravitation Anime. I wonder how Sony would feel about her playstation ad if they knew she was plagerizing them too? They did produce the original Manga, didn't they?

 

Disney owns the rights to Totoro in the US.

I wonder if they should be contacted about this...I know they've been reaaaaaaally big sticklers for copyright infringement in the past....

 

Hana... bad, bad girl.
Okay, who's gonna call Disney?

 

*chuckles* My ex-husband's uncle used to work for Disney. They (used to, at least) make all their employees (artists, writers, or not) sign a contract saying that any characters or stories they came up with during their employment period with the company (even if they weren't AT work) were property of Disney.

So, unless they've changed their tune, I'm pretty sure they're not going to be happy about someone using their property, and I doubt they would have given her permission to use it, even if she had asked.

 

Holy Poop. Wow this is just becoming so.. silly. Gosh it takes takes her so long, sometimes months to produce such art, all the googling and stealing images off the first page. Must be really hard work.
You know, I was really starting to feel for her, in a certain way. But she is digging herself deeper and deeper.
I am a big fan and supporter of digital art, and definately find myself defending its intigrity more often. People like Schatje just further the stereotype that digital art is a bunch of copy and pasting, not worthy of being called art.

*Jen

 

I know I'm getting into this thread a little late...but it looks like there are at least 2 doll companies she hasn't "asked permission"

I know this is the digital age but sheesh....last time I was asked permission for use of my work (which wasn't that long ago), I had to sign a form.

 

The agency I work for is contracted with Disney, and my ex-boyfriend currently works for them, I can assure you they haven't changed their tune!

Everything I have done and am currently working on right now is their property. I technically cannot put any of my work for them in my online portfolio. I could even be in trouble just writing this (please, nobody rat me out! I love my job!) Disney work is done by fairies and pixie dust, not people.

One of the studios that did work for them is on the Disney blacklist. They bragged about doing work for them, so when Disney found out, they weren't too happy to say the least. That studio hasn't had a Disney contract since.

Re: the Totoro issue, from first hand experience, I can tell you that Disney is very very very protective of the Miyazaki works, so I don't think they'd be very happy if they see the Mijn Schatje's piece. I highly doubt she has permission, unless she jumped through the many hoops of Disney hierarchy clearance!

 

Dear BJD lovers all over the world



It is hard to mention our feeling.
This case is shameful, sad and astonishing.
Most of all, we are sorry for making a lot of people worried and appreciate your attention.

We were reported by a customer about 'Mijn Schatje' and her works (we are afraid of calling her works as 'art' currently.. ) which seems to copy our and other company's BJD. We thought her works were obviously as similar as our photos of dolls too much.
So, to deal with this case, we contacted a gallery to stop sale and exhibition of her works and we received answer they already received uncomfortable email from someone. (They asked some time to investigation by themselves)

We understand this case makes a lot of people embarrased and discouraged BJD companies and artists. It was really hard to deliver this case to our creators and designers - They were very disappointed and I did not know how I can comfort them. However, regardress of the fact, we also think the galleries, shops or companies which purchased or exhibited her product could be victims of her wrong behavior.



While I look around this thread, I could feel many things...
There are massive emotion and public opinion on this thread. As you know, it is easy to be amplified.

I know this thread and this community is rational, fair open space for all BJD lovers filled with passion and love. So we sincerely ask all BJD owners stop sending email to the artist and other galleries or shops if someone did. Instead, if you offer us any report of them or information, it will be very helpful. Now we have too little power to figure out how many photos were used and the copied illustrations were sold - and where - , it will be so grateful if you offer help - then we can require the galleries and shops not to exhibit the works and stop the sale. We - LUTS, other BJD companies and BJD photo owners - should settle down this case with Mijn Schatje and galleries, shops directly with your huge attention and support.


We all got hurt from this case - BJD owners' and BJD companies' pride about our ART works, our and other companies' designers, creators and photographers ... galleries, companies which used, exhibited, sold Mijn Schatje's works , and even Mijn Schatje herself an her fans who loved her arts.
(We can imagine easily how her fans feel when they recognize their favorite illustrations traced other photo. )
That's why we should step away a bit from the emotional point and figure out the best way to solve this case cleanly.

It is the most precious thing we have learned from this case to find your enormous love for LUTS and other BJDs. It is so glad to convince your love, we all managers of LUTS - and I think all BJD companies would feel same - appreciate your concern from our heart.

We will do our best to keep our and your right.

Thank you and have a nice day!




Best wishes,


Dianne Song
English website manager of LUTS

 

Hmm well actually that's not technically accurate. I myself and my husband are published authors and we have both written books that actually involve real life people and as long as the names are changed our publishers are not legally doing anything wrong. It's not defermation of character if it's true (plus I think it's libel when it's written anyway), someone who was written about in a book and their name used would have to take the publisher to court and prove that it wasn't true which is difficult. Hence, the get out clause that as long as you change the name- you can write about someone else.

I agree- she has only pulled down those where she has already sold the work/got the contract so she is losing nothing financially. Little too late as well. So she needs a board of 22000 people to kick up a fuss before she starts to realise what she is doing is wrong?

I really don't know what she can do to make this right now. I mean, when she was first contacted she decided to lie and spout verbal diarroea of complete BS. This was her oppurtunity to set the record straight and she didn't. This has continued and at no point has she held her hands up and admitted she is a theif and a liar. I think it is too late for her to do anything off her own back- I believe all it takes now is for the general public to realise what she has done, and a rather large court order against her so she pays out to those she has stolen from.

She should have just always portrayed herself as what she is: a hybrid vector artist. There is not shame in that- it is an art form. She did not create all of that from scratch and it's the truth. She wanted to come across as something bigger and better than she was and caught red handed.

I would be very interested to know what the companies do, Sony, and especially Disney. Disney are not a company you piss about with. I have heard about Disney making their employees sign things so that any work they come up with during their employment with them is owed by Disney (it happened to Tim Burton with Nightmare Before Xmas I believe).

 

This looks as though Luts want to avoid legal action. Jeez she is one lucky dog that Mijn. I think essentially they are asking us to help them in getting the work pulled off of sites and sold. I don't know how we could find people who have already bought the work- but I think they are due a refund from Mme Mijn

 

As a newbie to the world of dolls, I'm not highly qualified to have any great insight into a debate, but I would like to share my opinion very briefly. Personally, I believe any tracing and directly copying at least violates some sort of moral code (if not copy write laws), but unless there's hard evidence that tracing occurred, it would be difficult to prove. Tons of faces look similar and sometimes almost identical (you can see my introduction thread for a personal example haha) so there's always a chance of a coincidence. As for using a doll for inspiration for artwork of other sorts, I don't see any problem with this, but personally I'd still credit the original designer of the doll as to keep my conscience in tact, but that's just me and would depend entirely on the artist's own standards of integrity. Anyways, that's just my two cents.

 

I have not been aware of this so called artist but seeing this makes my blood boil. I'm an artist and a graphic designer. I would NEVER do what she has done, it's just SO dishonest and actually I think it's pretty LAME. She has gotten 'famous' for tracing. Yeah, well done sweetheart - now let's see what you can do when your scam has been blown!

Let's see if she ever comes up with anything original. I have seen people do this sort of thing before - copy from books and then try and pass it off as their work. Even if it's "technically" legal it's just wrong and it makes me think very little of the person doing this. This makes me think she has no talent at all. If she did she wouldn't have to resort to tracing other people's work. If she wants to prove she has any originality let's see her produce some concept sketches, an art diary or doodles which develop the ideas - let's see any sort of proof that these ideas are hers. Most original artists do not just sit down in and whack out a finished vector artwork in Illustrator without any sort of concept development/sketches/preliminary work done beforehand. Hell, let's see ONE hand done drawing outside of a computer that shows she's developed this style/concepts/ideas.

 

I'm calling troll. Are you Drawntogether cus her name is strangely Sarah as well and she didn't read anything of what people were saying or look at the mountain of evidence that proves this woman traced work!!!!

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure Luts had mentioned they were considering legal action. Hence, they contacted the stores and galleries selling/displaying her work. Their main problem right now is that all these people are sending uncoordinated, perhaps angry and confused e-mails to the galleries in question, which undermines the concern and legitimacy of actual artists whose work was stolen and overwhelms the establishments in question.

I think it was a much-needed request to stop e-mail bombardment of galleries, stores, and publications and allow them time to figure it out for themselves. You can rest assured that there is another group of people working and coordinating on all of this, whose efforts have brought the overlays, e-mails, and all other evidence for the compilation of the website.

 

while I completely agree that was has been done here is very wrong, I also feel a little sad that this person's career should be over. The massive amount of "borrowing", as she is labling it to herself, can't be over looked any longer. Espeically from the big names like Disney and Sony. I hope she finds a new way to express herself and that those who have been hurt by this recieve some sort of monetary and emotional compensation.

There, that's my two bits on this. Good luck everyone involved.

edit: I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Absynthe's cry of troll on sarahwashere.

 

I've had to sign the same type of agreement in an engineering dept of a manufacturer. Intellectual property rights of all my ideas belong to them, even if I work on it on my own time at home at my own cost. It cover them from certain things, but man it did make me want to not do anything on my own as a result.
This agreement is fairly standard anywhere something is being designed or created.

 

First of all, I never meant to offend anyone; I politely stated that I was new and just wanted to voice my opinion, which apparently I did not state clearly enough. Apparently, this is an incredibly touchy subject and I needed to select my words more carefully as not to confuse the intentions of what I say.

Secondly, I never intended to imply that the woman did not trace the work. Instead, I only meant to comment on how in a court of law it would be difficult to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that she was plagiarizing because of the nature of the situation.

Thirdly, I would like to make it clear that I have nothing to do with Drawntogether and I'm quite taken aback that I'm accused of trolling for voicing my opinion in a section of a forum dedicated to debate. Even though I agree the lady was wrong to copy someone else's work, if I thought otherwise, I should not be penalized for holding an unpopular belief. There's no point in having a debate where only one side of the case is allowed to be presented.

Anyways, hopefully this clears up my last post of any ambiguity.

 

Uh, have you read this thread at all? It's been proven, over and over again, that she is TRACING.