Judge Says Artist Can Make Fun of Barbie

[Khephra]

Seven years ago when Tom Forsythe, an artist and photographer, was searching for a subject for a new project, he settled on Barbie, ultimately producing a series of 78 photographic images of the wildly famous doll showing her nude, and sometimes posed provocatively, in or around various household appliances.

"I thought the pictures needed something that really said 'crass consumerism,' and to me, that's Barbie,'' Mr. Forsythe said. "The doll is issued in every possible role you can imagine and comes with every possible accessory for each and every role."

Mr. Forsythe developed a theme that he called "Barbie's power as a beauty myth." He displayed his photographs at art fairs in Utah and Kansas City, generating a few thousand dollars in sales but otherwise attracting little notice.

But his work drew the attention of Mattel Inc., which has manufactured the Barbie doll since 1959. In the summer of 1999, Mattel sued Mr. Forsythe for copyright and trademark infringement.

After a lengthy legal tussle, which included a series of appeals, a federal judge late last week instructed Mattel to pay Mr. Forsythe legal fees of more than $1.8 million.

more.............

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/28/national/28barbie.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1088423260-+RS6rvjmKiBFsWrbyN7i7g

[jeff30997]

1. YES!

:toast:

[truthisfreedom]

2. i dunno about this one.

if i had a cash cow like barbie i think i'd defend her to the hilt as much as possible. i'm not sure if i agree that mattel should be paying his legal fees when trying to protect a reasonably innocuous and relatively innocent product designed for collection by little girls, no matter how much it reflects "crass consumerism". perhaps they went too far in fighting him, and perhaps his income from sellling the photos was of little influence on their profits, but you really have to wonder where exactly the line gets drawn between owning a trademark/copyright and how much you should be able to defend it from ridicule and/or parody, when you aren't a public figure, but a manufacturer making a doll that represents a good part of your profits for many decades on end... and someone is attacking the image of your product (or you feel that way.)

[DarkPhenyx]

3. If he were selling the pics to the little girls...

...I'd buy the protection view. As it is I doubt very seriously any 6 yo bought a picture from him, and let face it, how many women when they grew up didn't have Barbi doing illicit things.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

4. Oh come on! Are you suggesting art should have limitations put on it?

You can say or portray anything you want as long as it is not trademarked?

No way. That is a very slippery slope. If that was the state of affairs, the ruling elite would just copyright everything and that would be the end of free speech!