I got the sense from the second article that the judge found the later Bratz dolls to be derivative works. Am I right in this impression?
I assume that copyright violation is simpler to prove than violation of an employment contract. Would this include MGA and not just Bryant?
I don’t have a cite for you. And I’m not under the illusion that a former employer would sue me over an unrelated $100K / year product. But if I hit the big time they sure would want a slice. And it’s been my experience that being a dick is part of any legal maneuver so I wouldn’t hang my hat on that.
You would think so, huh. However per the text of the contract, the one and only way for me to claim ownership of my idea is to describe it to the company before I sign. Any and all ideas I generate after that are theoretically company property, period.
That said, I understand there is a body of precedent that makes enforcement difficult for the company in the case of an invention truly unrelated to my work. But any given court action is a crapshoot and not something I want to bet my life savings on. And why should I have to? The balance is way too far in favor of the company.
That’s funny. But even so, I am seriously considering exactly that if the economy ever climbs out of this dumpster we’re in.
Quite and it isn’t. You are largely railing against a problem that doesn’t exist.
While I find Bratz dolls abhorrent, I think that saying they look like prostitutes is harmful. I think that saying that women, and worse girls, who dress in ways that display or emphasize their sexual attributes are implying sexual availability is harmful. I think that saying that women who dress in ways that do imply their sexual availability are dressing as if their sexual availability is for sale is harmful. I think it implies that raping these women is not really rape, but just petty theft. I also think that it is inaccurate.
Now, if you want to talk about socialites dressing like prostitutes, let’s go back to the Victorian age in the US, where the main difference between the way prostitutes from bordellos dressed and the way socialites dressed, was that socialites in America put aside their new fashions from Europe for some time before wearing them, but the prostitutes wore the latests fashions immediately*. The practice stopped when some newly rich but socially prominent father got tired of the expensive clothes he bought his daughters going away for a season and made them wear them immediately, and the other socialites decided they wanted to wear their new clothes now too and thus the tradition of American socialites dressing as prostitutes was born.
*I believe one cite for this practice and why it changed is The Madams of San Francisco. I have read it in several other places as well.
I did respond - I agree with the decision, in principle - if Mattel owns the rights to this “product”, that’s an end to it.
I’m not going to bother reading the decision because I frankly don’t care all that much. I am somewhat surprised by the suggestion that Mattel owns the rights to stuff he designed in his spare time, as opposed to on Mattel’s behalf.
Why? They do look like prostitutes; or slutty girls at parties who get drunk and give blowjobs and handjobs (or more) to guys (and girls) they hardly know. Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That if you’re an adult making informed choices, but it’s not something I’d want a little girl or tween aspiring to.
Would you wear a football shirt for a football team you didn’t support? No, you wouldn’t. (Well, most people wouldn’t, anyway). Would you wear an Ambulance Officer’s uniform if you weren’t an Ambulance Officer and you weren’t at a fancy dress party or an actor? No, you wouldn’t.
Dressing in a way that displays or emphasises sexual attributes when you’re not sexually available is the same thing. You’re basically saying “Look at what I’ve got! I am a sexual person, and you play your cards right, you might get some!” by your dress.
Now, you can argue society shouldn’t treat women like that blah blah blah, but that’s just how it is. Dress sexy, people will think sexy thoughts about you and assume you’re dressed that way because you want to make sexy time at some point.
I don’t think anyone here would disagree with you on those points, but I don’t recall seeing either of those argument made at any point thus far in the thread, FWIW. I will point out that for many people, a woman who gets drunk and has sex with random people she hardly knows isn’t much better than a prostitute. I don’t agree with that, but it might help you understand where people are coming from when they compare the two.
Another reason I find this comparison of sexualized dress = prostitute is that many of the same styles that appear on Bratz dolls have been translated in to pet apparel. I think it is disturbing enough for Spot to be dressed in ways that would emphasize human sexual attributes (I saw a babydoll blouse for dogs on sale last summer at target, and a Prince Leia as a slave girl costume for dogs on sale on their website this fall), without taking the added step of saying that dressing that way implies Spot’s sexual goodies are for rent to people.
I’m not the OP, nor have I read the links that accompanied this. But my opinion is this: In general, employees working on company time should not be able to create/patent/trademark/copyright new ideas, designs (etc.) and claim complete ownership. Neither should companies be able to claim complete ownership of a work created on company time, contractual obligation be damned. I think a co-ownership where the employee holds some minority stake (say 25-33%) is reasonable. I think this will help foster creativity and growth.
Off company time, the employee should be able to create as freely as he or she likes. No holds barred, 100%. The burden of proof on the company to determine if company time or resources have been used.
As for the trial, again, I haven’t read any of the links. But I’d assume it went according to law and I really don’t have a problem with the decision given that. But…I’d have fully been in support of a countersuit against Mattel and its contractual clause about the ownership of employee creations. I don’t like them at all.
See, that is the thing, you just equated women making themselves sexually available ( although alcohol would mean they may not be able to render competent consent, I will pretend for the moment they have that intention before getting too drunk to consent) with women selling themselves for money. It isn’t the same thing, and from all the evidence that I can find, they don’t currently dress the same way. I may be mistaken, I don’t have a wide variety of current experiences with prostitutes, but I do seem them around in some places all to close to where I live, and in mugshots on the internet and images from the news. I do think there is a very big difference between being easy and being for sale.
And you are flatly wrong about sexualized dress. I see many business women dressed in ways that say to me, “Look at what I’ve got! I am a sexual person.” My manager in a recent project routinely wore fishnet stockings, short skirts, and boots that were to me the type I would label as knock-me-down-and-fuck-me-boots, and yet I am quite sure she was not advertising her sexual availability to me or anyone else at work. Her clothing did not raise eyebrows, even though I am sure it raised pulses. She may have been saying, “Look at what I’ve got! I am a sexual person” but not 'You play your cards right, you might get some!" And that does seem to be the way it actually is nowadays.
And that said, I would not buy Bratz for my daughter. I don’t like the message even implied by their name. It indicates to me that they do not behave as considerate, thoughtful human beings. I would not want my daughter to emulate that. I also don’t buy her “Attitude Tees” so popular nowadays which flaunt pithy saying inconsistent with what I expect from my daughter. I don’t understand those that do buy these things for their young children.
This is the equivalent of saying that the line-workers at General Motors should be entitled to a minority stake in every car they build. The reality if that the company pays its employees for their labor, regardless of whether or not that labor is building a car or designing a doll, and then owns the product of that labor. Because of the impossibility of tracking when an idea was created, it’s standard for a company and a designer to explictly agree that any creative ideas during a period of employment belong to the company that paid for them. As I wrote above, I can see the argument that a company should not be entitled to creative dieas in areas other than the ones the designer was employed for, but that’s not the case here.
No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. If that were the case, I’d be advocating that Mattel’s lineworkers who shove arms onto torsos get a cut of the creative royalty. That would be ridiculous.
I’m not even advocating that someone whose job is to come up with a particular design or improve on a design ("should Beautician Barbie have a pink apron or a blue one? I think I’ll choose blue) get a cut. They shouldn’t. That’s their job.
Heck, while there MAY be a good argument for a share in profits from an improvement or deviation of an already created brand (Someone creates Bimbo Barbie and it sells billions) they’re also still doing it within the confines of their job.
But no one’s job description should be “create” with the understanding that anything created must necessarily fall under work product. That’s completely unfair and I simply cannot support that.
I really don’t think it’s an issue of “when” (and I agree that if it were, it would be near impossible to figure out what belonged to whom).
In every creative job I’ve had, the ideas that I “sold” to my employer as work-for-hire, in exchange for my salary, where ideas that were developed directly for projects that were assigned to me by my superiors.
That should be the acid test. If your boss assigns you the task of programming a Turtle Widget for their software package, it doesn’t matter if you do the programming at the office or at home over a weekend. It belongs to the company, because they told you to do it as a part of the job that they’re paying you for.
However, if no one at work told you to create a Birdie Widget, and you did anyway (to be clear – on your own time, since doing it when you’re at the office would be time theft), then the Birdie Widget belongs to you. You should be able to sell it to your company (for amounts over and above your salary) or to anyone else you choose, and it shouldn’t be considered as already bought-and-paid-for by the employer.
Also, my perspective comes mostly from the point of view of someone who’s never signed an official employment contract. I’ve gotten offer letters, but while signed by the company rep I didn’t have to, and they never addressed the whole “we own all of you now” thing. All of this is coming from my belief in what ought to be in the absence of a legal document that says otherwise.
I’m also pretty thankful no one’s tried to force me into a contract signing away all of my creativity. In an ideal world, I’d never sign such a thing. However, take a look around… the economy stinks. I’m almost never in a strong bargaining position.
Whoa, hold the phone there. I was getting ready to disagree like a motherfuck. One of his conclusions presupposes that raping prostitutes is not really rape, but petty theft. I doubt many people would agree with that one.
Also that I don’t believe that “we own all of you” contracts should be enforceable because I believe they are inherently unfair. Certainly spell out that all assigned work done for the company, and/or work done during office hours using company resources, is work-for-hire that belongs to the company – I have no problem with that. But an independent, personal project done on my own time? Mitts off, thanks. It’s mine.
But what if your boss told you to make a Turtle Widget, and you made a Turtle Widget and a Tortoise Widget, and then sold the Tortoise Widget to your boss’s biggest competitor or a start up who wanted your boss’s market share?
Barbies and Bratz are direct competitors for the same market, yes? The fervent hope of the people making Bratz was that girls would want them instead of Barbies, and to a great extent, they’ve been successful at that. Which would be hunky dory if it weren’t for the essentially treasonous action of the designer.
I can see an argument that Turtle Widgets and Birdie Widgets are distinct enough that the designer could sell both of them to different companies without undermining either one. But Barbies and Bratz are more like Turtles and Tortoises - essentially identical concepts with different shells.
Good on you! I don’t personally espouse that belief, but it is one that seems to go right along with the other beliefs I was referring to. BTW: I am not a he.
I don’t think we saw the end of Bratz, we just saw the end of MGA. Mattel which is the evil empire when it comes to toys will make them.
This is all addressed on Form 12b Section 2 Line 15 of the non-compete clause you signed.
I wouldn’t have any problem with a right of first refusal, which would negate any concerns about selling to a competitor.
I would also agree that designing widget B which, if produced, would directly compete with the marketshare of already established widget A, while employed for the company which makes widget A, makes you a disloyal employee. The company is free to fire you for that transgression. You’re free to quit and make it on your own. Or you can stay happily employed and be a competitor. Any of those are acceptable.
What isn’t acceptable (to me at least) is stating that company A owns your concept, your idea, your very creativity, merely because you happen to work for them.
Let’s take away the contract for a second. By what rights should a company lay claim to work you have created completely outside the scope of your employment? How does allowing this foster creativity or spur on advances in the marketplace? I’m not stating that Mattel’s contract isn’t legal. I’m stating it isn’t ethical and it shouldn’t be legal.
Non-compete clauses aren’t simply about stealing IP. They are also about keeping you from giving a competitor unfair intel about what you are working on.