Copying/replicating company outfits

I asked this on DoA some years ago, and thought I'd ask what peoples opinion is, here, too. And if things have generally changed.

Is it ok for you and me - regular customers - to copy company outfits? As in replicate them.
Like, the latest release of Volks or Culture Japan sets (character/licensed outfits aside). Or should it only be old, or sold-out sets? And are they ok to sell?

I often get inspired by company outfits, but often they are either sold-out, hard to find, or just "that's too expensive; I could easily make it myself!". But it feels like I'd be tracing someone else's art. While in reality it'd more be like a heavily referenced piece. The fabric is likely not going to be the same, after all. 

What are your opinions?

It feels like you'd be walking a fine line. I can see 'copying' individual elements, like a cami or a cardigan, because Volks doesn't own exclusive rights to making those. But entire sets feel a lot more intrusive and stolen-y.

If it were just for personal use, I see 0 problem with it. Selling it is where it gets iffy to me. I personally wouldn't care if someone did, but who knows if Volks would. 

 

its a rather interesting topic, one which I've given some thought myself...

The boring nordic region law stance I think roughly goes that for your own personal use, as long as you arent selling or gifting them (in any way or form, even as a zero profit comission that paid for materials), you can copy stuff from even trademarked sources (as long as you arent hurting the ip in some way)

Its when you start selling copied stuff when I think things get a bit too dicey.

Like for instance if you bought an outfit, tore it apart and used the pieces to make patterns, and then started to sell the outfits based on that, I think that would be out of bounds -- especially if its something thats still being sold.

But if you made your own patterns just by looking at a picture, I see it as a more or less inspired work at that point, and odds are it wouldnt be completely identical to the orign.. perhaps not even for the same body-type.

Some simpler items I've already copied, like the bikini's I made years ago based on the NynJ55 model (which interestingly is near identical to a coolcats one, except they use different fabrics and color combos). here I was able to make a color combo I liked better myself that werent available from either source, but I still wouldnt be comfortable selling these ... except maybe the ultra skimpy one which I put in extra thought in how to make it happen, and neither source offer it in that style - but thankfully this was a big enough headache not to even consider this.

Then there is the weird case of deterioration ... I have a few salvage projects going where the outfits have deteriorated beyond reasonable use, but I've taken them apart to make patterns, but again for my own personal use.

--

But I do get the frustration of seeing something and not being able to get it easily, and having the will and perhaps possibility to make my own ... for instance if I had a source of fine faux fur, and an embroidery machine, I would totally be making the Acute Angle angry bunny headbands for all my MDD's -- but alas I do not ..

If making something for yourself, I don't see the problem with it at all. Selling it could land you in potential legal hot water though.

@Yumeiro As long as you're doing it for strictly personal use, you should be fine. But replicating with the intent of selling is something Volks will come after you for, as they have collaborated with other brands and artists to design their clothes. I agree with @DreamDollDesign here, too. I wouldn't copy entire outfits, either - it definitely feels to me like that would be outright stealing. But a single piece of an outfit? I personally have no issues with that.

Edited April 26, 2021 by Selenae

3 hours ago, Selenae said:

As long as you're doing it for strictly personal use, you should be fine.

I agree; you wouldn't be profiting from someone else's IP this way, and you're not claiming it to be your own design. And you learn by copying, many artists copy for years before finding their own styles, painters especially. But they never claim the designs to be their own.

Well, heavily inspired also depends on which level heavy is it. It's not ok to make replica of other peoples designs for sale, designing stuff is also art. Making replicas for personal use is different thing. 

If it's inspired, then there might be more stretch. But there's difference if it's on the level "I changed this one thing from the design but otherwise it's identical" or "I got heavily inspired on their Gone with the wind-dress so I made my own version of it".

Edited April 27, 2021 by Akito

It's actually funny you ask this. I recently noticed that a brand on Alice collections has been making bootleg versions of volks outfits. 

1 hour ago, magique said:

I recently noticed that a brand on Alice collections has been making bootleg versions of volks outfits.

When I clicked the link I decided to do some research prior to responding because my first reaction was that they were inspired by 50s/60s era sailor dresses.

However, after some investigation, this is very much so a copy. Yikes. Inspiration is fine, completely copying the design down to the embroidery, colours, and frilled cuffs is not.

 

I think it's a much more complicated in the case of clothing than in the case of art tracing for example. If the design is 100% original, never before seen idea then there is no question, but if the piece itself is inpired by something else or "basic" (as in, you can find similar clothes in human or doll size, because it's a popular style), then I think it gets murky.

I will be using specific examples, because I think this is really a case-by-case issue.

For example, I would like (if skills allow) to sew the dresses inspired by Junichi Nakahara's works that Volks put Lorina in a few years back. Not only they have not designed the outfits, but also another company had made the same outfits for their dolls as well. I do not really consider it copying, especially for personal use.

However, if I wanted a similar dress to something that I have seen made by an individual seamstress, I would definitely make sure to put my own spin on it, or use only one element that made me fall in love with it. Same with doll fullsets, I think (excluding character dolls from anime, for example).

Another example is chemise + corset sets from Volks. I would like to make it one day, and of course it would look similar. However, Volks did not invent chemises and corsets, and unless there is a special design somewhere, embroidery or lacing - they have no leg to stand on, even if I base my design on a similar extant garment as they did. But similarly - if I base my design on an existing style, and someone does something in the same style, then I have nothing to complain about as well.

The issue with Volks or Culture Japan outfits is that a lot of them are pretty casual and unoriginal themselves (basic shorts, hoodies, skirts). In these cases, I don't think there can be any talk of copying. But there are original designs as well and I think there should be a line drawn there, at least for selling those.

Sorry for the long ramble. The crux of the issue is probably the fact that nothing is really truly original in today's world (companies are inspired by something, we are inspired by companies). If this was a question of a person copying brand designed human clothes (like fast fashion brands, even expensive designers) for themselves, then I really would not care in a slightest. But humans need clothes in everyday life, and dolls... don't.

 

9 minutes ago, Veravey said:

When I clicked the link I decided to do some research prior to responding because my first reaction was that they were inspired by 50s/60s era sailor dresses.

However, after some investigation, this is very much so a copy. Yikes. Inspiration is fine, completely copying the design down to the embroidery, colours, and frilled cuffs is not.

 

Oof. That definitely crosses the line.

But a sailor dress with different colors/patterns? I can see where that would be a bit of a stretch. I think for this outfit it comes down to the collar, v-neck, embroidery, and ribbon at the bottom. You change those and I'd say it would be unique enough to be sold without it being a copy.

It's cool to read your opinions. On DoA, back then, I think a majority thought that copying was fine - "why even ask", kinda deal. But opinions (and society) change as well.


Of course it is hard to claim theft of a plain t-shirt or socks.
But I'd imagine it'd still be frowned upon to make a similar set as a company - even if it is of plain clothing..?
Like Volks releases a set with shorts, socks, and a shirt. All plain, no logos, no unique design. So you make a similar set/bundle, in the same colors, and selling it.
But it would be more ok to offer them individually..? 🤔

And I just want to clear up that, as @finnleo mentioned, picking an outfit apart and making patterns of the pieces is just plain copying, and not what I had indented to discuss in this thread. 

That's a tough one.

I am an anti-recast/pro-artist BJD owner, and if I were to follow this line, I'd say that no, copying an outfit would be a no-no.

On the other hand, differently from BJD's, I see there are several more shades of gray that I would feel comfortable accepting.

An example: fairyland clothing. They are very rich, detailed, frilly... and incredibly limited in quantity. They are only released for a specific amount of time, as an add-on to limited fullset dolls.
There are certain dolls that carry a very specific look, and I do not oppose to those who try to mimic an outfit that's not otherwise available for purchase.

A different story is this:

19 hours ago, Veravey said:

In this instance, then, my opinion would be... no.

This outfit is available on the company website, it can be bought, or it is easy to find from reputable sources. 

3 hours ago, Yumeiro said:

But I'd imagine it'd still be frowned upon to make a similar set as a company - even if it is of plain clothing..?
Like Volks releases a set with shorts, socks, and a shirt. All plain, no logos, no unique design. So you make a similar set/bundle, in the same colors, and selling it.
But it would be more ok to offer them individually..? 🤔

That goes so much into basics that nobody can claim plain t-shirt, undie combo or basic shirts as their own original invention. This actually goes into the category that unless it is 100% excat pattern that the "copied" company has originally used, it can't be considered as copying. And that would pretty much require that you'd rip the "original" clothing open and use it as a pattern. 

For example if we talk about basic doll socks, there is pretty much one way to pattern and make those. (I patterned socks for my Angel philia dolls by pinning and stretching the fabric around the leg, took pattern from that. Out of curiosity I compared it with doll factory made socks that I found from my doll stuff. Well what you know. Those are made with nearly excat pattern that I just drafted by myself, just few millimetres difference) 

But let's say that those simple plain clothes would have special printed fabric or logo and you copy those too, then it crosses the line. As with those things, the items can be considered as unique and makes difference.    

 

 

edit: One thing that came into my thought about selling clothes. If the fabric has copyrighted design or characters, making items from it to sell might be prohibited. But it goes kind of grey area that does anybody really follow every single craft sales post over the internet and even then would they report to the copyright owner (and would they actually care) as only the original creator could sue the seller... Pokemon print fabrics for example would fall into this category. 

Quote from the internet

Quote

You should assume that all fabric with cartoon characters, sports teams, and major brands are licensed fabrics for personal use only. This means that you cannot sell items made with the fabric. You can verify this by looking at the selvage side of the fabric. If there are licensing terms, they will be printed there.

 

Edited April 28, 2021 by Akito

@Akito But pattern aside, what about morality?

I also wonder if it's frowned upon to make something identical/replicate outfits. A sort of steal-the-look. Or... copying what they did.

1 hour ago, Yumeiro said:

I also wonder if it's frowned upon to make something identical/replicate outfits. A sort of steal-the-look. Or... copying what they did.

For profit, absolutely. This is theft of design and/or IP. For personal use, for example such as re-making the Sailor Scout outfits for your dolls as a means of practice sewing and admiration of the franchise, then no since you're not selling it. This is where custom doll creators fit, when creating customs of existing characters.

Then again, some people run businesses purely on making customs of existing characters (i.e.: my favorite Sailor Moon doll artist https://www.instagram.com/minicouturedoll/?hl=en). However, these are clearly stated as customs of said characters and the artist is not claiming rights to the designs, only the production of the hand-made outfits. On the other hand, if this person made an original character and it was extremely close to, lets say, a Tokyo Mew Mew character and claimed the design to be of their own making, then that would be problematic.

There's inspiration and admiration without claiming rights, and then there's outright copying and claiming rights. And even with inspiration, you have to be careful; if you're ever worried, don't sell it and use it personally.

In terms of morals, artists/designers/creators take copying very, very seriously. Imagine if you put months of work into a design/creation only to have someone profit from it without crediting you. Even with credit, a lot of people frown upon this unless the original creator has given permission.

Also hot tip: stay away from Nintendo. Fastest C&D you'll see in your life.  (this is mostly a joke; I know a lot of people make Pokémon, Mario, etc. art and merch, but Nintendo is notorious for sending out C&D's to big and small creators.)

Edited April 28, 2021 by Veravey
grammar

13 minutes ago, Veravey said:

Then again, some people run businesses purely on making customs of existing characters (i.e.: my favorite Sailor Moon doll artist https://www.instagram.com/minicouturedoll/?hl=en). However, these are clearly stated as customs of said characters and the artist is not claiming rights to the designs, only the production of the hand-made outfits.

This is where it gets so iffy and why it's hard to draw the line.

On one hand, we're all in here saying you shouldn't outright copy Volks' outfits.

On the other, there are tons of people out there making and selling cosplay outfits that are obviously directly copied from existing characters and art for both dolls and people. Including Volks, through official channels.

So using Sailor Moon as an example, Volks made an official Sailor Moon outfit. But lots of people make their own Sailor Moon outfits to sell, too. Yet that feels okay, lol. 

17 minutes ago, DreamDollDesign said:

So using Sailor Moon as an example, Volks made an official Sailor Moon outfit.

Right, this is where the permission piece I mentioned comes in since this is licensed. 

But most character merch isn't licensed; what we see through the main avenues that we follow (Volks, figure companies like Goodsmile, etc.) is such a small fraction within the whole character merch industry. It's a very large grey area and has been a hot topic of discussion for a long time.

I fully support making-out-of-admiration though, for personal use; surround yourself with what makes you happy.

7 hours ago, DreamDollDesign said:

So using Sailor Moon as an example, Volks made an official Sailor Moon outfit. But lots of people make their own Sailor Moon outfits to sell, too. Yet that feels okay, lol.

And also Azone made a set of sailor moon outfits a long time ago in the 60cm size... but...

One good example for doing intellectual property outfits for sale (in maybe double digit numbers?) is Cherry Milk. For every release they do they actually get permission to do their outfits, even the sailor moon outfits come with a Kodansha sticker, and because they are sold at japanese venues, these permissions seem to be vetted.

Even the Yuki Miku 2013 outfit, which already was inspired by a traditional japanese wedding gown seems to come with proof markings on the boxes. -- This makes a case for at what point does something change from casual/normal, to IP based .. the outfit in combination of the snoflake ebroidery, and the leaf on the hood, and such.

TcDoll also sells Azur lane, and Kantai collection items only at venue events, and they also seem to have licenced for use hologram stickers to go with them.

Again, if you are making items only for yourself, there arent any real practical limitations, but if you are going to be doing them for money there are considerations to be made.

As in if I were making commission work - Id try to keep a low enough profile as possible. -- but im a worrywort by nature.

 

8 hours ago, Yumeiro said:

I also wonder if it's frowned upon to make something identical/replicate outfits. A sort of steal-the-look. Or... copying what they did.

This is really dependant on what you are copying or trying to replicate ... A good example was the original Ruri outfit for the Volks Akihabara girls character DD, which was found to be a direct knock off of a fashion designer outfit -- but this was not directly Volks's fault since it was based on a design comptetion submission. Still this was pulled before release, and replaced with a much more mundane streetwear outfit -- Id say the same rules apply to commoner sales as company sales in cases like this.

If your immediate reaction to a creation is "Thats just like so and so" where So and so is famous for something specific, then I would guess this is a foul.

if the reaction is "Where have I seen that before -- dunno where?", then I would wager a pass ...

then again these reactions will depend on how people are versed in different things.