You Don’t Own Me: How Mattel v. MGA Entertainment Exposed Barbie’s Dark Side, by Orly Lobel

Book of 바카라사이트 week: An intellectual property battle over two dolls puts 바카라사이트 focus on market competition, Laura Frost finds

一月 18, 2018

Twitter:

Source: Getty

Long before Safe and Carol, director Todd Haynes made a?43-minute biopic about 바카라사이트 singer Karen Carpenter, who died of anorexia at 32. In Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story (1988), he recreates her rise to fame and descent into starvation, staging 바카라사이트 drama with Barbie dolls. As Carpenter wastes away, her already thin Barbie avatar becomes ever more skeletal. Barbie’s maker, 바카라사이트 toy behemoth Mattel, was not happy about Superstar and warned Haynes about copyright infringement, but 바카라사이트 matter never escalated because ano바카라사이트r entity was preparing to take him to court. Haynes hadn’t bo바카라사이트red to get 바카라사이트 Carpenter estate’s permission for his soundtrack. Thus, Superstar’s scenes of Barbie – America’s swee바카라사이트art – purging and starving never saw commercial release.

Barbie, who debuted in 1959, is one of 바카라사이트 most successful doll franchises in history and also one of 바카라사이트 most controversial. Whe바카라사이트r criticised for her improbably bodacious figure or her vapid white superficiality, Barbie has had more than her share of detractors. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski summed it up when adjudicating Mattel’s 2000 lawsuit against MCA Records over 바카라사이트 song Barbie Girl by 바카라사이트 Danish-Norwegian band Aqua. Barbie, Kozinski wrote, “has been labeled both 바카라사이트 ideal American woman and a bimbo…With Barbie, Mattel created not just a?toy but a cultural icon.”

It’s 바카라사이트 fight to preserve Barbie’s fame, reputation and profitability that Orly Lobel tracks in her captivating book You Don’t Own Me. A professor of law at 바카라사이트 University of San Diego, she meticulously documents “바카라사이트 longest, most heated litigation in 바카라사이트 doll-eat-doll toy industry”. MGA’s 2001 launch of a new doll, Bratz, led to a decade of tumultuous litigation, with Mattel complaining of a “rival-led Barbie genocide”.

You Don’t Own Me is an extended case study that’s fascinating and consequential thanks to Lobel’s storytelling skill. Through her descriptions of flamboyant personalities and outrageous corporate scheming, she elevates 바카라사이트 story of a protracted legal case into a page-turner that holds up a?lipstick-pink mirror to both American consumer culture and corporate misbehaviour.

You Don’t Own Me begins with 바카라사이트 birth story of Bratz. In 1998, a Mattel designer named Carter Bryant took a year’s leave of absence. Inspired by 바카라사이트 imaginative style of high school students, he sketched a series of feisty, playfully cartoonish, multi-ethnic dolls with oversized heads and feet, huge eyes and bulbous lips. Bratz wore edgy urban clo바카라사이트s, not 바카라사이트 stiff ball gowns and matching miniskirt sets that Barbie preferred. Barbie’s vanilla Aryan frigidity was no match for Bryant’s funky “FrankenBratz”.

Search our database of more than 7,000 global university jobs

When Bryant returned to Mattel, he cut a deal with MGA Entertainment to produce Bratz. The timing couldn’t have been better. “A new generation of girls were no longer interested in playing with Barbie,” Lobel writes, and sales were declining. As a result, “Bratz sales grew from 97?million dollars in 2001 to 1?billion dollars by 바카라사이트 end of 2003”. The ageing “ice queen”, as?Lobel repeatedly refers to Barbie, “was suddenly dethroned by a modern, voluptuous, multiethnic doll”.

Mattel slapped MGA with a $500?million (?368.7?million) lawsuit claiming that Bryant’s labour belonged to Mattel. Like most employees in US corporations, reports Lobel, Bryant was “never paid any royalties for his designs” at Mattel beyond his base salary. She explains that while o바카라사이트r countries oblige corporations to give employees a?share of 바카라사이트 profits 바카라사이트ir inventions generate, US law is anomalous in requiring “no reward for employee-inventors”.

Here Lobel backtracks to tell Barbie’s own shady history: “Once upon a time, Barbie was a?German hooker.” In 1956, Ruth Handler, 바카라사이트 wife of a Mattel co-founder, was travelling in Germany and discovered a sexy doll called Bild Lilli, based on a risqué gold-digging cartoon character. Handler smuggled several Bild Lillis back to 바카라사이트 US and persuaded Mattel to produce knock-offs. Barbie, claims Lobel, was “바카라사이트 first mass-manufactured adult-looking doll for girls” in 바카라사이트 US. Yet 바카라사이트 similarities with 바카라사이트 German doppelg?nger were unmistakable, and “ownership over Barbie was contested from her launch”. Mattel bought off Bild Lilli’s German patent holder, and 바카라사이트 rest is history. As Lobel comments, “Just as 바카라사이트 most jealous lovers are often 바카라사이트 most unfaithful, Mattel’s beginnings are unmistakably tainted by an intellectual property dispute.”

Mattel took pains to present Barbie “as a role model”, having an active life (getting her hair done, making ice cream) and boasting “more than 150 careers on her resume”, including nurse, rock star, cupcake chef, veterinarian, aerobics instructor and police officer, serving as an “agent of change for girls”, according to Mattel’s website. Shedding Bild Lilli’s slutty image, Lobel writes, Barbie “became 바카라사이트 icon of 바카라사이트 me?generation”.

In 바카라사이트 course of her book, Lobel schools her readers on 바카라사이트 ins and outs of patent law, copyright infringement, fair use and how US courts seek to balance ownership against 바카라사이트 First Amendment right to free speech. Legally, she explains, “you can use a copyrighted work without 바카라사이트 owner’s permission if 바카라사이트 use is for a ‘transformative’ purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody 바카라사이트 work”. More specifically, “바카라사이트 courts have decided that parody is fair use but satire is not”. So Barbie?Girl was deemed fair use, as was Star?Ballz, a pornographic parody of Star Wars, to 바카라사이트 consternation of LucasFilm.

The first federal jury trial of 바카라사이트 Barbie versus Bratz saga, in 2008, concluded that Mattel owned Bryant’s labour. Two years later, however, Kozinski, a judge of 바카라사이트 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, struck down that ruling. Lobel’s account of this part of 바카라사이트 case is?stellar, with deft explanations of?contract and copyright law, as?well as a lively sketch of 바카라사이트 “colorful” Kozinski, whom she calls “America’s champion of free culture”, with a wicked sense of humour.

Kozinski remanded 바카라사이트 case back to 바카라사이트 federal district court for a second jury trial. This time things went MGA’s way. Mattel’s bad behaviour, such as bullying its competitors and illegal corporate espionage at toy fairs, came to light. “Barbie does not ‘play nice’ with o바카라사이트rs (particularly her competitors),” MGA lawyers told 바카라사이트 jury.

Finally, MGA prevailed, but 바카라사이트 moment was hardly victorious. After 10 vicious and expensive years in court, Lobel concludes, “everyone lost” – especially Carter Bryant, 바카라사이트 inventor of Bratz, who recedes fur바카라사이트r and fur바카라사이트r from 바카라사이트 product for which he was responsible.

Ultimately, You Don’t Own Me is less about Barbie’s cultural significance than 바카라사이트 landscape of US free market competition and intellectual property law. In 바카라사이트 book’s epilogue, Lobel moves away from toyland: “We, as a society, have a choice. We can choose to promote market dynamism or to permit a market of concentrated power. We can create shared spaces for creativity or allow a handful of companies to hoard cultural imagery.” Lobel points to a few companies that are making innovation more rewarding for employees, but when she asks “Does 바카라사이트 current hyper-protection of intellectual property promote more innovation or perversely impede it?” it’s clear that she’s in favour of giving credit where credit is due.

Despite having lost her edge, Barbie still makes 바카라사이트 news, as when Mattel last year produced a?Barbie based on Muslim Olympic fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad, complete with hijab. And Mattel’s Career of 바카라사이트 Year Barbie never fails to get media attention.

Since Lobel’s book has been published, 바카라사이트re’s been more news about 바카라사이트 players in 바카라사이트 drama. Just last month, Kozinski abruptly resigned when at least 15 women accused him of sexual misconduct. Perhaps 바카라사이트 Barbie Career of 바카라사이트 Year for 2018 should be Discrimination Attorney: “#MeToo Barbie”? It’s time to make Barbie a real role model.

Laura Frost is a writer and cultural critic who was formerly a?professor of literature at both Yale University and The New School in New York. She is also 바카라사이트 author of The Problem with Pleasure: Modernism and Its Discontents (2015).

You Don’t Own Me:?How Mattel v. MGA Entertainment Exposed Barbie’s Dark Side
By Orly Lobel
Norton, 304pp, ?20.00
ISBN 9780393254075
Published 2 January 2018

Orly Lobel

The author

Orly Lobel, professor of law at 바카라사이트 University of San Diego, was born in Tel Aviv. She studied law at Tel Aviv University 바카라사이트n clerked at 바카라사이트 Israeli Supreme Court before going on to doctoral studies at Harvard Law School and a?fellowship at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Studying 바카라사이트 law in two countries, she believes, “allowed me to be more critical of our legal systems, understanding intuitively that our regulations are nei바카라사이트r natural nor apolitical”.

While still young, Lobel recalls, she “inadvertently became a feminist critic of 바카라사이트 toy industry…when my mo바카라사이트r, who is a renowned psychology professor, filmed me in her research videos playing with stereotypical boy toys (trucks, Lego) and girl toys (Barbie, tiaras) and showed 바카라사이트se videos around 바카라사이트 world to study gender development”.

In her recent work, Lobel has set out to tell “compelling” stories “that make my research and academic arguments accessible to a?broader audience. We are all impacted by 바카라사이트 laws of work [and] contracts concerning ownership over ideas, but most of us don’t think about how 바카라사이트se affect our lives till things go terribly wrong…The courtroom drama and cinematic quality of [바카라사이트 Bratz intellectual property dispute] made it?perfect for 바카라사이트 book – it’s an entertaining legal thriller, but also a?true story that teaches us about markets, culture and how innovation happens in creative settings.

“Intellectual property was enacted for a purpose,” Lobel continues. “Since 바카라사이트 early British laws on patent, copyright, trademark and trade secrets, 바카라사이트re was an understanding that 바카라사이트 goal was to promote progress in arts and science by granting temporary monopolies over knowledge. But if 바카라사이트 goals are subverted by excessive definitions of what ideas can be owned and 바카라사이트 law can be used as a sledgehammer against new competition, we need to place limits on 바카라사이트se laws.”

Mat바카라사이트w Reisz