Judge Says Barbie Doesn't Get To Own The Bratz
from the the-bratz-win dept
We've been following a lawsuit over Bratz dolls for a few years now. It involved a guy who worked at Mattel (not in a position designing dolls). While there, he had an idea for a new line of dolls, and eventually negotiated a deal to create those dolls for competitor MGA. The new dolls became The Bratz, one of the few super successful doll lines to challenge the success of Barbie dolls. Somewhere along the line, Mattel realized that the guy had worked at Mattel, and claimed that his employment agreement meant Mattel owned pretty much all rights to Bratz dolls, and that MGA owed Mattel a billion dollars. A court sided with Mattel and didn't just say that MGA and Bratz infringed, but effectively handed over all rights to Bratz dolls -- including future plans. This made absolutely no sense to us. At the very least, if the court found that Mattel owned the rights to the original design, at most Mattel should have only been able to get damages for those original designs. Giving them rights to later designs makes no sense at all. MGA appealed noting that giving Mattel all of its plans, as demanded, would result in "devastating and irreversible consequences." After sounding skeptical late last year, Judge Kozinski in the 9th circuit has now soundly rejected most of the lower court ruling (pdf).The ruling itself is a really good read, especially if you're interested in the difference between ideas and expression, and making sure that copyright only covers the copyrightable part of an expression. A common misconception is that copyright covers an entire work. In some cases, that's not true. Only parts of a work may get copyright protection:
But more interesting is the discussion of how much of the IP would belong to Mattel even if it's determined that MGA infringed. Kozinski clearly has problems with the decision to assign all current and future plans to Mattel, pointing out that this seems to be based on a misreading of the case law. He notes that the law does allow appreciation in value to go to the rightful owner, but mainly if that appreciation in value is due to external factors. He finds it quite troubling that Mattel should be given all of the value created through MGA's hard work:
Even assuming that MGA took some ideas wrongfully, it added tremendous value by turning the ideas into products and, eventually, a popular and highly profitable brand. The value added by MGA's hard work and creativity dwarfs the value of the original ideas Bryant brought with him, even recognizing the significance of those ideas....The next part highlights that just because there were similarities between the original ideas and the Bratz dolls, it doesn't mean Mattel should get all ownership. If it is determined that Mattel holds the copyright (again, still somewhat in dispute), it should only be limited to the parts of the dolls that are covered by the copyright. Here's where the narrow protections of copyright law come into play:
It is not equitable to transfer this billion dollar brand-- the value of which is overwhelmingly the result of MGA's legitimate efforts--because it may have started with two misappropriated names. The district court's imposition of a constructive trust forcing MGA to hand over its sweat equity was an abuse of discretion and must be vacated.
In order to determine the scope of protection for the sculpt, we must first filter out any unprotectable elements. Producing small plastic dolls that resemble young females is a staple of the fashion doll market. To this basic concept, the Bratz dolls add exaggerated features, such as an oversized head and feet. But many fashion dolls have exaggerated features--take the oversized heads of the Blythe dolls and My Scene Barbies as examples. Moreover, women have often been depicted with exaggerated proportions similar to those of the Bratz dolls--from Betty Boop to characters in Japanese anime and Steve Madden ads. The concept of depicting a young, fashion-forward female with exaggerated features, including an oversized head and feet, is therefore unoriginal as well as an unprotectable idea....When we wrote about this case earlier, it kicked off quite a discussion. Many people insisted that because Bryant designed the dolls while employed by Mattel, Mattel easily deserved all of the benefits accrued by MGA. It's great to see Kozinski point out that this is not true, and recognize that there's a big difference between ideas, expression and execution, as well as highlighting the difference between copyright covering an entire product and just the protectable parts of a product. While one would hope all judges would understand this, clearly, many do not.
It's true that there's a broad range of expression for bodies with exaggerated features: One could make a fashion doll with a large nose instead of a small one, or a potbelly instead of a narrow waist. But there's not a big market for fashion dolls that look like Patty and Selma Bouvier. Little girls buy fashion dolls with idealized proportions --which means slightly larger heads, eyes and lips; slightly smaller noses and waists; and slightly longer limbs than those that appear routinely in nature. But these features can be exaggerated only so much: Make the head too large or the waist too small and the doll becomes freakish, not idealized.
....
The only unprotectable elements the district court identified were: (1) the dolls' resemblance to humans; (2) the presence of hair, head, two eyes and other human features; (3) human clothes, shoes and accessories; (4) age, race, ethnicity and "urban" or "rural" appearances; (5) standard features relative to others (like a thin body); and (6) other standard treatments of the subject matter. And it reasoned that the doll's "[p]articularized, synergistic compilation and expression of the human form and anatomy that expresses a unique style and conveys a distinct look or attitude" is protectable, along with the doll fashions that expressed an "aggressive, contemporary, youthful style." But Mattel can't claim a monopoly over fashion dolls with a bratty look or attitude, or dolls sporting trendy clothing--these are all unprotectable ideas....
This error was significant. Although substantial similarity was the appropriate standard, a finding of substantial similarity between two works can't be based on similarities in unprotectable elements. When works of art share an idea, they'll often be "similar" in the layman's sense of the term. For example, the stuffed, cuddly dinosaurs... were similar in that they were all stuffed, cuddly dinosaurs--but that's not the sort of similarity we look for in copyright law....
MGA's Bratz dolls can't be considered substantially similar to Bryant's preliminary sketches simply because the dolls and sketches depict young, stylish girls with big heads and an attitude. Yet this appears to be how the district court reasoned
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: barbie, bratz, copyright, dolls
Companies: mattel, mga
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what was he?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what was he?
i have been forced to sign those agreements along with non-compete agreements a number of times and not one was clear and unambiguous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what was he?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Welcome to the wonderful world of intellectual property. Where normal rules of economics and competing in a free market do not apply. Until a smart judge gets involved, that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
An employee can get something started in their free time, as long as its not significantly derived from what their employer is doing. If this was not the case, then employers would be very reluctant to share intellectual property with their own employees, which would surely be a larger impediment to innovation than the alternative. More so, if the employer has no legitimate interest in the invention, it will often sign away the rights to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a good thing your write-up is on the top for a search on the story at Google news. Interested readers will actually learn something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make this standard reading...
"This error was significant. Although substantial similarity was the appropriate standard, a finding of substantial similarity between two works can't be based on similarities in unprotectable elements. When works of art share an idea, they'll often be "similar" in the layman's sense of the term."
I'm trying to think of how anyone could have explained better how likeness does not automagically equal infringment, but I can't come up with anything. This was succinct, eloquent, pithy, and absolutely spot on all at once.
Bravo....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Make this standard reading...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slippery slope?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slippery slope?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slippery slope?
Yes, plus it would have to wear whorish clothes and makeup, workout constantly to keep insanely unrealistic perportions, and fuck some guy named Ken.
....and no, it doesn't matter whether the child was male or female, the above would apply universally. Mattel is a fucked up place to work....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So if i steal a car...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I followed this case simply because of the career path I'm taking. It scared me that a court could rule something a person creates, their idea, is property of the company they work for. And that is no matter the time it happens. I can understand using a companies resources to make somthing you have a compensation arguement, but still how far should that go? One could argue that when you work for a company they provide you with some sort of facility to learn your craft. In other words you learn and gain experience from that job, but how far should that extend? Does every company who supplies you with oportunity now own everything you do going forward? And what happens when you work for multiple companies?
I'm glad this judge ruled the way he did. It shows there is some sense left in the judicial system.
And lastly I don't like Bratz dolls. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assuming that the redactions are limited to all legally relevant portions of the document and these portions are not inconsistent with the redacted portions, I was immediately stuck by the use of the term "inventions" in such a casual manner to cover matters having virtually no nexus with other IP rights. Moreover, I found it odd that no mention was made in the opinion of Sections 2870 - 2872 of the California Business and Professions Code, which expounds on the requirements of law relative to employee inventions and the obligations of employers to comply with these sections of law.
The 9th Circuit opinion does accurately delve into the distinction between ideas and expression for purposes of copyright law, and in many respects the same distinctions can be applied to patent law. Importantly, while patent and copyright law are creatures of federal law, for the most part property interests are the province of state law.
It would be foolhardy to venture even a guess about what will transpire on remand, but it does seem clear that the district court's opinion will likely be scaled way back, perhaps even to the point that the decision will be reversed almost entirely.
If anything, the case demonstrates the need for agreements such as this to be crafted in a thoughtful manner, need to comply with all aspects of California law appricable to such agreements, and should be read and understood by a potential employee before signing on the dotted line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hooray!
Even gladder to see anime cited as an example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only If
Ma'b a few other exceptions, but along those lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only If
I would take issue with this. An employer should not have rights to an employee's ideas, or even require they be reported, simply because there is overlap between the idea and the person's day job. The test should be: has the company funded the idea? That is, was it developed using the company's proprietary information, time, or resources? If not, then the company has no claim.
If a noncompete is involved, there may be an issue there -- but even then, it should give the company ownership over the idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Only If
I would take issue with this.
If you read the previous post as an "and" rather than an "or" I think this makes sense.
I think "the employee was paid to design such stuff" is fine as a necessary condition - but it isn't a sufficient one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Long Lives BRATZ!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what justice system?
He also subcontracted this case to his buddies such as a " mediator", " receiver", " Forensic auditor", " Discovery refree" for millions of $ paid for by the parties. Only he and them and God knows how much of it they paid him on the side.
He then quit saying he cant pay for his kids ( he had his 7th) with $169,000 he was getting paid. He took a job with a law firm who's connected to John Quinn for a whoping $2,000,000 a year!!
In the mean time, over 300 families lost their jobs and income due this law suit.
Even more sad is the fact that nobody can do anything to this man ( Larson). He's imuune!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what justice system?
He also subcontracted this case to his buddies such as a " mediator", " receiver", " Forensic auditor", " Discovery refree" for millions of $ paid for by the parties. Only he and them and God knows how much of it they paid him on the side.
He then quit saying he cant pay for his kids ( he had his 7th) with $169,000 he was getting paid. He took a job with a law firm who's connected to John Quinn for a whoping $2,000,000 a year!!
In the mean time, over 300 families lost their jobs and income due this law suit.
Even more sad is the fact that nobody can do anything to this man ( Larson). He's imuune!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]