No more Bratz after the holidays...

[BlackKnight]

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

I mean, at least in the context of other dolls...

Aren't all little girl's fashion dolls supposed to emulate popular clothes
fashion trends lie Bratz do?

It's not like they marketed them as "Club *****" Betty Bratz or anything
like that.

What's the difference of a Barbie wearing makeup and showing some
skin...and a Bratz doing the same?

I'm not saying you guys are wrong for thinking this...I just don't get what's up.

Agreed, Me either.

[Bill]

I don't think it matters that the Guy who created these worked for Mattel.

It certainly matters. Mattel in effect paid the designer to plan out a product line for a rival company. I have no idea how far along the concept went, but it was far enough along for the courts to see it as Mattel property.

NDA

[Earth 2 Chris]

A good majority of them have collagen lips, bustiers, fishnets and micro-skirts. To me, that's skanky. At least some of them are. The general look of the line is sultry at best,
and the age group it targets seems a bit young for that. I know they make Barbies in lingerie and fishnets, but those are for the adult collector market, they aren't sold in the same aisle as baby dolls.

I would have never asked for them to be banned, but I would have had trouble buying them for my daughter, and probably would have been very selective on what she bought.

Chris

[Bizarro Amy]

I don't find them offensive. I just think Bratz are ugly. There are a lot of Barbie items I don't care for either though. I hope to find some good clearance sales on Bratz clothes to use with what I think is a better doll than both of them - Dinah Mite!

[kingdom warrior]

Mattel banged it's spoons on the high chair long enough and got it's way. Bratz, as tasteless as they can be, are not in any way a copyright infringement on Barbie. They look nothing like her, and their accessories and characters are not even remotely similar. Barbie and Mattel got their butts kicked the last seven or so years, period. Now they whine,cry and complain to a judge who probably has his own personal collection of Barbies to rule in their favor.

This judgement translates directly over to the action figure world. Hasbro could go after DC Direct, Jakks could sue Mezco. All figures are in some way influenced by other figures. It's the nature of the business. This Bratz ruling is a slippery slope, folks. I personally can't stand the toy line, but they have the right to exist. I guess every female doll from any other company is fair game now...

Scott

Nothing to do with Barbie at all. The Bratz designer worked on the Bratz line to some degree while under the employment of Mattel.
A freelance artist working up a concept is one thing, but she was employed at Mattel at the time, making it property of Mattel. I'm surprised it took this long if they have proof of the work on the Bratz line in any form at Mattel.

Yup The designer was employed at the time for Mattel. this was supposed to be a new line for them which eventually became The Myscene Barbies which is a way better design than The Bratz line was.

The dolls were then made even more extreme with an Anime flavor really big head small body. They made them the opposite of Barbie hence the ghetto hoochie mama look.

When Mattel Finally came out with their versions which are by Far way better in design. It looked like Mattel copied them. Which in Fact was not the case.

Mattel in fact has stopped making their myscenes as the trend for larger noggin dolls have waned. In fact Bratz have lost some of their appeal. As Hannah Montana and high school musical dolls easily out sell them now.

[BlackKnight]

It certainly matters. Mattel in effect paid the designer to plan out a product line for a rival company. I have no idea how far along the concept went, but it was far enough along for the courts to see it as Mattel property.

NDA

I guess I just don't see the relationship between the 2 Doll lines,.. other than the fact that they Both just represent Dolls. If the Idea of Brats was stolen,.. then I could see where it Matters. & Ultimately , then Mattel will release them, perhaps under a Different Name. I just have never scene anything outta's Barbie's Camp that leads me to believe that they had any Concept that was remotely that of Bratz.

[BlackKnight]

Yup The designer was employed at the time for Mattel. this was supposed to be a new line for them which eventually became The Myscene Barbies which is a way better design than The Bratz line was.

The dolls were then made even more extreme with an Anime flavor really big head small body. They made them the opposite of Barbie hence the ghetto hoochie mama look.

When Mattel Finally came out with their versions which are by Far way better in design. It looked like Mattel copied them. Which in Fact was not the case.

Mattel in fact has stopped making their myscenes as the trend for larger noggin dolls have waned.

I never saw the relationship between Bratz & Myscene. Myscene to me just looks like Better Face Sculpts & paint than Barbie, Bratz are way out there in the Anime department like you say.

[Bill]

I guess I just don't see the relationship between the 2 Doll lines,.. other than the fact that they Both just represent Dolls. If the Idea of Brats was stolen,.. then I could see where it Matters. & Ultimately , then Mattel will release them, perhaps under a Different Name. I just have never scene anything outta's Barbie's Camp that leads me to believe that they had any Concept that was remotely that of Bratz.

Barbie has nothing to do with it, Barbie just happens to be produced by Mattel who produce many, many other toys and games.

Think of if like this; your employer has you and two others brainstorm on new product lines. There are three distinct ideas but only one line will actually make it to production. You plot out the line and sketch a few things up, your colleagues do the same over the period of weeks and then months. Ultimately the line is selected and your rejected idea never sees production. Now, you were paid the entire time by your employer, and even though the "idea" was yours they were funding your brainstorming and design time, making the product either real or in concept their property. Had you been a freelance artist and pitched the idea to the company and they did not accept then things would be different.

[BlackKnight]

Think of if like this; your employer has you and two others brainstorm on new product lines. There are three distinct ideas but only one line will actually make it to production. You plot out the line and sketch a few things up, your colleagues do the same over the period of weeks and then months. Ultimately the line is selected and your rejected idea never sees production. Now, you were paid the entire time by your employer, and even though the "idea" was yours they were funding your brainstorming and design time, making the product either real or in concept their property. Had you been a freelance artist and pitched the idea to the company and they did not accept then things would be different.

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 ?

[Bill]

Weird huh?
But they did pay your bills so you could sit around and think for them, so yes, it makes the idea their property.


Not something like, "Hey, what if we did this, just with this instead of that..." kind of idea, but an actual project that time and money were spent to develop.

There are tons of patents on stuff that never made it to production.

[BlackKnight]

Thats kinda Lame,..
I'll half to remember that if I ever have an Idea.

[Megotu]

One other similar illustration. During the OKC bombing, there was an iconic photograph taken of a firefighter and a child. The photo was used everywhere. The photographer of course was being paid royalties. He worked for a utility company and the utility company sued and won ownership of the photo since it was produced by their on duty employee.

[Bill]

I remember that photo. It was *****d out for all kinds of t-shirts and statues and other horrible things. If I remember correctly the child was either dead or died shortly after.

[Captain]

It certainly matters. Mattel in effect paid the designer to plan out a product line for a rival company. I have no idea how far along the concept went, but it was far enough along for the courts to see it as Mattel property.

NDA

Exactly....the designer was under contract to Mattel at the time. Many companies have a product disclosure term in their contract that precludes an employee from presenting new ideas to other manufacturers.It's not just unique to toy companies...Several oil companies I have worked with in the past had similar terms.
When Mattel didnt pick up the idea, this guy should have either sat on it until contract renewal time and renogatiated the terms (which probably would have failed) or quit. He did neither, and unfortunately, put Mattel in a legal position to do what they have done.

I'm betting, due to the popularity of Bratz (I think they are kinda skanky myself) Mattel will relaunch the line themselves, buying the tooling from MGA, and will have to offer up the designer a new royalty package agreement. He could say no and shutter the whole thing, but I believe the amount of money involved will be great enough that he just goes with the flow.

[Captain]

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 ?

Actually,or at least in most cases, the company cant own the idea unless they pay for it....but they can prevent it from being shopped around to other companies during the term of the creators employment.