This isn't quite the same thing as 2 Live Crew making it all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court, or MAD Magazine winning, in U. S. Circuit Court (upheld by the USSC) a copyright-infrigement case against music publishers. I liken the Barbie issue to the "Piss Christ" picture by Mapplethorpe.

This person actually photographs Barbies in provocative/bizarre situations and sells them. Some people have way too much time on their hands...

Ewwww.

BTW, Doug, it was Andres Serrano, not Mapplethorpe, that was responsible for the "P*** Jesus" work. And shouldn't Todd Haynes be sued for using Barbie and Ken dolls to act out the Karen Carpenter story? This is what I call a frivolous lawsuit.

Not as big as the Supreme Court cases, but certainly a positive sign if the lower courts are in support of the "artist" over the trademark holder in something like this. Usually the Supreme Court is more protective of first amendment issues than the lower courts, so it is nice to see lower court rulings in favor of the first amendment.

I've seen some of the pictures, and there's certainly better work on the Internet involving Barbie dolls and other action figures. Maybe if a hack like this guy can get protection for his work, better artists can use public icons like this.

I actually just poked around the 'net for some stuff about the Mad Magazine case, and it looks like all the lower courts upheld Mad's right to parody Irving Berlin. So maybe the lower courts haven't all been that harsh in the past. The copyright act of 1976 though appears to be something that occured after the Mad Magazine case, and is one of the things they tried nailing 2 Live Crew with (and lost). The court ruled that parody would be factor in wether something was considered fair use.