OT/General Copyright Joints?

I am pretty sure there is no copyright on things like joints - that would fall under patent area. I think this is kind of a messy subject, because you can only be so innovative. Yes, you can add a ton of parts that make the doll very poseable, but I wouldn't so much call that innovative as ambitious. There are a few things that are pretty unique, like the unoa eyes, that I would personally just feel dirty copying, not because it is such an innovative idea but because it is something strongly I associate with that doll. I know I have thought of many many different ways to do joints, some I thought were unique, and they either don't work well in reality or I'd later find a doll that already did it. It makes sense that multiple people would eventually come up with very similar ideas since the goal is very similar.

Now, is someone copied one of my more "interesting" joints down to the last detail, I would be upset. Or, if they obviously copied every joint. But, I probably wouldn't do anything about it, and I don't think there would be much of a grounds for me to, since I am not going to spend the money to get a patent that would probably be denied anyway. For someone just using a similar idea for a joint, I don't think it is worth it to worry about. It is pretty silly to think that I am the only one that can come up with the ideas I have.

 

Wall of text!

This question is really important, and I think it's something many artists worry about but don't want to bring up. (abridged version at the end)

For example, while working on my own WIP, I do it without BJD reference, only anatomy resources, so I know all my joints are my own, and that I haven't consciously copied anyone, in style or engineering. But that doesn't mean that the joints I've made look original, there are only so many ways really to do something, and there is going to be overlap between artists:

* At least 2 artists I've seen have tried the inverted lower torso joint (using the bum as the ball instead of the tummy) but it's not common, and I only went looking because I was thinking of using it myself and wondered if it had been done successfully before. One artist had assumed that they invented the joint, and the other had responded by posting early WIP pictures of their own doll to show that they had tried it months earlier, I can't remember names it was a while ago, but I think the latter might be Amal- Found it! And Amal makes a great point there.
* There was the unfortunate business with wide hips and inverted thigh joints.
* When Enchanted Doll got double jointed elbows there was a rush of similarly designed art doll elbows, and again with the knees. But personally I think all of these above mentioned designs are simple, almost obvious ways of doing things, inverting a joint is hardly big thinking and most often these systems use basic spheres, no hidden special mechanics, it's silly of artists to get upset about similar simple designs.

At the end of the day, unless an artist has gotten legal copyright and patent stuff then they can't complain too loudly. And if an artist did get a patent for their mechanics and went about suing any similar doll artist I imagine they'd find themselves customer-less very quickly, because it would appear behaviourally ugly, even if completely legally just.

More involved and technical joints are where I find a grey area, and artistic style of the doll.
The fans will know who did what first, the BJD crowd is a discerning one, so I don't really think the original artist needs to get too emotional about it publicly, but they have every right to be a little miffed. When someone is the first to do something new they end up with hours of painfully spent time trying to get it right, trying different ways and discarding failed attempts. Then they post photo's of the beautifully finished product that they might have spent much resource and months of time on, only for someone else to be able to copy the design in much less time without going through all that hard work and wasted material. I can see why someone might be bitter.

I would never actively copy someone else's design, just on the principle that as an engineer I know how much effort goes into original work and it would suck if someone purposefully copied something I'd made. But hypothetically if someone did copy me in some way I wouldn't speak up or complain about it, because I'm a bit meek and I'd feel rude....

If I unintentionally created something that was noticeably like someone else's design, I would like to think I would contact them and see if they thought it was too similar and would rather I didn't sell it. I'd also like to think that most players in the doll artist community would be fine with sharing ideas, so long as you give credit, isn't that what this forum is about?
Another factor is whether you're 'borrowing' the joints for a one off piece for yourself, which I think is fine, or if you are going to attempt to profit from it.

tl;dr:
If you copy/'borrow' innovative work I think you should own up to it, give credit, even ask permission if possible, and not try and pass it off as your own idea.. Especially if you are trying to sell it.
People who covet something they can't afford/obtain might copy it, but only for themselves with no wish to sell or distribute, which I would say is fine.

Your question focuses on the original artists' feelings about being copied, but there is the question of how does the person borrowing the design feel- in terms of intelligence and ability, and also morally. Do they feel bad about not paving their own way, or about being unable to think of their own design? How do they justify copying to themselves? There are only so many ways to do something, maybe all the original ideas are taken, so is there no choice left but to borrow ideas? If that is the case, do I really need to mention who I copied, does it even matter? What if you see an innovative design and improve on it, take it to a higher level of pose-ability and aesthetic?
If you quote something while you write your dissertation/academic paper you will get flagged for Plagiarism if you don't cite the source.

 

If I like another artists joint I try to contact them to ask if they mind me using their work as INSPIRATION, a basis for my own approach towards a solution. I don't mind if someone else takes inspiration from my joints either. But direct copying, and I do mean direct because it's never going to be the exact same if you're just trying to sculpt by looking at pictures or something, would be a no-no, although I don't see how I would be able to fight anything legally, other than getting the doll community to back me by boycotting the copied works.

 

Wouldn't really bother me unless they used actual casts of the joints.

 

This I agree with. Its a different story if you have used images for a reference and you have an end product that from top to toe is almost exactly the same. I have a particular penchant for the look of Unoa Knees with the U shaped join on the front rather than the reverse, hence I sculpt the fronts of my knees to look like that - they arent double jointed or even remotely close to the technical level of Gento Araki's style of joint but I let be know thats where the inspiration came from. Unless you patent it (like Volks did with Kips once upon a time) you dont own it - And courtesey goes a long way like Twigling said - if you like the joint of another artist then it hurts no-one to ask if they mind you using the same/similar style, and if not ask then at least credit the source of the inspiration.....

 

I agree with irandom on the collaborative feel of the forums. *u* We get to study new ways of jointing, give/get critique, and improve on other people's works. Most of us can't copy directly anyways since our skill sets are not at the top level yet. For instance, the 3D renderings of some of our members can't be done as easily by carving/sculpting by hand.

~and there's always the option of giving the person you copied from a percentage of the profits when the doll is being sold.

 

I wouldn't think any joints are really copyrighted/patented, so you shouldn't need to worry about that legally.
The clockwork hujoo's are really interesting, the blend of balljoints, interlocked cogs and hinges is so unusual, I see what you mean by trademark.
If you state your influences you can't go wrong. And it's very understandable wanting to make a doll that is to your taste aesthetically with the jointing that most appeals to you.

Using clever joints as inspiration is always going to happen, and an important part of the evolution of the hobby, and artists shouldn't be punished for that. In you first post I assumed you meant outright copying of the design, almost like a recast, literally taking the joint, but you wan't to draw it out and modify it, putting work in to make the doll unique as a whole. Xx

 

Thanks for linking me irandom!
I agree with you that bjd makers are a discerning community. In my opinion, the worst consequence of 'copying' is the detrimental effect it has on the integrity of the copier. Unless they at least try to infuse their creation with something of their own, they just prove themselves lacking imagination and motivation.
Being inspired is different...
One example that comes to mind is 'nune', maker of 'Immortal Classique' dolls. He openly recognises his inspirations and when faced with making double joints from porcelain he forced himself to distance his design in any small way from the joints used by Enchanted Dolls. He shared his process and the fact that the joints aren't hugely different doesn't matter, it's the fact that he invested time and effort in not just re-creating something that someone has proved already works. Plus he acknowledged his influences. For those reasons I admire and respect him above others who didn't even try...

 

I don't think it would be so easy to know who the original designer was. For instance, joints with cap pieces-- Volks? CP? Fairyland? some nameless German dollmaker in the 19th century? If you research antique doll bodies, you will find some amazing jointing ideas. Many have been copied by modern dollmakers. The BJD community tends to be narrow-focus and would credit the design to the modern dollmaker, because they aren't familiar with the historical precedent.

There's also the case of being inspired by an existing idea and taking it further. I can imagine a designer at Fairyland looking at the CP shoulder caps and thinking, "This would work great on the knees!" and tweaking the design until they came up with the sliding L-shaped cap they have now. So is the Fairyland cap copied, inspired by, or a completely new design?

Just throwing some things out there to think about.

 

I do think that Cerberus Project is the former name of Fairy Land when they were still under Luts. The bodies seem to be sculpted by the same group of people. It's more like a transition into improvement rather than an inspired copy. Sister companies at the least.

 

what are the LEGAL implications?

IANAL <--Standard Boiler-Plate Disclaimer
(*I* Am Not A Lawyer)

My knee-jerk reaction is: If you have to ask, then you probably shouldn't do it.

The current copyright laws in the U.S.A. are Draconian at best, and no longer serve the original intent of copyrights.
The entertainment industry has modified the law so that they can retain control over all of their old works, essentially, forever.
When I suggest that the Entertainment industry has done this, I mean they paid the politicians in government to serve their own narrow interests. Forget the fact that they made their own fortunes on material that was in the Public Domain.

There is no Art that is created in a vacuum; that has no inspiration sources from prior art. That is how Art is created. We are all standing on the shoulders of Giants. However, don't think that gives you any rights to copy anything you want to copy. Essentially, your rights as an artist, in this day and age, are only as good as the lawyer you can hire to defend yourself in a court of law. And after seeing how the courts of law are owned by the big corporations, you had better have deep pockets, good lawyers, and have paid off the proper people in the right places. Sad, but obviously true. This is no longer a Democracy, or a Republic, but a Corporate Aristocracy.

At the level of independent artists, all it takes is someone that has slightly deeper pockets than you do (I know that right now, my own pockets are extremely shallow.... so shallow as to not really be pockets at all). From what I can see of many of the people posting in this forum, their pockets are about as shallow as mine.

So you see some joints you want to copy? No one else is using those joints, except the company that is making the doll that is sporting those joints? I say, go ahead and copy them as best as you can !!! The doll you make will be your own doll. But the minute you decide to mold your doll, that sports the joints you copied, and sell the doll to the rest of the world, then you should probably expect to have to defend your version of those joints, in a court of law. Unless your version is modified enough to be a new joint, then you should expect the company that made the original joint that you copied, to sic their lawyer(s) on you.

As far as being angry goes...... IF you were a company that paid a salary to an artist to design a new joint for the dolls that you are selling to the rest of the world, and these new joints are the main selling point (for aesthetics and poseability) of the doll you are selling , and someone, anyone, releases a doll for sale, to the rest of the world, that has the joints that you paid someone to R&D for you, would YOU get ANGRY? I guess that is the question to ask? You see, the question just needs to be asked in a certain context. You asked the question from the context of someone looking for justification to copy another's design. The question needs to be asked from the point of view of the artist who designed the joints. I am pretty certain that if you were to ask the company, or artist, for permission to copy said joints, that it would be denied.

So yeah, go ahead and copy anything you want to copy.... and expect to hire a lawyer to defend your copy, if you want to sell it to the rest of the world. Otherwise, expect to pay for the time and skills to design your own joints for the doll you want to sell to the rest of the world.

As I said in the beginning, IANAL, so, my advice is worth exactly what you paid for it.

 

You're right, that was probably a bad example, since CP and FL are the same company. But you get the idea. There are plenty of examples out there. My own feeling is that nothing is completely new and unprecedented. So far I think only Volks has patented their designs, as far as being able to win lawsuits against other companies. Correct me if I'm wrong, though!

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure copyright law doesn't apply to something like the design of a joint. The joint itself, yes -- you couldn't make a mold, cast the joint, and stick it on your doll. But the concept of how the joint works? Unless they've patented it, it's fair game... at least from a legal standpoint. Whether it's ethical or whether it will get you blacklisted in the doll community are separate questions.

Frankly, I'm all for borrowing ideas. We're all borrowing from Volks, unless any of you were making ball-jointed dolls before you ever saw an Asian-style one. I imagine most of us are borrowing from others beyond that. I don't know who first came up with the prop-the-torso-forward-when-sitting latch I put in Kit. If someone comments on it, I'll mention that I saw it on a Serendipity doll, but I'm not going to proactively credit them.

I saw a doll the other day that used a magnet to hold two wing halves together. It's a clever idea, and I might use it myself at some point. Does anyone really think I should track down the sculptor who came up with it, and ask them first?

And for the record, if anyone takes a look at Kit and says "gee, I think I'll use the paw pads as the elastic hooks on my anthro doll," that's fine by me. Whereas, if someone looks at Kit and says "gee, I think I'll make a chubby anthro cat with big paws and heart-shaped paw-pads"... well, I'd be a little miffed. But honestly, even that's not a violation of copyright, unless they take a mold from my doll.

 

CP is the original (and current) name of the team that sculpted the Delfs with Luts. Now CP is working with/through Fairyland to sell their BJD work. CP started out life sculpting anime figures (though frustratingly, I can't find much info on that. I think they still sculpt figures as well)

I think CP was the first BJD company to do joint caps, but I'm not sure.

Personally, I find BJD jointing fascinating. If I see a joint I've never seen before, or can't figure out how it works, I tend to doggedly pursue it in my quest for knowledge :XD Sometimes I'll discover how something works and be just awestruck with how brilliant it is.

The first time I saw the magazine scans of the Unoa Chibis, it was the first time I'd seen the shrugging shoulder feature, and loved the idea- One of the things that's bothered me about BJDs was how unnatural the shoulder looked when their arm was raised, or their inability to hunch their shoulders in. However, once I tracked down the way it was designed, I realized there was no way to do something similar without blatant copying. It wouldn't have felt right to use that design, even if I have no plans to sell my dolls.

Thus I had to figure out my own way to achieve the same result. And hopefully improve on it.

Innovation is a huge part of the BJD sculpting community. Joint caps and double joints have become common now, if another artist hadn't jump-started off of another's idea, we wouldn't have the complex jointing we have now. Sometimes there's only so many ways to do things. And some joints have become so commonplace that many use them as standard.

Who knows, a few years down the road, people might look at the jointing we have now and say; how oldschool *laughs*

That said- I feel it's extremely important to give credit where credit is due, and not to outright copy. Put your own spin on it wherever possible. If you are influenced by another artist's design, you should really say so. People tend to be more receptive if you openly share your influences- so long as it's not an obvious copy.

 

I showed a standard-jointed BJD to my brother, who is a tool and die designer, and asked him how he would improve on the joints. He quickly suggested several things, some of which are already in common use (such as joint caps). He had never seen a BJD before, so he was just speaking from his experience as a machinist. So I don't find it surprising that different people could come up with the same idea, without necessarily copying each other. There are only so many physical solutions for problems, after all.