HoustonChronicle.com - Artist wins copyright suit in Barbie case

Ah the wonders of copyright law...can Barbie, for example, ever get out from under that weight of representing everything that is wrong with American consumerism?

I remember reading somewhere that Barbie was first made so that little girls would have a doll that actually had breasts (though no vagina, apparently). Now little girls can learn that breasts have no nipples, women have waists the size of their neck, and (still the same I am afraid), that women have no vaginas. What they do have, however, is thousands of outfits and vehicles and such.

Tom Forsythe has taken this little collection, and basically created some of that fantastic modern art in which that actual art is secondary to the meaning that is manipulated by the artist. There is an example here. In this photography, Barbie was stuffed in a blender and her hair was messed up. Now exactly what that means is open to discussion, but I think it is part of a general unease about the function of beauty in our society.

So is that trademark infringement? Methinks instead it is part of Mattel’s attempts to keep Barbie out of the news, at least in a negative way. They did the same thing with the “I’m a Barbie girl, in a Barbie world” song (the name of which eludes me). This type of stuff is so clearly parody that it is really embarrassing that they are suing. They need to take a lesson from Hormel, the makers of that wonderful whatever food SPAM. You don’t see them suing over people calling their junk email spam. I don’t recall them suing Monty Python. In fact, they have managed to use certain connotations to their advantage.

In summation, bravo to the courts, and a resounding BAH to Mattel.