HURRAH!
A judge has upheld our precious constitutional right to pose Barbies naked.
(Thanks to Mike Billips)
« Previous | Main | Next »
A judge has upheld our precious constitutional right to pose Barbies naked.
(Thanks to Mike Billips)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Your Information
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Does this mean that the "My Little Pony" people will now have to pay the porn actors a pile of money?
Posted by: waterboy | June 29, 2004 at 06:28 AM
Yeah, Mattel would never be respondible for questionable dolls . . .
Posted by: Mahatma Kane Jeeves | June 29, 2004 at 06:30 AM
Punky, welcome back. Also, everyone knows you can't really do Barbie sex right without a GI Joe or two...clearly the artist is a hack.
Posted by: jamester | June 29, 2004 at 06:32 AM
Thank God. I was worried about that.. :)
Posted by: Sabine | June 29, 2004 at 06:32 AM
According to this, every little girl (or boy) who ever took the head off a Barbie is potentially headed (har!) for legal trouble now.
Posted by: D'Artagnan | June 29, 2004 at 06:33 AM
Forsythe has said he uses Barbies to criticize "the materialistic and gender-oppressive values" he believes the dolls embody.
... and making Barbie Enchiladas helps to criticize gender-oppressive values? Oh, I get it. (not!)
Posted by: MOTW | June 29, 2004 at 06:47 AM
Not to forget the ladies, looks as if Evel Keneval has been working out . . .
Posted by: Mahatma Kane Jeeves | June 29, 2004 at 06:58 AM
With a little imagination, these could provide some interesting possibilities . . .
Posted by: Mahatma Kane Jeeves | June 29, 2004 at 07:12 AM
"Mattel is still very committed to vigorously protecting our intellectual property," Bongiovanni said.
Merciful heavens, someone PLEASE help me out here: am I to understand that Barbie now counts as "intellectual property"? Dave, please tell us you are making this up! I think I'm having an irony overload.....
Posted by: Blue Meanie | June 29, 2004 at 07:13 AM
It's interesting to note that the first Barbie was a copy of a German doll intended to be a playful gift for men . . .
Posted by: Mahatma Kane Jeeves | June 29, 2004 at 07:19 AM
whew!!! I'm glad that was the decision...otherwise I might have been in big trouble. My daughter's room is nothing but naked Barbies.
Posted by: miel | June 29, 2004 at 07:21 AM
Make sure you do not click on the large picture of the German doll.
Posted by: Mahatma Kane Jeeves | June 29, 2004 at 07:25 AM
Here's a link to the case if you're that interested.
Posted by: Mahatma Kane Jeeves | June 29, 2004 at 07:45 AM
Mattel, the company that also brings you the M-16.
Saw an art display of Barbie's in Germany a few years ago, something about one of her BIG birthdays. They had "pickled Barbie", a chandelier made of Barbie's (maybe Ken's too)and a bunch of strange things done with Barbie.
Posted by: kibby F5 | June 29, 2004 at 08:01 AM
Desperately tries to work in the phrase "Kung Fu Grip" & not get banned...
Nope. Ain't gonna happen.
Posted by: lurker | June 29, 2004 at 08:24 AM
Barbie: Skank Ho
First there's naked pix of her, now THIS!
http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/29/news/fortune500/mattel_barbie/index.htm?cnn=yes
Posted by: Lairbo | June 29, 2004 at 08:25 AM
Skank Ho Barbie
First there's naked pix of her, now THIS!
http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/29/news/fortune500/mattel_barbie/index.htm?cnn=yes
Posted by: Lairbo | June 29, 2004 at 08:25 AM
Now, Skank Ho Barbies WBAGNFARB.
Posted by: tivogirl | June 29, 2004 at 09:19 AM
Adding some new romance to Barbie's closely watched personal life...
"Closely watched?" I think not.
Despite their highly publicized breakup, Mattel said Barbie and Ken remain friends and will make an appearance in an upcoming film.
Guide to Dolls?
And just where is Blaine's right hand?
Posted by: MOTW | June 29, 2004 at 09:32 AM
I am posting this link about the Barbie & Ken story only because the seller put so much work into it . . .
Posted by: Mahatma Kane Jeeves | June 29, 2004 at 10:20 AM
harry P - Seller crossed that line a loong time ago . . .
Posted by: Mahatma Kane Jeeves | June 29, 2004 at 10:50 AM
By the way - this Barbie "artist" in the news story sounds like a real tw*t. Too bad he won the case.
Posted by: harry P | June 29, 2004 at 10:50 AM
The thing I find most incredible about that last ebay thing is that a year ago my boyfriend really did give me a can of Spam -- he said he wanted to give me something that would last forever. It was apparently a kind of "girlfriend test" -- which I passed with flying colors, because I love Spam. I can't eat it anymore because I'm eternally on a diet, so it is sitting on my desk right now (really! does that make me weird?) and I genuinely love the bright blue can as a decorative item. Maybe it does make me weird. I've gotta send him that link.
Posted by: LMC | June 29, 2004 at 10:58 AM
Gender oppressed? Barbie? Oh, come on! She's been a dentist, doctor, cowgirl and astronaut, to just name a few.
Schizophrenic yes. Gender oppressed, definitely not!!
Posted by: Lmd33 | June 29, 2004 at 11:15 AM
MMMMMMmmmm Barbie Enchiladas....
Posted by: Homer | June 29, 2004 at 11:16 AM
LMC - You aren't weird, but your taste in art could stand to be improved. Maybe a nice Warhol Tomato Soup can.
Posted by: pogo | June 29, 2004 at 11:31 AM
pogo --
:-)
Posted by: LMC | June 29, 2004 at 12:11 PM
A nine page ruling on the question of the legal fees? How about just, 'Pay the man, Shirley'
Clearly a victory for free expression, however,
the enchiladas were a little too conceptual for my
taste.
Like the time time I saw someone baking 'hair bread'.
Or a Beuys installation that was some fat in a
cardboard box.
Posted by: chucke | June 29, 2004 at 12:55 PM
MKJ That was hilarious! Thanks for sharing!
Posted by: MOTW | June 29, 2004 at 05:15 PM
While the artist sounds like a real douche, I have to say I'm glad they ruled in his favor. Speaking as someone with two trademarks in her name.
Posted by: Barbi (with an "i") Guinness | June 29, 2004 at 06:57 PM