I might need to do a bit more research on this, but from what I hear, the dude who created Bratz was working for Mattel when he thought of the idea, quit Mattel & sold his idea to MGA. So Mattel "owned" his concept because he was working for them when he thought of it? Hmmmm. Mattel's just sour grapes because Bratz have been taking away some of the market. My beef is that Bratz are NOTHING like Barbie. Nothing. Barbie is "classic"; Bratz is, well, "street smart", to put it euphemistically. Bratz have big removable, interchangeable feet/shoes; Barbie's shoes are teeny tiny & constantly lost. Bratz look like Alien girls; Barbie looks like a fashion model. They're so dissimilar.
Now then, Mattel did come out with the "My Scene" dolls AFTER Bratz were on the market. Did Mattel steal THAT look from MGA? Or did the Bratz creator steal that idea from Mattel, change the doll (alot!) and beat Mattel to the punch?
And what about all the other "fashion dolls" on the market? You know, the cheap knock-offs or the Hannah Montana dolls, etc.? I just don't get it. My kids play with both Bratz & Barbie and would never consider them to be similar. They can't even share clothes because they are different sizes. They have NEVER requested a My Scene doll. Never. Bizarre, huh? Maybe that's Mattel's point, that My Scene doesn't sell because Bratz looks similar but much cooler? I know I prefer Bratz because, though the interchangeable feet thing is a bit macabre, those feet don't get lost -unlike Barbie's shoes that have never stayed on properly & are constantly lost. Heck, half the time Barbie is shoeless because those teeny tiny shoes are a pain in the butt. It's a flaw that Mattel has never improved on, ever since I was a little myself.
Check out the article from the Chicago Tribune here
Opinions, anyone?
2 comments:
Mattel's claim wasn't that Bratz dolls looked like, and therefore infringed upon the copyrights for, Barbie dolls. The designer of Bratz, Carter Bryant, created the designs for Bratz while he was a Mattel doll designer, and he even did so using Mattel's resources. His inventions agreement with Mattel assigned to Mattel the copyrights and other rights in dolls he designed when he worked for Mattel. Bryant nevertheless took the project to MGA, in exchange for a hefty chunk of money naturally, and tried to pretend that he'd created Bratz when he was not with Mattel. After a trial, both the judge and the jury found that Bryant had created Bratz when he was a Mattel employee and that Mattel owned the copyrights for Bratz as a result. So, MGA committed copyright infringement by using the copyrighted Bratz designs and dolls that were actually owned by Mattel. Because MGA's infringement was of Mattel's rights to Bratz, not Barbie, it did not matter to the lawsuit whether Bratz and Barbie look alike.
well, thank you for that astute clarification (And Thank You! You did my research for me, lazy blogger that I am.) I wonder though, how many creative persons -writer, artist, what have you- have spent "company time & resources" doing their own work, cultivating their own "ideas", and used these "side projects" for profit &/or future profit once they leave the company. Yes, it's all in the details (inventions agreement). But it sucks regardless. Now, will Mattel make Bratz? Or will my kids be forced to ONLY play with Barbie fashion dolls, once again? Guess we best buy up what we can now b4 xmas -and sell on Ebay in a few years!
Post a Comment