It is or It is not (plagiarism)
This is probably one of the worst nightmare that can happen to an editor, someone reporting that one of your covered artist may be a fraud. This is worst than navigating a perilous sea. Worst than breaking into personal perceptions instead of objectivity. Worst that can happen to someone’s reputation. Threading with circumspection and for the sake of justice or at least wanting to offer room for debate, shown are samples of the so called copycats.
Make sure to read first this post and review the samples provided here and state what you think in the comments.
So in your view, is it or not plagiarism?
This is the worst nightmare a designer can have.
It reminds of me of Shepard Fairey’s poster design issue for Obama’s campaign.
IT IS
definitely
Definitely plagiarism.
“The unauthorized use or close imitation … of another… and the representation of them as one’s own original work.”
Plain and simple, regardless of how she used it, and if she made zero dollars off of it she is using other peoples work and creating something with is and not giving credit where credit is due.
All of the “claims” could have been avoided if she had stated where she got the stock images from, we all have used them in designs before, but I thankfully don’t know anyone who does such a thing, its a community, we share. Sharing means giving credit where credit is due.
I’m not in the position to argue legally whether or not it’s plagiarism, in discussing this with a coworker, I can only say that one thing I’m sure is that these pieces lack integrity.
The best way to approach this is to examine her body of work as a whole. If you try to deconstruct individual pieces, some are more altered than others and some can even argue that certain pieces might even be altered enough to be considered “fair use”, but if you observe all her pieces as a whole, and see the patterns emerge in how she uses the source material, you can more effectively call it for what it is.
Back on the issue of integrity. Artistically, it seems the artist leaves most of the subject’s eyes unchanged from the source and I would argue that the eyes are the central part of the pieces and probably what people purchase her art for, to trace over them is rather in bad taste.
In ref with Shepard Fairey’s poster – original:
http://obeygiant.com/headlines/obama
Debate about plagiarism:
Shepard Fairey Talks Obama, Plagiarism and Capitalism at ICA
http://twurl.cc/11jw
Milton Glaser on Shepard Fairey and Plagiarism
http://twurl.cc/11jx
The Artist’s Rights – Appropriation Art + Parody sections
http://twurl.cc/12e8
I think it’s plagiarism. The original photographers were not asked if their works could be used and the aesthetics the doll owners put into their dolls (lip and eye color, wig color and style, eyebrow shape, etc) were left intact. As a doll owner I know how much time and effort goes into the aesthetic of the dolls, it’s no simple thing, and to have that look taken wholesale is awful.
If Mijn had her own dolls which she had worked on and was using them as a basis for her artwork I would feel differently.
As for a comparison to Shepard Fairey, he works mostly with well known images and public figures which changes the issue. Mijn is taking artwork (posed photographs of art dolls) and using them without permission.
If you visit the artist website – http://www.mijnschatje.fr/ what I find very disturbing is the following statements:
“Her silenced, fantastic universe is a bizarre and beautiful landscape from which big eyed elf-like little creatures stare at you with their mesmerizing eyes. Both romantic and surreal, ‘her work’ is the kind of thing dreams are made of, the worlds ’she creates’ you can easily get lost in..
.. which is largely appreciated and ‘propagated’ by the world’s cutting edge press and publishers since 2004.”
Juxtapoz Art & Culture Magazine Online – Mijn Schatje’s World of Nymph Women
http://twurl.cc/12eb
“You thought we wouldn’t notice” thread
http://twurl.cc/12ea
I got to say I reckon this is total plagiarism. These are an exact copy of the dolls – you can see it in the overlays. I’m sorry, but I don’t see how this could not be seen as plagiarism especially if there is no consent from the artists who created the dolls.
Definitely plagarism. If, as a photographer and a makeup artist, I styled and photographed (live, human) models for my art photography & an illustrator took those images, traced them line for line, and sold them as their own original art, I would be furious.
It’s no different if they are dolls – people put creativity into the highly stylized lighting, “makeup,” color schemes, photography, etc, and this woman is ripping them off completely.
Without any kind of consent I go with
p-l-a-g-i-a-r-i-s-m.
The illustrations most significant and captivating details are precisely the faces of the dolls. Though she has great artwork involving the faces, I can’t go with an art sense of “appropriation”.
cheers*
As one of the major “sources” I’ve made a brief statement on flickr, along with comparison mockups of what I believe to be Mijn Schatje’s derivative work:
http://twurl.cc/11md
Even in the middle of the maelstrom I am conflicted. Thank you very much for opening up comments for debate here!
Tell you something… I’m honing my illustrator skills as we speak. Man!
Hmmm….I have trouble calling this plagiarism, though it is pretty obviously inspired and maybe not the most original. I don’t see the actual doll heads and the illustrations as the same piece of work at all…would it have been any different if the dolls’ heads had been represented with slightly larger eyes, nose, etc? The fact that they line up exactly doesn’t really do it for me. When a realist painter paints a portrait of somebody, the same can likely be said.
Read the Shepard Fairey bit, and had to ask myself .. if that is considered plagiarism, what about screenprinting (transferring + manipulating photos)? What about Andy Warhol, and his photo / prints?
It’s a tough one.
Definitely. In the first image she barely even changes the color scheme, she just adds hair. I know that the photographers of those BJDs haven’t stated that they have given her permission to alter their images. I just think she didn’t have an idea of the popularity of these dolls and the effect her thefts could lead to. I’ve seen many more of her works and almost all of them are clearly traced. I’m happy this issue is finally getting the attention it needs.
Voting for plagiarism. I can’t really see how someone can argue that it isn’t, given all the evidence. She traces, doesn’t give credit, and rarely asks for permission — enough said.
My gut reaction is to say yes. But I know these are hard economic times. Ethics and honor go bye-bye when someone starts waving cash in your face. And if there’s enough people out there telling you “You’re fantastic. Here’s another magazine cover”. Hell, take it. What’s a soul? Does it have a price?
As a BJD owner and faceup artist, I am horrified by the blatant and unrepentant use of others artistic skill by this so-called “artist”.
The real shame is that her pictures are beautiful and surreal and compelling – but with the bases being nothing more than traced images – they are all rubbish. What is even more enraging is her own attitude about the use of the images. She doesn’t seem to realize that in the BJD world, your doll’s face is a very specific customized and personalized thing. The fact that she has copied – down to the faceup detail – of the pictures that she “borrowed” is simply sickening.
The most ridiculous part of this all? She makes enough money off selling her prints and designs that had she done this respectably – acquired her own doll, asked the respective company’s permission, and then took her own photographs to draw over – then her work wouldn’t be so disappointing.
As it is, the pictures simply leave a sour taste in my mouth. Shame on you, Mijn Schatje, shame. I hope that you’ve learned your lesson.
It is definitely plagiarism.
The appeal of the work is the aesthetic of the face. Unfortunately, once pointed out that the face is a direct trace, it simply becomes a stolen face with some generic pixel art around it. Nothing special, nothing worthy of the acclaim that this artist has received.
Add to that a layer of complexity – the base images are being used without permission or credit to the original photographer of the real dolls.
More information and samples (20-some now), plus information and responses from more companies and original photographers:
http://www.radiotrash.org/mijn/
For more info, see http://www.radiotrash.org/mijn/
I found this link would be helpful : http://www.radiotrash.org/mijn/
Plagiarism. Flat out. Too many official company photos were used in her work, and most of them are far too close to be ‘derivative’. And many of these companies have been contacted and are very unhappy about the use of their photographs without permission.
I’d say it’s about time people caught on.
This is apparently an accomplished artist, making big bucks off her work…only to find out it’s not her own at all.
It’s absolutely plagiarism. She has taken the hard work of others, vectored over it, and claimed it as her own, largely without the permission of the original artists.
Apparently, those aren’t the only two works she’s copied. Here’s another site with evidence against her: http://www.radiotrash.org/mijn/
It looks like most of those whose works she stole had never even heard of her, let alone ever contacted by her for permission.
Certainly plagiarism. I got linked to this site, which was more recently updated with examples:
http://www.radiotrash.org/mijn/
I was flabbergasted!
Mmhmn, she’s traced Dx as another doll owner you can see the likeness almost painfully.
Also, in one of her pieces she didn’t even try to fix the wall eye of one of the dolls she traced.
When confronted on Facebook, she also deleted the comments.
Check out the newer samples shown here as well as responses from some of the companies and owners of the photographs stating they did not give permission! Mijn is claiming she got permission from some of her friends but as you can see below only some does not equal all.
http://radiotrash.org/mijn/
I guess it goes without saying (since I’m the author of said linked blog post) that I find Mijn Schatje’s works complete works of plagiarism. It seems that her defense is that it “took hours to do the vectors,” but to be honest, if she was tracing over the pictures in the first place, then yes, it would have taken a long time. It still doesn’t make it right, or art, in my opinion.
There’s also a new, more updated website about Mijn Schatje’s “artworks” at: http://radiotrash.org/mijn/ courtesy of Radio.
Even though I believe in open source and the creative commons, using a photographers images without asking permission is bad form.
Failing to credit first the doll sculptor’s work and second the doll owner’s work is two more strikes.
Pretending that you are creating these from scratch is lying.
Finally, the amount of “work” that goes into these is nothing more complicated than Clip Art. She has the nerve to call herself an artist. Shame.
Definitely plagiarism, as those are very clearly traced photos. This whole business makes me both disgusted and sad. I’m disgusted that she’s gaining notoriety with blatantly copied/stolen images, but sad that an artist who seems to actually have some talent is resorting to stealing other people’s photos and using them in her work.
All of the companies and individuals contacted in relation to this have said that they did not give her permission to use their images, so this is definitely a case of plagiarism in my mind. The worst part is that she has lied and is continuing to lie about this issue since being called out on what she’s done.
Hopefully she will be made to come clean about this.
As a photographer and a doll owner, seeing this brings a great sadness over me. This is most certainly theft. Not only is it theft of a picture, but theft of all the work that goes into the doll itself. It’s the theft of the painting on the face and theft of the sculpting that went into the face’s shape.
I also must wonder why this artist would do this to herself and her reputation? After all, if you are truly skilled at what you do, then why trace? Why would you put your reputation at such a stake if you could do something yourself that was original? It’s sad because I cannot even tell if this artist has talent or not, since I’m too blinded by the tracing that was involved in the creation of the image.
There is a difference between using a reference or a stock photo and tracing a stolen picture. This crossed that line, to be sure.
And, in all honesty, I think it would only be fair that the artists whom those pictures belong to should receive an apology from the artist and the stolen work should no longer be sold unless with permission from the original artist.
Shepard Fairey, Mijn Schatje, are just a couple of the many artists and designers ripping off other artists original work or perhaps putting their own recycled twist on someone elses work. From my perspective just about everyone is ripping each other off these days thanks to the Internet and the lack of talent out there.
It seems everyone and their mother is a web designer, photographer or illustrator just because they have Google, Pixel Paint Shop Pro and or some 3D freeware program.
If this had been only one or two pieces maybe I would have had a few doubts, but over 20 have been found now. And it is the same story with every single one, an exact match.
Damn! These images definitely do cross the line of what is inspiration to what is shameless plagiarism :S
Just to clarify, these were not stock images she used. They were photographs taken by other people or companies. She e-mailed a couple people stating she just wanted to sketch a photograph, even stated she would not do anything with it. She did not get permission to make prints and sell them, to have clothing or a statue made.
Beyond this is the fact that she never told anyone that these were not original creations but from other people’s sources. People spent good money buying her work. Now that the evidence has been put in front of her she has admitted a little bit but not the full story.
Yes this is wrong on both counts. For using someone else’s work and calling it your own, even if you alter it. And for not telling the truth about what the work was to the people paying for it. Imagine if a famous artist in the US did this, what would be the reaction then?
It’s not the same as taking a famous image that most people know like the Mona Lisa or Barbie doll. People believed she was creating these images with no help, out of her own imagination.
YES!
It is not just that her “artwork” is traced images of dolls, the original images themselves are creative works. Styling, lighting, posing have all been copied here. Doll photographers can spend just as much thought, effort, and resources setting up a shot as a professional portrait photographer (and usually uncompensated, out of a love for the hobby).
Comparing this to Fairey’s Obama poster (a candid, naturally lit press photo) is like apples and oranges!
http://twurl.cc/11m9
Plagiarism? It’s copyright violation and THEFT.
To the person who said: “All of the “claims” could have been avoided if she had stated where she got the stock images from, we all have used them in designs before…”
These were NOT based on BJD “stock images”. These were based on doll owners’ personal photographs (copyright implicit) and doll manufacturers’ (copyright) advertising images.
The unauthorized use of those images is THEFT.
Even if she did get consent to use the photos from the creators, turning around and making a hefty profit on it comes off as being really skeevy in my opinion.
How can you take someone else’s work, paint over it, call it your own and then sell if for obscene amounts of money?
Painting students from around the world often go to the Louvre to practice copying the classics in order to train themselves better, but they in no way turn around and call their work “original”, even if they sell it. Her work is far from “original” if it is indeed using someone else’s as a base, and selling is as such, is shameful.
Yes, it is plagarism. Pretty visually evident when u visit that site.
Of course it IS!!!
Plagiarism. Plain and simple.
IT IS.
Shepard Fairey is a talentless cunt who leeches off the work of others, it goes deeper than that fucking shitty obama poster, do a bit of googling and see just how much of his shit is stolen.
Anyone who supports that cunt doesn’t deserve to be a designer.
As a digital artist, I am horrified. This blatant, unrepentant plagiarism is a serious knock to the credibility of all of those who create without a tangible original… like it’s not hard enough to convince people that digital art is REAL art without people ripping people off like this. How devaluing.
I feel sick thinking of the people who have spent so much money on her prints… and the galleries and magazines that have featured her. And wow, that clothing collection that is going to be produced with her work… it’s probably too late for them to stop production.
What a waste.
I would be disappointed in any gallery continued to feature her at this point.
Oh yes. But what about this popular Picasso quote saying: ‘good artists copy, great artists steal’?
Maybe.
And before I get flamed, allow me to explain. This happens all the time in the comic industry. (Some) Artists practically trace photos for landscapes, cityscapes, body positions, etc.
A lot of fantasy artists (ie. Heavy Metal, fantasy book covers, sci fi covers etc.) use photos from stock houses, or other photo services to get poses proper. Then sell the works for ridiculous amounts of money.
The exchange of money has nothing to do with plagiarism.
This is accepted practice in these environments. Should it be? Probably not. Unless the photographer is aware of what it’s being used for. Or maybe the artist should credit the photographer as well.
Should the original photographer be the one getting the credit? Or the person who made the dolls? I’d say the doll maker over the photographer.
Definition: “The unauthorized use or close imitation … of another… and the representation of them as one’s own original work.”
Unauthorized? No idea. Maybe she’ll tell us. Or the photographer. Or the doll makers can let us know.
Close imitation? Not really. She’s just using for poses. If you drew the statue of David I wouldn’t say you plagiarized Michelangelo.
Represented as her work? Well, yes. Obviously.
Realistically, she’s only using the model for facial structure. There’s so much more going on in one of her pieces then blatant copying. Plus, if you’ve seen any of her pencil sketches, they are very similar in style.
So, in my opinion, no it’s not plagiarism, it might be a bit unethical. But either way, she has an excellent understanding of composition, colour, and her figures have more expression. Just my two cents.
Derek, you do have an interesting point… but I don’t think that this being an “industry standard” makes it any less copied. I think it’s just saying that the industry has low standards. I would like to see that change, and I would like to see artists starting to be more accountable for their sources and honest about what has been appropriated (and from whom).
The faces are the part that has been copied, and without those faces her work would not have received any recognition to speak of. If she is capable of drawing in this style, then why didn’t she?
I believe it is. She copied the facial structure of the dolls precisely without even varying the (sometimes wrong-looking) position of the eyes. If it’s not plagiarism, that at the very least it’s not very creative or original.
The faces are the best part of her art, as she seems to lack a basic understanding of anatomy as her bodies are very shapeless and odd-looking. As the best part of her art is the faces, and it’s the faces that she copied, I would say she’s must not be a very good artist without this crutch.
I don’t see a big problem with starting from something that exists to create something new as long as something _new_ is actually created. Of course it would also be nice to mention the original source. Plenty of artists to this and they deserve all the respect.
But to trace a photo and then market it as your own creation is a world apart from what art means in my book… It’s not just plagiarism. It’s intellectual property theft.
The sacred art of R(eputation)
http://twurl.cc/11nx
Always said it ‘reputation is all’. Online there is ‘no witness program’. The Internet is the largest human repository where anything and everything is recorded somewhere.
Derek Kinsman: For the last time, these pictures that she used were NOT stock photos. People put in time, money and effort to design a shoot. Obviously if they were stock pictures the topic would be entirely different.
These dolls are sold based mainly on their sculpted faces. To steal those faces from them and even allow a sculpture to be made out of the drawing without mentioning or crediting the original artist is plain bullshit.
I’d like to see a fantasy artist trace another fantasy artist’s work line for line, mistake for mistake, and get away with calling it his own.
I don’t think the problem lies in how she re-created the dolls, but in the fact that she re-created them from photographs that were not hers. Had the illustrator purchased or borrowed the dolls and taken her own reference photos, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Illustrators hire models, take reference photos, and illustrate from them all the time. Whether it’s an image of talent, a product, or a location, most illustrators take reference photos.
The problem lies in the fact that she did not use her own reference images. Illustrating the dolls themselves is not plagiarism, but an illustrated representation of the physical product.
It’s a complete plagiarism without doubt! She deserves a demand from the websites of the pictures that she stole, but the owners of bjd are only photographer amateur even she that some photos are from famous website of owners of bjd, I clearly doubt about it if they can demand her.
We have to wait the demand from the website of like Luts, Dimdoll, Peakswoods or Bluefairy.
Absolutely, positively, without a doubt, plagiarism. Shame on her.
Shepard Fairey sues the Associated Press over photograph of Obama
“The AP had agreed not to sue Shepard Fairey up until today. However, they will likely take action now having stated that they believe it is crucial to protect photographers, who are creators and artists. The AP wants to make it clear that works by photographers and artists should not be misappropriated by others.”
http://twurl.cc/11oi
via: Liz Wolfe
This goes beyond plagiarism, this is blatant theft.
What is most disgusting is that she continues to make up lies and excuses, instead of owning up, admitting her errors and apologizing. Such disgusting, shameful behaviour is inexcusable and I certainly hope the owners and companies she has stolen from take firm action against her. Shame on any gallery or company that supports such intellectual theft by continuing to show her ‘works’ or sell her merchandise.
These dolls and their photographs which she has stolen without permission, manipulated and made ridiculous amounts of money from such acts are in themselves works of art, sculpted by company artists and sometimes sold in very limited quantities. Doll owners who purchase these dolls spend much time and money customising, painting, styling and photographing them to create something arguably one of a kind. Private Owner B (Violet Poem) on http://www.radiotrash.org/mijn/ is a very famous customiser/ doll make-up artist whose customized doll heads frequently sell between 200,000-300,000 JPY on Japanese auctions and is highly regarded as an artist in the doll community. Her website states clearly that her doll images are not to be taken, distributed, or manipulated, and Mijn Schatje has disregarded this, stole her photos, used them to make a huge profit for herself and refuse to own up to it.
Mijn Schatje is a shameless thief, even now continuing with her empty excuses and ‘explanations’ that change all the time. From claiming never to have seen a BJD to backtracking that she referred to friends’ photos. Well, most of the private owners say they have never heard from her or of her, or even if they had, Mijn Schatje never asked them for permission to use the photos for commercial purposes; it would even seem that she concealed the fact that she was selling her retracings for a tremendous profit from the few owners that she contacted. The companies have expressed their shock and unhappiness, and it is obvious that some of her so-called art are heavily based on official, copyrighted images from the companies’ websites, and not her ‘friends’ as she tries to claim.
What is sad is that she is not untalented, but her methods and lies are so disgusting and ugly that the products are tainted, and I find myself unable to appreciate them at all.
[...] just received this related post/link “It is or It is not (plagiarism)” from Carole Guevin at Netdiver; also on QBN [...]
QBN – Ouch, Burn thread is based on “It is or It is not (plagiarism)”
“That hurts, if you are so exposed as an illustrator.”
http://www.qbn.com/topics/593905/
I believe it is plagiarism, but not of the dolls, but of the photographs taken. The dolls are subject of art, like painting a portrait. But the photographs she copied are actual art.
Painting another picture of Ms. Mona Lisa (I know that’s not her real name) is not plagiarism, but tracing daVinci’s painting would be.
To me, more than whether it’s plagiarism or not is the way she has represented it. Repeatedly in interviews she has said that these faces are her own creations, that everything she does is vector, etc. If she had just admitted that she traced doll faces for shape reference for vector art or made up some bullshit artistic reason for it, I don’t think I’d be nearly as annoyed by all this, because at least, she would have been honest. But by lying about it and denying it so much, it’s like she understands what she is doing, is wrong.
And, honestly, although I know the Fairey thing is so recent to obviously leap to, this seems like a very different type of situation to me. Fairey copied a photo and transformed it into an icon, and it was an intentional and completely honest act. This woman is taking faces of dolls to turn into faces of dolls, these faces are the focal point of all her pieces and honestly the rest of her work is subpar Illustrator wank without it. I don’t feel she should be legally penalized for her vector copying, but I don’t feel like she should be idolized in the art world for it either.
This is terrible. I’ve been following the debate about her on Den of Angels, a website/forum for Ball-Jointed-Doll lovers. There, we share our dolls as pieces of art, customized from their makeup, clothes, and styles.
Their pictures are taken as pieces of art as well, seeing as photography is of the art category. This artist had permission to DRAW ONE doll, and she decided to instead trace and graphically copy it.
Now, she continues to steal pictures from not only the website, but from the companies that sculpt these dolls as well. Artists slave away for two months to make beautiful dolls that are perfectly sculpted to the buyer’s liking. And she steals photos of them for her own personal gain.
She is making thousands of dollars by ripping off other people’s artwork. Because the BJD community is so small, she probably figured that this would go unnoticed.
But she was wrong. We are very infuriated by this and will continue to pursue the matter until she is stopped.
People seem to think it is okay if she just used the dolls of reference or had permission from the photographers but it is not. These dolls are a work of art in themselves. Many months of hard work and a lot of money go into making them. The only reason she has gotten away with it for so long is because not many people know about these dolls. Do you think she would have gotten away making an obvious drawing of Barbie and passing it off as her own work to profit from? Regardless of the fact that everyone would notice it wasn’t original, I highly doubt it. Even though these companies probably don’t have the lawyers that Mattel does it shouldn’t be treated differently.
I think almost everyone agrees that tracing someone art and profiting off of it is wrong, but copying the sculpt is wrong too. These sculpts are art and under the copyright of the sculptor and if the face is recognizable than she should have asked permission from the company.
I understand that this happens in art all the time but that doesn’t make it right. This is different from tracing a stock photo that is public domain. These are copyrighted sculpts and images and she is wrong on both cases.
As another bjd owner I am also outraged!! T___T She says she is just inspired by bjds but how are you inspired when it is an exact copy of the photographs? For most which she has no permission for? It is most certainly plagiarism in my eyes =v=
It is such a shame to hear of such a thing when looking at her art, I think that she has some talent.
Yes this is without a doubt wrong, a plagiarism. As a digital and graphic artist I use photos for reference – ones I own. See knowing how this works……here is what I feel is a great explanation.
“By way of editing the pictures themselves, or vector tracing over existing images. I find to be compelling evidence of art theft. These are copyrighted photographs from either doll owners, or official doll companies, that Mijn has copied or referenced without permission or credit.”
She never changed the angle, the shape of an eye or mouth – everything is right on, and I even saw one with the same hair. Even if she did change things it would still be stealing, but it is exactly the same. This is not tracing, this is taking an image and placing it into a program vectoring and painting on top of an image that was not hers.
It’s bull! She sells this stuff for $1000+ and she even has a contract with Sony. She really needs to stop doing it.
@Blanche Griggs
Has Mijn Schatje actually learned her lesson? Well from the looks of her facebook page she really hasn’t… and it seems she’s playing the “victim” quite well replying this message “I won’t let the rude comments affect me…” on her Facebook…
Honey, Mijn, if you were innocent we’d buy the “oh-poor-me-why-do-they-hate-me-so” BS. But she’s not is she? How would Mijn Schatje feel if I took her “artworks” (and I use the term loosely here) and traced over them, added some elements and sold them for thousands… that would be… poetic justice.
UPDATE:
Here’s what she had to say on her Facebook…
Of recent events
Today at 2:54pm
“In the past few days there have been numerous allegations made against me in regard to the fact I use photographs of ball-joined dolls as inspiration and in the production of my art work. I have used many photographs of dolls in creating my art, and in most cases I have had the permission of the creators of the original photograph.
There have been a few instances where , mainly due to my poor English writing skills a few years ago, I assumed I had permission from the photographer and I did not. Beck Head from Blastmilk was pleased to allow me to use one of her images in my creation and sent me her files, and I assumed she was aware I was using images from her collection in my artwork.
According to Ms.Head she was not, and all images derived from her photographs have since been removed from my collections, on the internet and from galleries that show my work. I have also contacted the manufacturers Doll In Mind, Leekeworld, Luts and Volks to have this cleared up with them directly.
I have always been a fan of ball-jointed dolls, and my art will continue to showcase their craftsmanship and beauty as an homage and inspiration. If you are a creator or photographer of ball-joined dolls and would like me to see your
work and perhaps use it in creating one of my paintings as some other did, please let me know.
Thank you all for your support and kindness.”
Mijn Schatje, Paris June 3, 2009
Though I think that highly stylized photomanipulation is an art form that requires a lot of skill and practice, I also think that the artist should own the photos they are using.
If this artist was working from photos she took herself, it’s fine. She obviously has a talent for going from photo to digital illustration. The issue is that photography is also a work of art – and she did not take these photos. She is stealing someone else’s art to make her own: yeah, it’s plagiarism; yeah, it’s theft.
I think it’s plagiarism. Copying someones creative design to produce your own creative design, sounds pretty much it!
Plain and simple, this is plagarism.
While I agree that vector photomanipulation is, in and of itself, an art form, it is distasteful and dishonest when it is not done using your own photography. When you take someone else’s photographic art piece and put ponies and glitter all over it in Adobe Illustrator, the base of the piece is still the original photograph.
Also, it is clear from the overlays that she’s not simply using the photos as a reference, or inspiration. In art school, in any level, you are taught RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING that, while referencing an image is okay, your overall finished product must look ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like the photo, or photos that were used as a reference. You should not be able to overlay a reference and a finished piece, and get such perfect match-ups; that’s like putting tracing paper over a Group of Seven piece, changing the season in the landscape and calling it your own. It is fraud, it is bad form, and it is ILLEGAL.
It seems clear that Mijn has some talent in vector illustration. The mere fact that she has stolen and manipulated original artwork for her own useage will do nothing but stomp on her reputation. The fact that she has sold many of her works involving unauthorized photo manips for rather large sums of money will do nothing but flame the fires.
@Agamemnon what about all the ‘designers’ who buy stock photos and add swirls and flourishes and some colour blobs and do some colour grading that have become supremely popular over the last few years? I’m not going to name names on that, but go look at any photoshop tutorial site (or collective site) and you’ll get the idea. These guys hardly ever credit the photographers (or the places they get all the stock vectors), and it’s passed off as their own artwork (sold for $1000·00+ as well).
Whether she owns the photographs or has permission to use them or has blatantly stole them, what about the doll makers? No one seems to care about them so far…
What about Andy Warhol, Kozyndan (whom I love dearly and own originals of), what about all the poster designers who do A1 size type pieces all set in Helvetica with left aligned tight tracking/leading (which I’m guilty of) and a witty/political/philosophical/famous quote?
If they all start crediting their sources does that make them not plagiarizing? Or is having permission to plagiarize called something else?
She has the talent, she just needs to stop tracing photos (by the way, anyone thinking all she does is use the Illustrator Auto-Trace feature has clearly never used it).
She says she has the permission, and those she didn’t get permission from she removed those works. I guess that means it’s no longer plagiarism. If she’s got permission from the photo owners or doll makers she doesn’t need to tell us.
All I can say to her is if she loves using the dolls as a subject matter and want to use it in her work, take your own photos rather than using those from someone else. She obviously has a talent, but has made some poor choices along the way.
Response from LUTS, a Korean doll company involved, in a post on a doll forum regarding the issue:
Message from LUTS on this case
——————————————————————————–
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
——————————————————————————–
Screencaps can be provided if anyone wants to see them.
Derek:
The problem being that she hasn’t removed the images of people that have not given permission for her to use their works. In fact some of her newest postings still show Kallisti’s doll after Kallisti has repeatedly asked her to not use them.
Reviving this thread, I just wanted to inform everyone that Juxtapoz Magazine has removed Mijn Schatje’s long article and her “works” from their site. When trying to open the link to her article (http://www.juxtapoz.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6151&Itemid=121), the page is already missing.
Clearly, they are now well aware of the extent of her plagiarized works and have taken the necessary action. Good job, Juxtapoz Magazine.
This is blatant plagiarism and Mijn should be punished severely for her crimes. I hope the companies she stole the images from pursue legal action and she is shunned from the art community entirely. It’s a shame actually, the people who purchased her “art” could have purchased the doll she copied it after for much less, and the actual dolls look a hell of a lot better too.
This totally infuriated me! I say a good 5-10 years in jail will make her learn a lesson or two about stealing….
Put it this way, if anyone ever rips off photos of my dolls in this manner and makes loads of money out of them without my consent or any financial recompense for me, the original artist, I will take them to court and sue them until they are bankrupt. End of story.
Same goes for my poetry and other literary works. I WILL SUE.
Enough said.