No more Bratz after the holidays...

[ctc]

>My understanding is, the designer presented the line to Mattel while employed there. The concept was rejected, so he took it somewhere else. That's a no-no.

A lot of places have rules like that. It's kind of a jerk thing to do; even if we don't want your idea you can't do anything with it. (As I recall someone had a similar problem with Marvel back in the day, but I can't remember who....) And usually you can't wait for the contract to expire and sell them yourself 'cos the contract applies to anything you came up with while working under it. (Which I seem to recall the Marvel case featured a character someone designed while working there, but didn't even show them; and after they left Marvel they published them with someone else, got popular, got sued....)

>they can prevent it from being shopped around to other companies during the term of the creators employment.

....or block it afterwards. Or create so much of a hassle that the creator accepts THEIR offer. (Since the compnay with the contract SORT OF owns them , even if they can't actually PRODUCE them without permission from the creator. Although I think the company could fight that if they really wanted.)

>I never understood why everyone finds them so skanky/offensive...

I didn't either; although I thought it funny that the arguments against them were all used against Barbie back in the 80's. I think part of it is that the concerned parents of today were the Barbie fans of yesteryear, so barbie seems innoculous, harmless and is fondly remembered.

>The general look of the line is sultry at best,

I played a game with a few friends of mine who detested Bratz. They'd put up a picture of an offensive Bratz pose, outfit or design and I'd find a similar one from a randomly chosen Archie comic. As long as it had a lot of reprints from the 60's/70's (which was most of the time) I'd win.

Don C.

[Captain]

Just read an article about this in a trade magazine. The judge wants MGA to destroy the molds and everything....so much for my theory that Mattel would buy the toolings and keep making these.

I imagine an appeal is in the works.

[kingdom warrior]

Just read an article about this in a trade magazine. The judge wants MGA to destroy the molds and everything....so much for my theory that Mattel would buy the toolings and keep making these.

I imagine an appeal is in the works.

I never thought Mattel would want to just take it an sell it themselves. They're all about Barbie plus The Bratz Dolls are hideous and Mattel already did their versions with the Myscene line.

I think this is like an old legendary Champion wrestler who got smacked up for awhile by the Flavor of the moment star. The old timer finally got his second wind and piled drived the newbie into the cement to regain the title once and for all.

[LadyZod]

So Basicly ,.. if an Idea is created while being employed with a Company, but that Company doesn't want the Idea & chooses another, the Idea that was created is still owned by that Company, even though the Company chooses never to use it ?

If your terms of employment (i.e. the contract you signed) says so, yes.

If this designer's contract said something along the lines that all ideas were "work for hire", he had no right to take any rejected idea.

At a production studio I once worked at, I signed a contract that said that I could do freelance work, however I was not allowed to do freelance work for companies, employees, or family associated with any clients the studio currently had and would have during the time of my employment, and thereafter.

Which pretty much would prevent me from becoming competition if I quit or was let go, by taking established contacts I would have made while working for this studio, with me.

Do all companies work that way? No. But my contract was set up like that, and *I* agreed to those terms.

This designer agreed to the terms laid out in his contract. He breached that contract when he went into business for himself.

Heck, if his contract said he was only allowed to wear chinos, he'd have to abide by that, if he signed it.

Point is, he broke the contract when he created and marketed Bratz, and Mattel had EVERY right to sue and win.

Do *I* personally care? Nope. Bratz are skanks. My Scene Barbies were skanks. Skanks are skanks no matter who makes them, and if you want your kid to play with hootchie mama skanks, go for it. It's your right, and I have no right to judge you for it.

Same goes for drunk rednecks on 4-wheelers.

[Sowth]

Yeah it seems to be a pretty straight foward I.P. case to me.

I.P. (Intellectual Property) laws are common in Australia, and especially at any type of research facility. For example any idea / chemical / drug etc that is dreamed up by a researcher or PhD candidate at a University becomes the shared property of the student and/or researcher and the University.

There was a a case recently where a Phd student created a new internet search algorithm that was purchased for millions by Google, the student got some but the bulk of the cash went to the uni.

In the olden days students would spend years researching something and then suddenly leave the university with no apparent success, then join a small commercial firm that happened to make them an equity partner. Suddenly and mysteriously they'd have a breakthrough on their research, enriching the company but oweing nothing to the Uni.

Nowadays you have to report ongoing research much more thoroughly, and the uni's employ teams of investigators to keep an eye on any promising research.

It's in my contract and I bet it's in lots of yours as well, you just may not have noticed

Cheers,
Will

[huedell]

Superman and Batman wear form-fitting clothes and have really nice bodies---therefore---they are skanks!



Of course, I'm being sarcastic---but you see my point---little boys
have their fantasy toy scenarios assisted by playing with dolls
that are "perfect men" (depends on your definition--but, again, you get me)

Little boys have G.I. Joes---Superheroes---Wrestlers--why shouldn't
little girls have the opportunity to play with dolls that actually
look fashionable and/or attractive in a modern realistic way (as Bratz do)
without the little girls being penalized for it?

Isn't that what many little girls want? Just like guys want to
play with male wrestlers/superheroes/military figures?

Yet, little girls are threatened by those that "don't approve" of how the
dolls they like "dress" or "look" by having their dolls...their beloved TOYS
(for cripes' sakes) ... maliciously called "skanks".

God forbid a doll-line has dolls in it that are more "hip to fashion"
than the mothers of the kids who want them.

[LadyZod]

God forbid a doll-line has dolls in it that are more "hip to fashion"
than the mothers of the kids who want them.

Current fashion is rather skanky.

I mean, a 13yr old girl wearing a form fitting shirt that says "Naughty when I'm Nice" may not seem very appropriate to society, but the parent that let that child out of the house wearing that shirt, and possibly too much makeup has every right to do so.

All I'm saying is that Bratz glamorizes that skank-fashion culture. That's fine. Barbie glamorizes gigolo culture. (Dude, Ken has no job, lives off of Barbie who has to work like 50 jobs including president of the USA to keep her boytoy in pink corvettes and Malibu beach houses!)

The problem perhaps is in calling the Bratz dolls actual "Skanks". Good thing they are dolls and have no feelings to be hurt by that.

[huedell]

I mean, a 13yr old girl wearing a form fitting shirt that says "Naughty when I'm Nice"...

Just like a lot of the issues involved here....you'd have be an "innuendo
logistic" expert to be offended by this kind of thing....but okay...let's
say that's legit "sexual pandering" on that shirt----are the DOLLS
actually wearing those shirts? I haven't seen that.

but the parent that let that child out of the house wearing that
shirt, and possibly too much makeup has every right to do so.

a-HA----THIS is where the issue comes down for me---right here^^
---there's a difference between kids PLAYING with toys that
imbue current fashion trends for trendier women into a toy line and
WEARING the dang stuff-----yes, you don't send your 8 year old kid
out wearing what a BRATZ doll would wear, just like you don't buy them
a Dream House or a sports car (whatever the heck the dolls are driving
these days!)

All I'm saying is that Bratz glamorizes that skank-fashion culture.

I think that can still be considered "opinion" and up for debate---it all depends
on what your definitions of "skank" are----I have yet to see a BRATZ doll
that I find offensive fashion-wise. Is there a vinyl and fishnet BRATZ
I haven't seen?

That's fine. Barbie glamorizes gigolo culture. (Dude, Ken has no job, lives off of Barbie who has to work like 50 jobs including president of the USA
to keep her boytoy in pink corvettes and Malibu beach houses!)

Is this "Ken info" documented somewhere? Or is there an
"unemployed Ken" doll that I missed out on seeing somewhere?

Actually, it sounds like you're mining a comedian's nightclub act rather
than actual info regarding what Ken actually represents---and THAT is
what I think the problem is that I see with a lot of the unwarranted criticism
of the BRATZ line and it's alleged "skank" factor.

It seems people look at the BRATZ dolls and see what they WANT to see...
automatically applying their real-life concerns into a toyline that is
nothing more than a little girl's grounds for fantasy play.

And, finally, to address the concern that the BRATZ doll fashions can
influence a little girl's FUTURE "adult" decision making...well, by the time
a girl is old enough to make wardrobe decisions, I can think of a lot worse
things they could be doing at 18 years old than deciding to go clubbing
in an outfit that resembles a Bratz dolls'.

Sure, it's okay if you, as a parent decide to curtail your child from
"growing up" by having them play with dolls that wear less hip clothes
than what is actually being worn by actual fashionable young women---
--but to throw around the word "skank" sounds just as catty and/or Puritan
as any criticism of women's street fashion I've ever heard.

[huedell]

Okay...one more thing...

The problem perhaps is in calling the Bratz dolls actual "Skanks".
Good thing they are dolls and have no feelings to be hurt by that.

I don't see the "problem" being "hurting the dolls feelings" (Obviously!)
---a problem arises from playing with little girl's minds as to what is
"bad" and what's "good" when it comes to their toys and/or the toys that
their friends play with.

If an 8 year old wants to wear what a BRATZ is wearing, my belief
is that is better to explain that only OLDER girls are to wear these
types of fashions (isn't that how you handle little girls who want to wear
makeup or earrings?)----as opposed to making the BRATZ toyline offlimits
and a kind of mysterious (and therefore "tempting") taboo that they aren't
to particiapte in while it unfolds around them (unfolds harmlessly, in my
personal opinion).

[huedell]

you are taking this post way to serious Huedell ,

Your opinion is noted.

so I take it you collect Barbies and Bratz ?

No.

Actually, I collect MEN dolls dressed in what COULD be construed as
provocative clothing.

[ctc]

>but to me they are poor self imagines.

I've always wondered why the same isn't touted for boys. Conan, Superman and them wrestlers present the exact same sort of negative body image for boys, but nobody seems to complain.

>Current fashion is rather skanky.

Yeah, but that's not new. 60's fashion was remarkably similar. But old=harmless, so I think that's why people will jump all over this and not the aforementioned Archie comics. 80's fashion had it's moments too, and since we're living the same 20 years over and over and over we were due another round of skankification.

I find the outrage over Bratz kinda weird, since to me they're just another round of Barbies. Like I said, all the anti-Bratz arguments are ones I heard about Barbie back when I was a kid. I think it's ultimately the march of time and change in perspective that causes this: the worried parents of today were the Barbie fans of yesteryear. Barbie is safe (despite the microskirt and 4 inch heels) 'cos she's regarded with the eyes of a child. But Bratz are seen with the eyes of a parent; a parent worried about negative influences on their kids. AND a parent who probably doesn't want to hear about this new (expensive) toy any more.

I think what bothers me so much is that I can sympathise with a parent not being impressed with this (or any other) toy line; but I hate that there's a need to cloak that dislike in some sort of "greater good" kind of thinking. It can't just be "I don't like it" it HAS to be bad for society as a whole. It's a personal thing, since most of the stuff I've enjoyed over the years have been subjected to attacks like this. GI Joe will turn me into a warmongering Republican, Dungeons and Dragons will make me a baby-eating satanist, Judas Priest will make me into a suicidal mass murderer, and now Bratz will make me into the town skank.

Well, maybe not ME.... but you get the idea.

Barbie is the tell, since the same arguments can be applied to either but often aren't. Sure Barbie's had a number of progressive personas; but those are all the result of societal shifts and attempts to keep her relevant. I have no doubt the same would have happened with Bratz, probably as part of a total rebranding once sales dipped. Doctor Bratz, president Bratz, police Bratz.... Same as with Barbie. (Who got her start as a novelty product based on a "good girl" comic strip: Bild Lilli doll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

Don C.

[huedell]

Nicely said Don---

THIS ^^^ (by the way PCofmisfit) is whay I am rankled by this issue...

It seems more of an excuse to rattle sabers than any legit reason
for concern from parents.

[ctc]

>there's a difference between kids PLAYING with toys that imbue current fashion trends for trendier women into a toy line and WEARING the dang stuff

I think too there's the idea of what the kid actually thinks this stuff represents. For most I suspect they're aping what they see with no concept of titilation or preening.

>Is there a vinyl and fishnet BRATZ I haven't seen?

Yes, but it's no worse than the kind of thing that was popular in the 80's.... or 60's.

>it sounds like you're mining a comedian's nightclub act rather than actual info regarding what Ken actually represents

Actually you kinda explain this later on yourself:

>It seems people look at the BRATZ dolls and see what they WANT to see

"Want" may be a strong term, but when confronted with subjective things people will fill in the blanks. Often unconsciously. Ken presents kind of an eternal qunundrum: the gigilo conclusion IS a logical one, and supported. We never really see Ken as performing some sort of job, but he still has money for stylists....

Don C.

[ctc]

>It seems more of an excuse to rattle sabers than any legit reason for concern from parents.

Well.... I can understand parents concern over stuff like this, or GI Joe, or toy monsters.... What bothers me is the knee-jerk reaction a lot of people have, and the complete impermeability displayed against any retort or counterpoint. (Nobody's addressed my Archie comments yet; OR offered to play the Archie vs Bratz game with me....)

>you are taking this post way to serious Huedell

I can understand, since I've been dealing with this sort of thing most of my life. The D&D flap is still a sore point for me. I can remember a "special report" Geraldo did for Entertainemnt Tonight about it; and how that report cause so many of my friends' parents to freak out. And no argument would prove Geraldo wrong. Not even the "just READ one of the books! He's wrong!" one.

Don C.

[LadyZod]

I do not think little girls are influenced by the toys they play with, cause otherwise the majority I played with would be housewives with 50 little kids (playing house and baby dolls).

I do no think little boys are influenced by what they play, otherwise the majority of boys I played with would be cowboys.

And yes, I was making a joke about Ken. I was also making a joke regarding the dolls having feelings.

I'm an adult (with no kids) who collects toys and when I look at Bratz I think, "Oh look, a prostitute for my Big Jims" (Joke again.)

Seriously, they are some butt ugly dolls. I'm surprised they are so popular. But then again so was Pokemon, and they threw me. So, I think Bratz are ugly, skanky dolls (count how many times "Skank" has been used in this thread!); who cares?

I do like their accessories. Their white sports car is perfect scale for Big Jim and his boys.
It's a shame none of them will be clearanced. Part of the judgment make the company that produces BRATZ responsible for BUYING BACK ALL MERCHANDISE from retailers after Xmas.

So, if they is Bratz stuff you want, get it now. It won't be going on sale anytime soon. (how's that for getting back on topic?)