![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9USjLA2gxvSvGGVRh0Gtei4fQ9Okz4syf3pS21PkQpq6Q0N6UmsdiTZvLXrT9xTzuTdMUnZn-CnyFqyWbw1lHG6OC-hjdf0-SFQcRhgOwM9DDiz8v55yursKRNmLWB73PwzD5Zaq93PRp/s1600/headshot..png)
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGyU5Z4y4Et58ShyMSxyllqDDnCOJQvkamlMwFepuDhiqz8hocY6enyiGZ4H189nP4ZQNCF3eOLLkeEHH7ZsSJhjINBwuvbD9XCyJWcFDvJhcfHgKDxwQxK8MXtFRVqt73hxT3SHI64iyL/s1600/gpf.left_.facing.png)
Episode 20:
Mattel® v. MGA Entertainment
There has been a retrial concerning the Bratz dolls franchise and ownership of the dolls. The federal jury has ruled that Mattel® had misappropriated trade secrets from MGA Entertainment and Mattel® was ordered to pay $88.5 million dollars. The court ruled that Mattel® was NOT the owner of the copyrights of the sketches of the dolls. The first district court jury ruled in 2008 giving Mattel® $100 million dollars for the ownership of the early sketches. A man by the name of Carter Bryant, who is the designer of the dolls, came up with the idea back in 1999 while working for Mattel®. He sold the drawings to MGA Entertainment while on a “leave” from Mattel®. The appeal ruled in favor of the opposing company arguing that Bryant was on a “break” from Mattel® and they did not own the rights of the dolls. It came as a complete surprise that the appellate court decided to favor MGA Entertainment.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr7jPEOYQcnBxKOwHqXZheojuJiHOObPOmeimgH07ZwpesB3hzGUA6hg2dLXCzeTTOxxl4_fiLgcxbateESZdGmxqn6-9Jtb61mysqoGkOwGmR2K23Il5cqqnnfKaeBCze4xrKhy-hnJAq/s320/bratz_dolls-12303.jpg)
Visual Artist Rights
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgq3LhuBJUplCXBMfBP0TMZVbcIN-oWyxd2v9xf6EzE8br0itBxdwcMpf60QHIkj4x0vB5td0nd1qOEq7xig2-ppWYDn7EQWvi4p4XKNFZghqOav6zNWF1SMGPOIS2G_kImgWqHmk6OqatA/s320/CWFW1992.jpg)
Both attorneys were shocked at the courts decision based on nature (flower beds) not being an applicable visual art. They stated concern because of Disney’s annual arrangements that bring so many tourists to view the Disney characters formed by flowers. I was shocked by the ruling as well and still wonder what the gardener could have done to protect his work. Chatman Kelly’s work had existed for 19 years without any disturbance and now the work is able to be transformed by the city’s parks department.
Episode 11:
Bryant v. Media Right and Orchard
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg67kwSqPNi_8OVd9mb8PoPWfCteps3Dm4xFCQNLhNg5U36KPCAYkzWV8XD7BWRrjlghDwgMXdx3xKSlg0UQGVdzN6__9yhwoDgErQBiItxjs13rzWPolj8AdxDQayaE06KQWl3B6bJgyVa/s200/dog-front_1.jpg)
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpi_Qi2pYYt3LlmHFa9A_MRmj2h6n0TAHQ8OBby4Fhy_0NyHPiNjm5fyXOGVojUhIh_4AB43wGS3x5yq2Cc9mpNiARv3_J-4asmLqb0KeHs2rDoEr_qDylWFV0YStRY0lhfuc7rh3Ot-Hc/s200/cat_headphones.gif)
This relates to my business plan because I want to represent independent artists who may be looking for distribution deals. I was unaware of the fact that albums accounted for one work of art. The attorneys both brought up an interesting question of how would a compilation album claim copyright infringement because it would contain several artists with their own copyrights.
Who Wants Seconds?
Leave a Comment Below
Subscribe!!
Citations:
Firemark, Gordon (Host). (2011, May 11). Tattoos & Topiaries [Episode 20]. Entertainment Law Update. Podcast retrieved from http://www.entertainmentlawupdate.com/
Firemark, Gordon (Host). (2010, May 24). Hot News [Episode 11]. Entertainment Law Update. Podcast retrieved from http://www.entertainmentlawupdate.com/page/2/