YOUR DOLL MAY INFRINGE A COPYRIGHT

The eyes, nose and mouth of Mattel’s Barbie are entitled to copyright protection, according to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (decision here — interesting throw away, Mattel sells more than a billion dollars worth of Barbies a year).  According to the Los Angeles Times (login required), Mattel sued Radio City Entertainment (which runs Radio City Music Hall in New York) over their ”Rockettes 2000″ dolls named for the Rockettes chorus line. Mattel claimed that the “Rockettes 2000″ dolls central facial features copied the central facial features found on Mattel’s “Neptune’s Daughter Barbie” and “CEO Barbie”.  

From an appeal of summary judgment against Mattel, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment and reaffirmed the proposition that in order “to merit protection from copying, a work need not be particularly novel or unusual. It need only have been ?independently created? by the author and possess ?some minimal degree of creativity.? Feist Publ?ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345  (1991).  Even if there was little creativity in the placement of the nose, eyes and mouth, the artist is entitled to some modicum of copyright protection.  This modicum of copyright protection is limited, however, and does not extend to the idea of a “face” — rather, copyright only protects the artist’s particularized expression of the idea of a face.

According to the Court, “Mattel?s copyright in a doll visage with an upturned nose, bow lips, and widely spaced eyes will not prevent a competitor from making dolls with upturned noses, bow lips, and widely spaced eyes, even if the competitor has taken the idea from Mattel?s example, so long as the competitor has not copied Mattel?s particularized expression. An upturned nose, bow lips, and wide eyes are the ?idea? of a certain type of doll face. That idea belongs not to Mattel but to the public domain. See Mattel, Inc. v. Azrak-Hamway Int?l, Inc., 724 F.2d 357, 360 (2d Cir. 1983)  But Mattel?s copyright will protect its own particularized expression of that idea and bar a competitor from copying Mattel?s realization of the Barbie features.

The distinction between the idea and the expression, although famously difficult to apply, is of great importance. One artist?s version of a doll face with upturned nose, bow lips, and widely spaced eyes will be irresistible to an eight-year-old collector. Another artist?s version, which to a grownup may look very like the first, will be a dud to the eight-year-old. The law of copyright guarantees to the designer of the successful version that, although its idea for a certain type of work is freely available to others who would imitate it, the designer cannot be deprived of the benefit of its successful design by others? copying it.”

Considering that Mattel sells a billion dollars worth of Barbies a year, and as the Court surmised, Matell must have gotten the version of the doll face correct and is entitled to copyright protection on the particularized expression found on Barbies face.

Is that a smile we see?
 

You may be interested in reading the following related posts:

1. HARRY POTTER ALTERNATIVE SOUNDRACK, FAIR USE UNDER COPYRIGHT LAW?
2. what is the difference between a patent, a trademark and a copyright?
3. A MODERN LOVE STORY:  Barbie,
4. Inventors Join Reality TV
5. should you copyright your source code?

Posted by Douglas Sorocco, April 20, 2004 at 8:35 pm
Permalink: YOUR DOLL MAY INFRINGE A COPYRIGHT
Comments Off