Trademark Lawyer Barbie?
Dec. 30th, 2003 06:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
heidiLexis-Nexis reports the following today:
In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower-court ruling that the El Segundo company had stepped over the line when it sued a Utah artist who photographed naked Barbie dolls stuffed into blenders, rolled up in enchiladas and speared on fondue forks.
The court ruled that the toy maker ought to pay the legal costs Tom Forsythe racked up defending his "Food Chain Barbie" artwork, a bill that is expected to exceed $2 million.
(emphasis mine)
The copyright law's "fair use" exception gives Forsythe the right to strip and contort the impossibly perfect doll for his art, the court said, so Mattel's infringement claims could be viewed as unreasonable.
After all, the court reasoned, it's not as if Mattel were going to bring out its own version of naked Barbie-in-a-blender. Forsythe's "infringement had no discernible impact on Mattel's market for derivative uses," the court said. "The benefits to the public in allowing such use -- allowing artistic freedom and expression and criticism of a cultural icon -- are great."
A Mattel spokeswoman did not return calls for comment.
The case is at least the third in two years in which a court has told Mattel that copyright laws are meant to hammer street vendors who sell knockoffs, not artists' free expression. (emphasis mine)
Last year, a New York court ruled out a Mattel suit against an artist who sold Barbie-like "Dungeon Dolls" clad in sadomasochistic outfits. The U.S. Supreme Court this year refused to allow Mattel to press suit against MCA Records Inc. for a Danish band's deriding the doll as a "blond bimbo" in its song "Barbie Girl."
"There has been a disturbing trend with companies using a variety of copyright and trademark laws to suppress forms of speech they do not like in ways that stifle legitimate criticism," said Peter Eliasburg, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer in Los Angeles who represented Forsythe. "This sends a message that there is a risk involved in bringing these kinds of cases."
I think, again, this case can only be viewed as positive for fanfic writers and fanartists, and vidders as well, especially those who deviate significantly from "canon" for purposes of commenting on or analyzing the original text/work. However, it does nothing for people who host scripts, unedited digital files of movies or shows, or soundfiles, because the holding sounds like it can only apply to things that are transmogrified.
But what a great year-ending case for us to talk about as we sip champagne and toast the sensible judges of 2003!
In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower-court ruling that the El Segundo company had stepped over the line when it sued a Utah artist who photographed naked Barbie dolls stuffed into blenders, rolled up in enchiladas and speared on fondue forks.
The court ruled that the toy maker ought to pay the legal costs Tom Forsythe racked up defending his "Food Chain Barbie" artwork, a bill that is expected to exceed $2 million.
(emphasis mine)
The copyright law's "fair use" exception gives Forsythe the right to strip and contort the impossibly perfect doll for his art, the court said, so Mattel's infringement claims could be viewed as unreasonable.
After all, the court reasoned, it's not as if Mattel were going to bring out its own version of naked Barbie-in-a-blender. Forsythe's "infringement had no discernible impact on Mattel's market for derivative uses," the court said. "The benefits to the public in allowing such use -- allowing artistic freedom and expression and criticism of a cultural icon -- are great."
A Mattel spokeswoman did not return calls for comment.
The case is at least the third in two years in which a court has told Mattel that copyright laws are meant to hammer street vendors who sell knockoffs, not artists' free expression. (emphasis mine)
Last year, a New York court ruled out a Mattel suit against an artist who sold Barbie-like "Dungeon Dolls" clad in sadomasochistic outfits. The U.S. Supreme Court this year refused to allow Mattel to press suit against MCA Records Inc. for a Danish band's deriding the doll as a "blond bimbo" in its song "Barbie Girl."
"There has been a disturbing trend with companies using a variety of copyright and trademark laws to suppress forms of speech they do not like in ways that stifle legitimate criticism," said Peter Eliasburg, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer in Los Angeles who represented Forsythe. "This sends a message that there is a risk involved in bringing these kinds of cases."
I think, again, this case can only be viewed as positive for fanfic writers and fanartists, and vidders as well, especially those who deviate significantly from "canon" for purposes of commenting on or analyzing the original text/work. However, it does nothing for people who host scripts, unedited digital files of movies or shows, or soundfiles, because the holding sounds like it can only apply to things that are transmogrified.
But what a great year-ending case for us to talk about as we sip champagne and toast the sensible judges of 2003!
