A different kind of identity theft

So, it is kind of old news at this point, but the lead singer of the Horrorpops, Patricia Day, has started a lawsuit against Mattel. The claim is that the Mattel and Hard Rock Cafe's (well, technically they are suing a toy company in Indiana, likely due to stronger right to publicity laws) used her likeness for the 2009 Hard Rock Barbie.

The case is interesting, an I plan to ask on the Barely Legal radio show to see how strong of a case he thinks it is. I think the bass is the killer, everything else appears enough in the culture for Mattel to be able to defend it. But that is not why I am posting (unless some lawyer types have thoughts.)

A lot of people around here cultivate fairly unique images. Their looks and style are often pretty distinct. So how do you feel about this sort of thing. If barbie made a you doll, would you be upset? Not satire, which is protected speech, but selling say dolls, posters or whathaveyou.

maybe 20 years ago........but I'm too old now to get upset about things like that

I think that if you're gonna do the whole intellectual property thing (which I'd much rather not), a person with a creative appearance should definitely be recognised as its owner. I've often been annoyed with photographers taking snapshots of me, then pasting their name with a copyright symbol over the picture before putting it online... using me to make money would be a step further down that line. I think if I could, I'd generalize my appearance under a copyleft licence so that nobody could use it commercially, or claim a more restrictive licence over derivative works.

That said, it's not really a big deal. IP is silly business and real harm is rarely done in ignoring it... it's just annoying to have your creations abused for purposes that go directly against your principles, much like Patricia explains here.

reading through the info from that link, this part really jumped out at me, "Mattel paid Cyndi Lauper, Debbie Harry and Joan Jett to use their personae in its rock and roll Barbie line." it sounds like that even if they had asked her, that she would have said no. not only were they hoping to not have to pay her, they prolly knew in advance that she would not allow them to use her likeness or associate her with the doll; so for them to go ahead and sell it, the only way they could was to say it wasnt her or based on her associated likenesses. which imo, it is.

i am unsure if the publicity that the doll would have gotten her and the horrorpops would even be of the type that she would want. the other artists were mainstream/popular enough without needing the free advertizing/publicity from the dolls. any benefit that the horrorpops band may have gained from the doll being associated with them can just as easily still come from this.

I suspect, and this is just speculation, that they decided they wanted a rockabilly look, found something on google, and just co-opted the look. I don't think approaching here was ever on the table. I love the Horrorpops, but they are not that widely known compared to the persona they made, although you would think someone in the process would notice the bass was pretty unique. But that is just speculation.

But I think it is about controlling how you are known. It is kinda like the Tom Waits lawsuit. He wants to be known for his music, not hucking doritos no matter how much money and fame it could get him. He would also object to a Hard Rock, Tom Waits barbie, although now I kinda want one.

I think the right not to be associated with someone's product is pretty important even when it is a product I like. Too many companies take too much for granted and I am rooting for the horrorpops in this one.