'Stylistic Similarity' vs 'Copy'

as far as I know, there's nothing legally against someone copying a style by eyeballing it... its when its an actual recast that there's a real problem....

but I am by no means defending that act by saying it's allowed! I think its best to sculpt from your head.

This topic could be said about anime art as well. Many artists draw similarly or try to draw like their favorite artist, but if they stop doing that and start drawing from their head, they will eventually develop their own style even though it's all still anime.

If this were not the case, we wouldn't be able to tell sculpts apart by company, even if we don't know the specific one.

 

I think there's a quite a bit of doll copying going on right now, especially of Soom MDs. I don't think this kind of thing is morally wrong or anything, it happens in every industry: someone trying to cash in on the current popular thing. I do think it's obvious what the copying companies are doing though and I just kind of roll my eyes. I wouldn't buy one of those dolls.

 

a) It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original. Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why?
While I agree in part that true originality is impossible given the constraints of where it is possible to locate ball-joints, what logical shape those joints can possibly take and remain functional and the fact that all human faces have eyes, nose, mouth and ears... but some companies truly have a style that originated with them.

Volks began making dolls echoing the anime-aesthetic, with big eyes, small nose, small mouth, the emphasis was on a cute, round look...when Cerberus Project started designing dolls, they moved in a completely different direction. Their emphasis was on a thin-featured, elfin look. Two different companies doing two different things with the same materials. Then you look at Bobobie dolls and you get a different aesthetic again; angular features, broader mouths.

While I can accept a certain amount of overlapping, (there are only so many ways to sculpt a nose, for example...) within companies particularly, (El and Lishe, for example, are supposed to be fraternal twins, so their styles are similar for a reason...) ripping-off another company's style is completely unacceptable to me.

b) 'Stylistic similarity' is another way to say copycat. Agree or Disagree? Why?
I disagree. If you look at Japanese, Korean and Chinese BJDs as three distinct groups, the aesthetics are similar within those groups. Volks and Unoa dolls have more in common with each other than either do with Dream of Doll BJDs, yet DoDs have more in common with the delicate, fine-boned features of their fellow Korean dolls from Soom. Stylistic similarity in this case, is related to the sense of aesthetics these sculptors have because of their cultural and artistic background, rather than a desire to copy or rip off someone else. 'Stylistic similarity' is also another way of grouping dolls together so that a person can search for a new doll who will fit in with their existing doll family, or a certain body will look 'right' with another company's head. It certainly isn't a euphemism for a copy as it is, but if the 'stylistic similarity' is quite profound between two dolls perhaps there is a more bootleggy reason behind it

c) Once a copycat, always a copycat. They should never make dolls again. Agree or Disagree? Why?
I do believe that if someone is allowed to get away with a copy, the temptation is there to do it again...however, who am I to drum them out of town, particularly if I'm the lone voice calling 'copycat'? I do keep a close eye on copy artists and rip-off merchants and I do refuse to buy dolls from certain companies based on their copying history, even if the dolls they're currently producing are 100% original; this is my right as a consumer.

 

While it is not illegal to say, sit and stare at a sculpt while sculpting your own, I will say it is distasteful and it is nothing I will support. There currently is a head being sold by a company that looks so much like a Volks Lucas that I have decided I will never purchase from said company because it's tacky to me. I had even been interested in some of their other sculpts, but seeing that new head completely turned me off. Sculpt your own dolls, don't make a knockoff Lucas that since it's not a recast is technically allowed, but really, I'm not stupid. I find it insulting.

Stylistic similarity between molds within the same company I completely understand. They're coming from the same artist base with the same influences, and generally it is going to be the same sculptor even, so of course similarities are going to pop up. I do not, however, approve of companies ripping off other companies styles and producing for all intents and purposes to me, designer knockoffs. Hell, I don't even LIKE Soom dolls and I find the attempts at riding their coat tails tacky and wouldn't even consider purchasing from the companies trying to do so.

As for companies being allowed to continue even after copying, well, I can't make them go out of business, but they will never get my money. I've never purchased a single thing from Dollzone and will never purchase a single thing from them.

 

a) It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original. Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why?

I don't think it's impossible to be original. Lots of companies are making original dolls, especially their limiteds.

b) 'Stylistic similarity' is another way to say copycat. Agree or Disagree? Why?

Artists get inspiration from lots of sources: mythology, literature, manga, nature, popular culture, etc., so if the source of inspiration is the same, the concept of the doll may be similar. I personally think that all the big eyed, small nosed, anime style dolls look very much alike, but looking at the inspiration source for these dolls, I can understand why. I don't consider anything copying unless it is a recast of an existing doll. Doll companies do not own inspirational sources, so anyone is free to use them for any purpose.

c) Once a copycat, always a copycat. They should never make dolls again. Agree or Disagree? Why?

Anyone can make a mistake. Copying is very common in some countries/cultures and doesn't seem to be considered terrible there. I have no problem with buying DZ products as they have seen the error of their ways and are making original dolls now. Most of them aren't to my taste, but that's another subject.

 

I know that does happen. I believe it's Raurencio that is sculpted by the original artist for Unidoll? There are definite similarities between the two and they have a legitimate connection. Bluefairy and Angelregion are both products of the same artist, or at least were originally, which explains why they have the same body. Artist connections like that generally come out pretty quickly.

But the company with the Lucas knockoff clearly is not a case of Mr. Enku or Kyon freelancing, and the fantasy fullsets that have come out duping Soom? Those are the type of similarities that bother me.

 

a) It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original. Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why?
I doubt it's impossible to be completely original - Look at Soom, they are the original hooved dolls, but it's a matter of finding something to be original about. In a way, overlaps are acceptable because how many times can you change the shape of the human body? Not a lot.
b) 'Stylistic similarity' is another way to say copycat. Agree or Disagree? Why?
Disagree. Copycat infers an exact copy, something that's obvious and makes you double take. Similarity isn't. I think it would be hard to find a style that hasn't been done by another company, but when you have a cheap doll that looks similar to a more popular expensive doll, with a blatant name and look, then yes, it's obvious and therefore copycat.
If it were obvious that an artist had changed companies, then could you say that company X had copied company Y's style? I personally don't think so, as it's the same person doing the sculpts.
c) Once a copycat, always a copycat. They should never make dolls again. Agree or Disagree? Why?
I think it depends on how the situation plays out. DZ were honest about their copying, and swore never to do it again, and has so far kept to their word. On the other hand, she who demanded innocence with whining and no factual proof, insulting everyone who disagrees with them? It's obvious who shouldn't make dolls again really.

If the dolls were obvious copies, then I wouldn't want to buy them. Even if the original was super LE and expensive, I'd rather dream of the real thing than to buy a cheap second best knockoff.

 

For me the situation is similar to one that came up between me a friend of mine a few weeks ago. I had just purchased a pair of $15 ugg style boots at old navy and my friend was in disbelief that I would buy 'knockoff' uggs. She kept bugging me about them, telling how great the real thing is and how she would never buy ripoff uggs. Eventually I got angry and told her "Don't you think if I could afford the real ones I would have bought these instead!". The point is that my friend would never support knockoffs because in most cases she has the money to buy the real thing. I know this was about shoes but for me the same thing applies to dolls.

Sure I'd love a soom beryl, but unless I somehow get a huge raise or win the lottery it isn't going to happen. So instead I waited until a company I could afford came out with a hooved girl doll and bought her. Now don't get me wrong, I do think that some companies have begun to produce dolls a bit to close to others for it to be mere coincidence. But if those companies can provide a similar doll to those with no hope of buying the more expensive version and stay within the law, well, being someone who would buy said doll I can't complain much.

 

It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original. Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why?

Completely disagree with the first sentence. There are still niches not filled whatsoever in the BJD community far as I can tell (or extremely under-filled) - mature mid-sized dolls with realistic faces and adult bodies, that don't look like 12 year olds, for example. I don't think I've seen anyone doing anything that looks like, for example, the highly realistic mature faces of the Iplehouse EID dolls (stylistically - the less "anime style" faces that look more like real people, and bodies that are more like mid-20's than teens - not specifically a smaller Jessica or Akando, y'know?), in smaller sizes. Anthros that look more like true anthros - not human child bodies with tails and animal heads. There's a LOT of originality I haven't seen done yet.

But in the main BJD style - the less mature bodies, the faces that look like young teens/older children, in an anime style... they're bound to be similar as that's, well, the style. But there's a huge difference in being coincidentally similar and being a deliberate copy.

b) 'Stylistic similarity' is another way to say copycat. Agree or Disagree? Why?

Disagree, strongly. You can have a similar style to another artist without ever having seen their work - or be inspired by their style but create your own original work. There's nothing wrong with an artist studying the brush strokes of a master painter, and then using what they've learned to create their own original works that may have a similar style/execution. I'm sure many BJD sculptors have looked at everything out there and gone, "Hmm, I like the body shape of this company, the joints of this company, and the faces here. Now let me take what I've learned and make something of my own inspired by these." And that's fine - it may end up similar in style, but that's fine - there's plenty of students of master painters whose work is in a very similar style.

c) Once a copycat, always a copycat. They should never make dolls again. Agree or Disagree? Why?

Depends on your definition of copycat - re-molding dolls, I wouldn't ever buy a doll from a company that did that - I'm as thrifty (okay cheap!) as they come but artistically I would have a real problem with that. But a company that admits to being inspired by the dolls of other companies but has obviously done all their own work? I have zero problem with that and wouldn't call it "copycat" and would happily buy their dolls.

 

a) It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original. Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why?
Well, seeing as humans only have so many joints, there's bound to be overlap on the bodies. But when it comes to faces, overlap is Not Cool. Copying the Soom Death Glare, scaling up a Puki Pong mouth and slapping an AoD Pear nose in between on a head is just straight up wrong. Also, that is a very disturbing hypothetical face.

b) 'Stylistic similarity' is another way to say copycat. Agree or Disagree? Why?
I disagree, because there are so many dolls out there, it's really not fair to expect an artist to go through and make sure that someone not in the hobby will be able to differentiate between their doll and another in every single aspect. There's a good amount of trust in the artistic integrity, but the same idea evolving independently is an ancient concept. Like calculus. To me, "stylistic similarity" is shorthand for "it could be a copy, except that I know the artist's/company's reputation, and the similarities are a coincidence." So, the exact opposite of copycat.

c) Once a copycat, always a copycat. They should never make dolls again. Agree or Disagree? Why? If a man builds a hundred bridges and kisses your sister, he ain't a bridge builder but the man who kissed your sister, to bowdlerize a phrase. I'm not in a position to tell somebody to stop making dolls, but since the market frowns upon copycats, I can't imagine they'd be able to sell enough dolls with such a tarnished reputation.

 

Artists have always learned there craft by coping the work of masters. During the renaissance artists would travel around Europe to view grate works of art and copy them.


If you go to an art museum today you will see at least one arts sitting there copying a painting. As you develop your skills you develop your own style and will grow away from copying but it a good place to start learning.


One artist copying another's work for learning purposes is fine, one company copying another's companies doll not so find.

 

a) It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original. Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why? So long as mankind has dreams and a will to use their imaginations to the fullest then we will never run out of original things. Dolls are like any art their are a thousand possible styles depending on taste and culture. Yes certain features will over lap as they will all be ball jointed an all have hands and eyes and a nose and mouth etc but no they are not entirely the same

b) 'Stylistic similarity' is another way to say copycat. Agree or Disagree? Why?
As an artist I do strongly disagree often I find myself looking through art and get inspired to pull out my stuff and paint, mayhap its the colors or the pose i like I will admit I do have a similar style to some but I do not copy i is merely how i view things and how that view transfers to paper.


c) Once a copycat, always a copycat. They should never make dolls again. Agree or Disagree? Why?

When i was first learning how to draw realisticly i would spend hours tracing people in pictures and photographs as it was the way for me to become familiar with the form, I no longer need to trace as it easily flows from my hand I will say to copy another's work can be a learning experience but I don't think its right to then turn around and sell it as your own

 

I think that it is two completely different things. Style is style, copying is copying. Similar is different from same. You cannot say that one anime copies another because they look similar, and the same goes for dolls. When you go to a doll meet or look at a picture, can you always without fail tell which doll company made the doll? I cannot. The problem in this hobby is that dolls are 3D and with all the different faceups, it is hard to tell sometimes how similar or different dolls are. The fact of the matter is, they are trying to look like stylized humans, and there is only so much you can do differently and remain attractive.

 

a) It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original. Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why?

I think it's very possible for a BJD company to be completely original, but then they're going out more on a limb that their dolls won't sell as well as the dolls that have a "stylistic overlap" with what's popular. It's similar to fashions - you can design a totally different line than the clothes coming out from some famous designer, but if the famous designer's line is what's hot right now and you're doing something completely different, that's a much bigger risk of lost sales than if you do things in the same style as what's hot.

b) 'Stylistic similarity' is another way to say copycat. Agree or Disagree? Why?

I disagree. I personally think huge numbers of companies are making dolls "stylistically similar" to Volks and Soom right now, but unless they're taking a Volks or Soom doll and casting the mold from it, or making a doll that's so close it looks like you could have almost cast it from the same mold, then I'm not going to say "copycat".

c) Once a copycat, always a copycat. They should never make dolls again. Agree or Disagree? Why?

Oh please. Who died and made me the dollmaking police?

Plus, if someone is copying dolls, but not selling them or otherwise exploiting them for profit or attention (i.e. "look at the lovely doll I made all myself") I couldn't care less. If you want to copy 25 dolls in your garage just to learn how to make a doll, have at it. Just don't sell them, and don't post pictures of them where it would be a problem (i.e. on the Internet, in magazines, or other public places where people are apt to get upset.)

 

a) It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original. Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why?
yes it is. look at the body joints for exemple. there are many company who use the same types of joints, or use faceplates but no one is gonna go all ''OMG the faceplate idea comes from this company and you totally copied it!! b*tch!! D:< ''
but for the face i think it is possible to be completely original. i mean all humans are different and there are WAY MORE humans than dolls mold! (well i think xD)

 

a) It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original. Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why?
Disagree! Even if you make a very similar mold to an existing one it will still have it's own quirks and charm. There are lots of similar molds out there but they all have their fans and the difference matters enough that people can choose one over the other.
And just because many doll companies make similar looking dolls it doesn't mean they all have to do that. Some companies are pushing BJDs into interesting new directions. There's no limit to possible variety.

b) 'Stylistic similarity' is another way to say copycat. Agree or Disagree? Why?
Disagree! It depneds on the individual case - of course some will be chance likenesses and some will be directly 'inspired' by another mold. But as has already been said, similar doesn't = copy.

c) Once a copycat, always a copycat. They should never make dolls again. Agree or Disagree? Why?
I don't see it as a question of should, I just think once you lose your reputation it would be hard to carry on as a doll maker. The doll community seems really down on recasting. Recasting, similar dolls.

 

OK, I decided to get in on this...

a) It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original. Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why?
Yes... Soom is not actual completely original because they are basing their creating dolls of mythical creatures... They would have to make up there own to be 100% original. Also, there are bound to be overlaps in face a and body structures... just like everybody has a "twin" in the world, this is multiplied because you only want attractive dolls, thus less diversity. Also, trying to tell an artist that they can't have a similar look and style to another artist is highly limiting. Obviously, artests are going to want to create things that they find are most aesthetically pleasing to them, To tell them they can't would be preposterous.

b) 'Stylistic similarity' is another way to say copycat. Agree or Disagree? Why?

No, it happens in art, because people will always create what they find most aesthetically, or otherwise personally pleasing.

c) Once a copycat, always a copycat. They should never make dolls again. Agree or Disagree? Why?
I have to disagree... even if it's only because I like Dollzone...

 

a) It's impossible for a BJD company to be completely original. Overlaps are acceptable since there are so many companies nowadays. Agree or Disagree? Why?
Agree, sadly I think that complete orginality is near if not completly impossible. It's possible to be original without being completly so. There are going to be overlaps, after all there are only so many ways to shape an eye. It'll be the mixture of features, quality, quickness, and price that will find a company successful. Also the most original dolls come out as limited at first, at least this is what I feel.
b) 'Stylistic similarity' is another way to say copycat. Agree or Disagree? Why?
It's not. Similar is not the same. Different things can give you similar feels, for example DOC Kirill and MNF Woosoo both give my the impression of being snarky boys but they're not the same. Also I would say that two people can come up with the exact same thing without seeing each other's work (it's like convergent evolution). I'm not saying it's always is this way because copying still happens. But when it does it is just plain copying.
c) Once a copycat, always a copycat. They should never make dolls again. Agree or Disagree? Why?
Disagree. If they copy they need to be under close observation but they still deserve a second chance. After that they're done in my opinion. For example DZ had some issues way back but they're an extremely popular company now. I bet everyone knew what DZ stood for without having to look it up ( we thought the same pinkbunnygirl moo). Also this only applies if the company acknowledges their fault and apologizes, without that there can be no forgiveness.