The Artful Jurist

This month marks a major milestone in American pop culture: the 50th birthday of that blockbuster of the toy industry—the Barbie doll. Not looking a day over 20, Barbie continues to be such a giant of the toy industry that she often gets her very own aisle in the stores. That’s something Tonka trucks can only dream of.

But, as you probably know, Barbie has not been without controversy. And she’s no stranger to lawsuits…usually brought by her manufacturer, Mattel, a company that, over the years, has sought to protect Barbie’s image from people who’d besmirch it. Sometimes those besmirchers (is that a word?) are artists who can’t resist placing the 12-inch, plastic idol into their own art. If past history is any indicator, Mattel isn’t all that keen on Barbie being placed in what it might consider undignified sexual depictions. (Which is kind of ironic, considering that Barbie was originally modeled on a German doll that was specifically supposed to be a floozy.)

Anyway, Mattel lawsuits haven’t always been all that successful at keeping Barbie out of sexually provocative visual art or song or the like. And, a few years ago, one attempt resulted in a court not only ruling against the doll’s manufacturer but also order the company to pay $1.8 million in legal fees to the artist who won the case.

Why did the iconic girl who has everything lose her case to the artist who posed her in naughty positions that even Ken might think unimaginable? Well, for the artist, it was our old friend “parody” that rode in to his rescue. Parody is one of those “safe harbor” provisions of the Fair Use Doctrine. It’s a form of “fair comment and criticism” that’s allowed under U.S. copyright laws. Kind of like poking fun at a famous political figure in a comedy sketch.

And, in pop culture, who’s more famous than Barbie, right? She’s been inspiring cheers and jeers for generations—all fair game for the artist with a viewpoint to share.

(Just a thought here…Many people who dislike Barbie say their displeasure comes from the doll’s unnatural anatomical proportions, which they say can causes little girls to develop psychological complexes about their own appearances. I do understand that argument, but it also brings to mind this: There aren’t any little girls I’m aware of who look like Raggedy Ann, either. How come nobody’s got it in for Raggedy Ann?)