|
|
Post by caracal on Aug 8, 2016 0:27:36 GMT -8
No, I am not giving You the answer to that, I am asking Your thoughts about it  This issue has bothered me a lot during these years with dolls. Everyone agrees that copying a doll or parts of a doll is definitely not ok -this is simple. But what about outfits, wigs, shoes and other related stuff? This Popovy wig issue made us all furious that a hairdresser had stolen their style. But what about Iplehouse? They have copied Vera Wang wedding dress, but nobody said anything. So, I guess it is ok to steal a dress design? And some dressmakers have copied one Fairyland dress design, and that seems to be ok to everyone too. So it seems to be ok to steal an outfit design and make money of it. Some time ago a person copied the design of Marina Bychkovas shoe, and that seemed to be ok too. Many are eager to buy one pair for their own dolls. So it seems to be ok to copy shoes too. So dolls and parts and wigs are a big No-No, but anything else goes? Is this right? Why is copying sometimes ok and sometimes hell gets loose? Thoughts? Anyone? |
|
|
|
Post by bibarina on Aug 8, 2016 4:55:18 GMT -8
This is a really tricky subject isn't it? I think that the outcry over the Popovy wig was that the wording in the original post stated that he had designed and made the wig himself with no acknowledgement that it was a Popovy inspired idea. I think that the response would have been very different if he had stated that it was a copy of a wig originally designed by the Popovy Sisters.
I think there will always be an element of copying, and we all do it to a small degree through being inspired and influenced by others work. For me personally I think it is morally wrong to steal an idea from someone else and pass it off as your own, but I don't feel so strongly about people making similar items as long as they they are very clear that it has been inspired by another artist, giving them the credit due. After all, how many designer inspired ideas make it on to the high street?
I think with the shoes, people have found it acceptable because the person making them has not passed them off as their own design, and is only making a small quantity and offering them for sale to Enchanted Doll owners on the forum. I think if Marina had taken issue with this, Chad would have been on the case straight away. She has been perfectly open about it and posted work in progress shots etc. so hasn't been underhand about it at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by caracal on Aug 8, 2016 5:33:35 GMT -8
Yes, we are all influenced by other artists' work -but being influenced is by no means copying. In my opinion it is wrong to copy somebody's work no matter how this copier gredits the original design. When being influenced one turns the original design into something different. Copying is just copying, lazy way to do things. For example the person making the shoes and Sailor Orbit are both talented with crafts and I think they should create something of their own -they are capable of doing that and it would be fantastic to see their own vision of things.
so if it is ok to make identical and sell identical shoes if it was clearly stated, that it is Marina's design, then logically thinking it would be ok for Sailor Orbit to sell the identical doll to Marina's doll if she stated that it was Marina's design but done by her. You see, this is the problem in my mind; one can not pick and choose. Or maybe I am just too black and white in some things...
(There was never evidence that Sailor Orbit did recast the doll, she might have done it by the normal copying way -she is talented with her hands. I am not saying what she did was right, but again: we can not pick and choose. And she never has mentioned that she would make money with it. Sorry, she might be he -I don't know if the person behind Sailor Orbit is she/he.)
I really am confused why something is allowed and similar thing is not.
|
|
|
|
Post by allurose on Aug 8, 2016 6:04:52 GMT -8
I think the wishes of the artist who made the original items should be the most important factor. Marina does not seem to care about the shoes, but naturally she is concerned about recast dolls. Popovy sisters did care about the wig, so people reacted appropriately.
Also the shoes were clearly not recast directly from Marina's work. The doll was.
As for wigs, clothes, etc. I agree that it is tactless and shifty to copy without crediting the artist.
Another relevant question is: does the copied item take business away from the original artist? This is the clear purpose of recast dolls and one of the reasons they are banned on the forum. But for things like a doll company copying a human design, business is not taken away from the artist since the market is different.
I am not an expert on the legal issues involved with any of this. I'm sure it is complicated by there being different laws in different countries.
This is an interesting topic and you are welcome to continue discussing it, but Sailor Orbit and her recast doll (yes, this was proven) are off topic for this forum. Further posts mentioning her may be edited or deleted.
|
|
|
|
Post by caracal on Aug 8, 2016 6:46:47 GMT -8
The Popvy wig was copied to a different market and Popovy Doll's business would not be harmed by turning dollhair design into human size. (Having said that, I do think it was wrong from the hairdresser to steal that design and the sisters were rightfully pissed of.)
You see, all this makes me confused!
And yes, by law it is possible to steal a dressdesign -but as Allurose said; it is tactless.
PS; I did not know there was hard core evidence. Would love to see it too.
|
|
|
|
Post by caracal on Aug 8, 2016 7:05:14 GMT -8
I wonder what would happen, if somebody made copy of some of the metal headdresses Marina has done, for example the beetle-one? Or the snowflake (or what was it called?). Are the headresses more important to Marina...or if someone copied the more complicated shoedesigns? (I seem to have too much time on my hand to wonder these kind of things in my mind  -but my mind works mysterious ways!) PS; and more overthinking everything...; actually the ED mannequens are also recast, partial recast, but recast anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by lilithskyblue on Aug 8, 2016 9:16:48 GMT -8
![]() Well I have felt other artists have borrowed ideas from me. I have tried to put pictures up of what I mean, but I'm at a loss with that. I have seen some artists, well known even "like" my work on Flickr and at first I was flattered but then soon after saw dolls they made that were similar to mine, but not exact copies. It was still a little annoying. If you go to my favorites on flickr I put an example up of what I mean, my account is under the name Crystal Bernard. |
|
|
|
Post by bibarina on Aug 9, 2016 3:23:20 GMT -8
I couldn't find your example Lilithskyblue, but I'm sorry to hear this has happened.
I think the whole area is very grey, and will never completely be resolved. I agree with allurose that a lot depends on how the artists themselves feel about it. I think that most people are very clear on how they feel about out and out copies. To reproduce something exactly and pass it off as your own original design is dishonest and morally wrong, such as in the case of the Popovy wig.
If the stylist had credited them for the design, I think the Sisters would have been very happy about it and would have probably shared the photo themselves! As it was, he clearly stated that it was his own original concept and design, and it was this that caused the fury and upset.
The main problem lies somewhere in between, where work is heavily influenced by, but not quite the same as someone else's. It's such a fine line to cross, isn't it? So where does one draw the line? I don't think there will ever be a definitive answer to this question. There have been doll artists castigated for 'copying' Marina's work for example, and others who have copied just as much-if not more and nothing is said at all....
|
|
|
|
Post by amandap on Aug 10, 2016 1:00:02 GMT -8
I have often wondered about this myself and it keeps coming down to the same thing for me... you can only reinvent the wheel so many times. Recasts are an obvious breech of copyright, but there are some things that an artist cannot claim as their own copyright. For example, Marina's signiature steel spring stringing method cannot be claimed as her own, because she borrowed it from Martha Armstrong-Hand. Her shoes are often copied from old illustrations, which is why they feature a lot of filigree design- a mark of their times. Even the idea of dressing dolls in metal is not unique, albeit she was the first to use silver (I believe). The Popovy Sisters wig designs are often unique, but the technique of making wigs over a form was taken from the ancient Hina Matsuri dolls. A while ago I discovered a very old porcelain working technique called Dresden Lace that I thought would be great to incorporate into my dolls. Then about a month later I bought a magazine featuring BiDoll who explained that one of her dolls featured the dresden lace technique. I would still like to use the technique but now I have to be weary that it doesn't look too much like BiDoll or people will think I have copied.
Everything in art is borrowed from somewhere else and occasionally inspirations can land in similar places. Our job as artists is to do our best to use the same techniques and the same inspirations and create something as unique as possible. Artists that manage to get known for a particular look have done their job well.
|
|
|
|
Post by allurose on Aug 10, 2016 6:59:17 GMT -8
I have often wondered about this myself and it keeps coming down to the same thing for me... you can only reinvent the wheel so many times. Recasts are an obvious breech of copyright, but there are some things that an artist cannot claim as their own copyright. For example, Marina's signiature steel spring stringing method cannot be claimed as her own, because she borrowed it from Martha Armstrong-Hand. Her shoes are often copied from old illustrations, which is why they feature a lot of filigree design- a mark of their times. Even the idea of dressing dolls in metal is not unique, albeit she was the first to use silver (I believe). The Popovy Sisters wig designs are often unique, but the technique of making wigs over a form was taken from the ancient Hina Matsuri dolls. A while ago I discovered a very old porcelain working technique called Dresden Lace that I thought would be great to incorporate into my dolls. Then about a month later I bought a magazine featuring BiDoll who explained that one of her dolls featured the dresden lace technique. I would still like to use the technique but now I have to be weary that it doesn't look too much like BiDoll or people will think I have copied. Everything in art is borrowed from somewhere else and occasionally inspirations can land in similar places. Our job as artists is to do our best to use the same techniques and the same inspirations and create something as unique as possible. Artists that manage to get known for a particular look have done their job well. So well said! |
|
|
|
Post by galacticat on Aug 10, 2016 9:32:44 GMT -8
I think inspired by is very different than copying a unique design. The popovy wig was SO unique- and the Popovy dolls seem to be almost just vehicles for the amazing fashions and wigs- which are entirely unique. The wig the hair design guy made was copied exactly- and what was worse, he didn't even say who it was inspired from.
Honestly I am tad uncomfortable about the copying of Marina's shoes, mostly only when they look almost exactly like one of Marina's designs. I guess if they are not recasts, and the designs are more inspired by than copied- that is what makes a difference? Marina presumably would say if she minded (or Chad would) - presumably.
I think artists can't help but be inspired by each other and come up with similar designs. Even Marina takes her inspirations from many other artists. For example Marina's doll helmets were based on Camilla d'Errico's Helmet Girls- which Marina admitted and gave credit to. And the beadwork on her original Cinderella- was actually original to a sari and not her own (although she added to it). I think (although she doesn't credit it) that Marina's doll box was also likely inspired by Russian artist Olga Donets- who had been making very very similar boxes.
I think if you are HEAVILY inspired by another artist- you had better mention it. I actually don't think the Popovy sisters would have minded if the hair stylist had just admitted that he was copying their doll wig. I mean, it might be fun to cosplay as a Popovy doll - and I don't think they'd mind that, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by allurose on Oct 13, 2016 12:13:10 GMT -8
I just wanted to bump this thread, since this issue is currently Up for the forum.
My current thoughts have been that it is good tact and good business strategy both to acknowledge one's inspirations. Many of the masters do this and it is seen as a good thing. But artists only tend to admit inspiration when they have truly done something to make the idea their own (not just copying).
|
|
|
|
Post by fitz on Oct 13, 2016 15:19:06 GMT -8
Well in regard to the anti recast, a lot of the problem is with the buyer. Much of the time the buyer knows it is a recast, since the dolls are so inexpensive or they buy them off a known recaster. In fact they seek out a seller because they want the doll cheaper or in a different color. In regard to anti copying- is the buyer supposed to research the doll before buying? Are they supposed to search the seller/ artist's reputation? I often do but that is because I stalk dolls before I buy them. And dolls of this price point are usually a thought out purchase.. But it is nice to be alerted to problems of this nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by kamia on Oct 14, 2016 8:45:32 GMT -8
I agree Sutton & fitz, with such big purchases I always do as much searching as I can, but apart from this forum, I often find it hard to get the information I am searching for. I must admit the forum here with the documentation of FHDolls fall and rise has been very, very helpful. Without it, I would never have known the history of the company, or previous problems. Equally that does not mean I would not buy a doll from FHDolls now, however I am aware of the problems with some of the older dolls. I always prefer to know as much as possible, good and bad and to make up my own mind |
|
Dina
Senior Member
Posts: 354 
|
Post by Dina on Oct 14, 2016 17:50:39 GMT -8
Personally I try not to purchase something I felt was falsely portrayed as original, but that is a buyers decision and often very grey.
I have copied, been copied and taught others to copy my work also .. none of which makes feel bad.
Art is the a creative form of language and should inspire emotion, heart and mind; craft is skills and techniques which is slowly mastered over time (and well shared between craftsman).
Marina for example, is an artist who creates uniquely inspiring dolls, its hard to actually copy that magic yet many emulate her techniques.
Some doll makers are excellent craftsman but not necessarily artists in the sense of creating that unique expression, and some wonderfully creative artists make shitty quality artwork!
So yes some try to copy the creativity and expression however it always lacks that special something. Yet I also marvel in amazing craftsmanship and often buy that over originality.
Doesn't matter to me I dont see it as copying. Art is very personal, I choose whatever aspect it is that inspires me to purchase at that time.
|
|
-but my mind works mysterious ways!)
